2026年GRE《写作》历年真题

2026年GRE《写作》历年真题第一部分：分析性写作本部分旨在测试您的批判性思维能力和学术写作表达能力。您将面对两个截然不同的任务：一个是在一个复杂话题上构建您自己的观点（Issue任务），另一个是批判性地评估另一个人的论证（Argument任务）。请注意，虽然考试时间限制为30分钟每题，但在本套模拟试卷中，请专注于内容的深度与逻辑的严密性。任务一：AnalyzeanIssueTaskInstructions:Youwillbegivenabriefquotationthatstatesorimpliesanissueofgeneralinterestandspecificinstructionsonhowtorespond.Youaretowriteanessaythatanalyzestheissue,presentsyourperspectiveontheissue,andsupportsyourpositionwithreasonsandexamplesdrawnfromyourexperience,observation,reading,oracademicstudies.Prompt:"Thebestwaytounderstandthecharacterofasocietyistoexaminethecharacterofthemenandwomenthatthesocietychoosesasitsheroesoritsrolemodels."Writearesponseinwhichyoudiscusstheextenttowhichyouagreeordisagreewiththerecommendation.Explainyourreasoningforthepositionyoutake.Indevelopingandsupportingyourposition,considerspecificwaysinwhichthestatementmightormightnotholdtrueandexplainhowtheseconsiderationsshapeyourposition.[ModelEssay1-Score6]Theassertionthatthecharacterofasocietyisbestunderstoodbyexaminingitschosenheroesandrolemodelsoffersacompellinglensthroughwhichtoviewculturalvalues.Whileheroesundoubtedlyreflecttheidealstowhichasocietyaspires,relyingsolelyonthemprovidesanincomplete,andsometimesdistorted,pictureofasociety'struecharacter.Amoreholisticunderstandingrequiresanalyzingnotonlythosewhomasocietyelevatesbutalsothosewhomitmarginalizes,aswellasthegapbetweenprofessedidealsanddailyrealities.Admittedly,heroesserveasmirrorsofasociety'scollectiveaspirations.IntheUnitedStates,forinstance,theearlyvenerationoffigureslikeGeorgeWashingtonandThomasJeffersonreflectedayoungnation'semphasisonliberty,individualism,andcivicvirtue.Similarly,the20th-centuryidolizationofinnovatorslikeThomasEdisonor,morerecently,techentrepreneurslikeSteveJobs,underscoresasocietalshifttowardvaluingingenuity,ambition,andmaterialsuccess.Whenasocietyselectsahero,itiseffectivelyvotingforthetraitsitdeemsmostworthyofemulation.Therefore,examiningthesefiguresprovidescriticalinsightintowhatacultureclaimstobeitsmoralandoperationalcompass.However,the"characterofasociety"isnotmerelyasummationofitshighestideals;itisequallydefinedbyhowittreatsitsmostvulnerablemembersandhowitbehaveswhennooneiswatching.Heroesoftenrepresentanidealizedversionoftheself,projectedontoapublicstage.Theycanbeexceptionsratherthantherule.Forexample,asocietymightveneratereligiousfigureswhopreachaboutcharityandcompassion,yetsimultaneouslytoleratevasteconomicinequalityorneglectthehomeless.Ifwelookedonlyatthesaintsandmartyrs,wewouldconcludethesocietyisdeeplycompassionate,whereastherealityonthestreetsmightsuggestaharder,moreindifferentcharacter.Thus,theheronarrativecansometimesfunctionasamask,obscuringsystemicissuesratherthanrevealingthem.Furthermore,theselectionofheroesisfrequentlyinfluencedbypowerdynamics,mediamanipulation,andhistoricalrevisionism,ratherthanagenuinedemocraticconsensus.Theheroesofasocietyareoftenthosewhoupholdthestatusquoofthedominantclass.Forexample,inimperialsocieties,conquerorsandgeneralswereoftenthehighestrolemodels,reflectingacharacterofaggressionanddominance.However,thisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatthecommoncitizen,whomightvaluepeaceandstability,sharedthoseaggressivetraits.The"chosen"heromightbechosenbyelitestopropagatespecificvalues.Tounderstandthetruecharacterofthesociety,onemustlookatpopularculture,folktraditions,andthelivedexperiencesofordinarypeople,whichmaydivergesignificantlyfromtheofficialheronarrative.Moreover,theconceptofa"hero"changesovertime,andlookingatasinglesnapshotcanbemisleading.The"foundingfathers"ofmanynationswereonceviewedwithunanimousreverence,butmodernscrutinyoftenrevealstheircomplexandflawedhumannature,includingparticipationinslaveryoroppression.Thisevolutiondoesnotnecessarilymeanthesociety'scharacterhaschanged,butratherthatitsunderstandingofitselfhasmatured.Ifwejudgethe18th-centuryAmericansocietysolelybyitsheroes,weseeagroupofenlightenedthinkers;ifwejudgeitbytheexistenceofslaveryatthetime,weseeasocietycapableofgreatcruelty.Thecharacterofasocietyisacompositeofitshighesthighsanditslowestlows.Inconclusion,whileexaminingheroesoffersavaluablestartingpointforunderstandingasociety'sstatedprioritiesandideals,itisinsufficientforafullunderstandingofitscharacter.Asocietyisdefinednotjustbythefewitplacesonpedestals,butbythelawsitenacts,thedistributionofitsresources,thetreatmentofitsminorities,andthebehaviorsofitscitizensinordinarylife.Totrulyknowasociety,onemustlookbeyondthespotlightandexaminetheaudienceaswell.[ModelEssay2-Score4]Thestatementsuggeststhatwecanunderstandasocietybylookingatitsheroes.Igenerallyagreewiththisideabecausethepeopleanationadmirestellusalotaboutwhatthatnationvalues.However,Ialsothinkthatsometimesheroesarenotrealistic,soweneedtobecarefulwhenusingthemtojudgeawholesociety.Firstofall,heroesusuallyrepresentthebestqualitiesthatagroupofpeoplewanttohave.Forexample,inmanycountries,sportsstarsareconsideredheroes.Thisshowsthatthesocietyvaluesphysicalfitness,competition,andwinning.Ifasocietychoosesscientistsasheroes,likeMarieCurie,itshowsthattheyvalueintelligenceandprogress.Bylookingatthesepeople,wecanseethe"goal"orthe"ideal"thatthesocietyisaimingfor.Itislikeamirrorreflectingwhatthepeoplewanttobe.However,thereisaproblemwiththisapproach.Heroesareoftenperfectorexaggeratedversionsofpeople.Reallifeismessyandcomplicated.Asocietymighthonoraherowhoisveryselflessandgivesawayalltheirmoneytothepoor.Butiftheregularpeopleinthatsocietyareactuallyverygreedyandselfish,thentheherodoesnotrepresentthesociety'srealcharacter.Theherorepresentswhattheywishtheywere.So,lookingatheroesmightgiveusafalseimpressionthateveryoneisgoodandkind.Also,sometimesheroesarechosenbythegovernmentorthemedia,notbythepeople.Insomedictatorships,thegovernmentforceseveryonetoadmireaspecificleader.Inthatcase,the"hero"tellsusaboutthegovernment'scharacter,butnotthecharacteroftheordinarycitizenswhomightbeafraidorunhappy.Wecannotassumethatjustbecausealeaderisfamous,everyoneagreeswiththem.Insummary,Ithinklookingatheroesisagoodwaytostartunderstandingasociety.Ittellsusabouttheculture'sdreamsandvalues.Buttogetthefullpicture,wealsoneedtolookattheaveragepersonandhowtheylivetheirlives.Heroesshowustheideal,butthepeopleshowusthereality.任务二：AnalyzeanArgumentTaskInstructions:Youwillbegivenashortargumentthatdrawsaconclusionbasedonevidenceandpremises.Youaretowriteanessaythatcritiquestheargument.Youshouldconsiderthelogicalsoundnessoftheargumentratherthanagreeordisagreewiththepositionittakes.Inyourcritique,youshouldanalyzethelineofreasoningandtheuseofevidenceintheargument.Youmightalsodiscusswhatadditionalevidencewouldstrengthenorweakentheargumentorwhatchangesintheargumentwouldmakeitmorelogicallysound.Prompt:ThefollowingappearedinamemorandumfromtheCEOofColossusGames,acompanythatmanufacturesvideogames:"Overthepastyear,ourcompany'sprofitshavedeclinedby15percent.Duringthesameperiod,acompetingcompany,TitanEntertainment,releasedanew'retro'gameconsolethatplaysonlyupdatedversionsofclassic1980sgames.Titan'sprofitshaveincreasedby20percentsincetherelease.Toreverseourprofitdecline,ColossusGamesshouldimmediatelyshiftitsdevelopmentfocusfrommodern,high-techgamestocreatingupdatedversionsofclassicgamesfromourownextensivelibraryoftitlesfromthe1990s."[ModelEssay1-Score6]TheCEOofColossusGamesarguesthattoreversea15percentdeclineinprofits,thecompanyshouldshiftitsdevelopmentfocusfrommodern,high-techgamestoupdatedversionsofclassic1990stitles.Thisrecommendationisbasedontheobservationthatacompetitor,TitanEntertainment,achieveda20percentprofitincreaseafterreleasingaretroconsoleplaying1980sgames.WhiletheCEO'sproposalisintuitivelyappealing,theargumentreliesonaseriesofunsubstantiatedassumptionsandflawedcausalreasoningthatrendertheconclusionunpersuasive.First,theargumentcommitsafallacyoffalseanalogy.TheCEOassumesthatbecauseTitanEntertainmentsucceededwitharetrostrategybasedon1980sgames,Colossuswillsucceedwithasimilarstrategybasedon1990sgames.Thisassumptionoverlookscriticaldifferencesbetweenthetwocompaniesandthetwoeras.The1980sgamingmarketisculturallydistinctfromthe1990smarket;1980sgamesoftenpossessasimplistic,iconiccharmthathasproventohaveenduringmassappeal(e.g.,Pac-Man,SuperMarioBros.).1990sgames,however,begantointroducecomplexnarrativesand3Dgraphics.Nostalgiafor1990sgamesmaybestrong,butitisnotguaranteedtobeascommerciallyviableasthe1980snostalgiaTitanexploited.Furthermore,Titanreleasedahardwareconsole,whereasColossusisasoftwaremanufacturerproposingashiftinsoftwaredevelopment.Thebusinessmodels,overheadcosts,andrevenuestreamsareentirelydifferent,makingthecomparisontenuous.Second,theargumentassumesacause-and-effectrelationshipbetweenTitan'sproductreleaseandtheirprofitincreasewithoutrulingoutotherfactors.ItispossiblethatTitan'sprofitsurgewasduetounrelatedvariables,suchasasuccessfulmarketingcampaign,areductioninoperationalcosts,orthereleaseofothernon-retrotitles.Conversely,Colossus'sprofitdeclinemightbeattributedtofactorsotherthanthegenreofgamestheyproduce,suchaspoormanagement,inefficientdistribution,orasaturatedmarketforhigh-techgames.Withoutisolatingthevariables,theCEOcannotconfidentlyclaimthatmimickingTitan'sproductstrategywillyieldthedesiredfinancialresults.Third,therecommendationreliesontheassumptionthatColossusGamespossessesan"extensivelibrary"of1990stitlesthatisactuallyvaluableandrecognizable.Thememomentionsthelibraryexists,butnotwhetherthosetitleswerepopularorcriticallyacclaimedatthetime.Ifthelibraryconsistsofobscureorlow-qualitygames,updatingthemwilllikelyfailtogenerateconsumerinterest,regardlessofthenostalgiatrend.Additionally,theargumentassumesthatColossushasthetechnicalexpertiseandresourcestosuccessfully"update"thesegames.Modernizingagamerequiressignificantinvestment;ifthecostofdevelopmentishigh,theprofitmarginmightnotimproveevenifsalesincrease.Finally,thestrategyofshiftingfocusignorestherisksofabandoningthecompany'scorecompetency.IfColossusisknownformodern,high-techgames,suddenlypivotingtoretrogamescouldalienatetheirexistingcustomerbase.Brandidentityiscrucialintheentertainmentindustry;aconfusedbrandoftenleadstoalossofmarketshare.TheCEOprovidesnoevidencethatthedemandformoderngameshasevaporated,onlythatprofitshavedeclined.Itmightbemoreprudenttoimprovethequalityofmoderngamesordiversifyratherthanexecutingatotalstrategicpivot.Tostrengthentheargument,theCEOwouldneedtoprovideevidencethatthedeclineinprofitsisspecificallylinkedtothestyleofgamescurrentlybeingproduced.Furthermore,marketresearchindicatingastrongconsumerdemandfor1990sColossustitles—comparabletothedemandfor1980sTitantitles—wouldbeessential.Acost-benefitanalysiscomparingtheprojectedrevenueofretroremakesagainstthelostrevenueofmoderntitleswouldalsobenecessary.Withoutsuchevidence,theproposalisspeculativeandrisky.[ModelEssay2-Score4]TheCEOsuggeststhatColossusGamesshouldstartmakingupdatedversionsoftheir1990sgamesbecausetheircompetitor,TitanEntertainment,mademoneybysellingupdated1980sgames.Thisargumenthassomemeritbutisflawedbecauseitmakesseveralassumptionsthatmightnotbetrue.ThemainproblemwiththisargumentisthatitassumesthatwhatworkedforTitanwillworkforColossus.Titanfocusedonthe1980s,whichisaveryspecifictimeinvideogamehistory.Thosegamesareverysimpleandfamous.TheCEOwantstocopythiswith1990sgames.However,1990sgamesaredifferent.Theymightnotbeaspopularoreasytoupdate.Justbecausepeoplelikeold"Mario"gamesdoesn'tmeantheywillwanttoplayoldversionsofColossusgames.Wedon'tknowifColossusevenhadanyhitgamesinthe90s.Also,theCEOignoresotherreasonsfortheprofitchanges.Titan'sprofitsmighthavegoneupbecausetheyhadagoodholidaysaleorbecausetheycutcosts,notjustbecauseoftheretrogames.Similarly,Colossus'sprofitsmighthavedroppedbecauseofbadmanagementorhighexpenses,notbecausetheirmoderngamesarebad.Iftheproblemismanagement,changingthegameswon'tfixtheprofitissue.Anotherissueisthecostofchangingthebusinessfocus.ThememosaysColossusshould"immediatelyshift"focus.Thissoundsexpensiveandrisky.Iftheystopmakingmoderngames,theymightlosetheircurrentcustomers.Whatiftheretrogamesdon'tsellwell?Thentheyhavenoproductsleft.TheCEOdoesn'tprovideaplantomanagethisrisk.Inconclusion,theCEOneedstodomoreresearchbeforemakingthisbigchange.Theyneedtofindoutifpeopleactuallywant1990sgamesandiftheirspecificoldgamesaregoodenoughtosell.Theyalsoneedtomakesurethatthedropinprofitsisn'tcausedbysomethingelse.Asitstands,theplanistoorisky.第二部分：答案与详细解析本部分将对上述两篇范文进行深度解析，涵盖逻辑结构、词汇运用、论证技巧以及得分点分析，帮助考生理解GRE写作的高分标准。一、Issue任务深度解析题目核心分析：题目探讨的是“社会性格”与“英雄/榜样”之间的关系。这是一个典型的GRE社会类题目，考察考生对于“文化表征”与“社会现实”之间关系的理解。核心概念：Characterofasociety（社会性格，指社会的道德观、价值观、行为准则）；Heroesorrolemodels（英雄或榜样，社会推崇的人）。写作指令：讨论你在多大程度上同意或不同意。这允许考生采取折中的立场，即承认英雄的反映作用，同时指出其局限性。6分范文解析：1.逻辑结构：第一段：清晰陈述立场。文章采用了辩证的立场：英雄反映了社会的“理想”，但不是社会的“全貌”。这是一个非常成熟的开篇，避免了非黑即白的判断。第二段：让步。承认英雄确实反映了社会的集体愿望。使用了美国国父和乔布斯的例子，分别对应“政治自由”和“商业创新”。这一段展示了举例的具体性和相关性。第三段（Body2）：反驳/深化。指出英雄往往是“例外”而非“常态”。提出了“面具”的概念，即英雄可能掩盖了社会的不公。这是论证深度的关键点，从“表象”深入到了“结构性问题”。第四段（Body3）：引入外部变量。指出英雄的选择往往受权力和媒体操纵，并不完全代表民主意志。这展示了批判性思维，质疑了题目中“chooses”（选择）这个动词的主动性。第五段（Body4）：历史维度。讨论了英雄评价随时间的变化，指出“社会性格”的复杂性（既包含开明也包含残酷）。这展示了思维的广度。第六段：总结。重申观点，强调必须结合“法律”、“资源分配”和“普通人的生活”来理解社会。2.语言与修辞：词汇：使用了高阶学术词汇，如holistic（整体的）,marginalizes（边缘化）,aspirations（渴望/抱负）,underscore（强调）,conquerors（征服者）,pedestals（神坛/基座）。句式：句式多变，包含复杂的复合句。例如"Whileheroesundoubtedlyreflect...,relyingsolelyonthemprovides..."。使用了插入语、分词结构等，增强了文章的可读性和专业感。4分范文解析：1.优点：观点明确，结构清晰（引言-支持-反对-总结）。能够识别出题目中的核心矛盾（理想vs现实）。例子（体育明星、科学家）恰当且易懂。2.不足与改进建议：深度不足：论证停留在表面。例如，提到“英雄是完美的”，但没有深入探讨这种“完美”是如何被社会构建出来的，或者这种构建背后的意识形态动机。语言表达：语言较为口语化，如"Igenerallyagreewiththisidea"，缺乏学术写作的客观性。建议改为"Theassertionholdsmerittoasignificantextent"。逻辑连接：段落间的过渡较为生硬，缺乏像6分范文那样严密的逻辑递进。二、Argument任务深度解析题目核心分析：这是一个典型的商业建议类Argument。CEO基于竞争对手的成功，建议本公司复制其策略。结论：Colossus应该立即将开发重心从现代高科技游戏转向90年代经典游戏的复刻版。论据：1.Colossus利润下降15%。2.竞争对手Titan通过发布80年代复古游戏主机，利润上升20%。逻辑漏洞：错误类比、因果混淆、样本代表性问题、忽视其他变量。6分范文解析：1.逻辑攻击点拆解：攻击点一：错误类比。范文精准指出了80年代与90年代游戏的文化差异，以及硬件商与软件商的商业模式差异。这是最强的攻击点。作者使用了falseanalogy（错误类比）这一术语，显示了逻辑素养。攻击点二：因果过度简化。范文质疑了Titan利润增长的