GRE作文5.5分轻松备考：ISSUE习作范文(10)

GRE Analytical Writing 新鲜例子(1)Sarah Brightman 莎拉.布莱曼(就是音乐剧《猫》里唱MEOMORY那个)这个可以写determination什么的She was a workaholic from an early age, never waste a minute of time.Straight from school, she went to ballet lessons. When she got home at eight, she went to bed. She got up at four in the morning to do her homework and then began the schedule all over again.When she was a teenager, she decided to try her hand, or her vocals, at singing. （2）Prisoner Abuse 虐囚事件（伊拉克战争的那个丑闻）可以写媒体的题材Since the “60 Minutes II”broadcast, pictures of abuse have been posted on the Internet and shown on television stations worldwide.一些有用的词汇：Watergate (这个都知道)Zipper gate（这是说克林顿的）Enron gate（这是说小布什）Muckraker 专门报道丑闻的记者the Forth Estate 第四阶级，在美国媒体被称为第四权力或第四阶级（3）A Message to Garcia 致加西亚的信（前两年很火的书）It is not book-learning young men need, nor instruction about this and that, but a stiffening of the vertebrae which will cause them to loyal to a trust, to act promptly, concentrate their energies: do the thing.(4)Nictzche尼采这厮有句名言：“One has to pay dearly for immortality. One has to die several times while one is still alive.”可以用在写毅力什么个人品质的~（5）William Hung 孔庆祥（这人前两年可是火得不行~）American Idol 美国偶像（超女就是中国版的美国偶像）Lovable loser 可爱的失败者He didn’t survive the first cut. His performance was interrupted by Simon Cowell (评委), You can’t dance. You can’t sing. So what do you want me to say?Hung earnestly and humbly replied: I already gave my best, and I have no regret at all.这个可以用在尝试，失败之类的题目上。

GRE考试写作范文Issue多看一些gre作文范文，有利于提高写作水平，我整理了一些范文，下面我就和大家共享，来观赏一下吧。

GRE考试写作范文IssueThere is no such thing as purely objective observation. All observation is subjective; it is always guided by the observers expectations or desires.The speaker claims that all observation is subjective--colored by desire and expectation. While it would be tempting to concede that we all see things differently, careful scrutiny of the speakers claim reveals that it confuses observation with interpretation. In fact, in the end the speakers claim relies entirely on the further claim that there is no such thing as truth and that we cannot truly know anything. While this notion might appeal to certain existentialists and epistemologists, it runs against the grain of all scientific discovery and knowledge gained over the last 500 years.It would be tempting to afford the speakers claim greater merit than it deserves. After all, our everyday experience as humans informs us that we often disagree about what we observe around us. Weve all uttered and heard uttered many times the phase Thats not the way I see it! Indeed, everyday observations--for example, about whether a footballplayer was out of bounds, or about which car involved in an accident ran the red light--vary depending not only on ones spatial perspective but also on ones expectations or desires. If Im rooting for one football team, or if the player is well-known for his ability to make great plays while barely staying in bounds, my desires or expectations might influence what I think I observe. Or if I am driving one of the cars in the accident, or if one car is a souped-up sports car, then my desires or expectations will in all likelihood color my perception of the accidents events.However, these sorts of subjective observations are actually subjective interpretations of what we observe. Visitors to an art museum might disagree about the beauty of a particular work, or even about which color predominates in that work. In a court trial several jurors might view the same videotape evidence many times, yet some jurors might observe an incident of police brutality, will others observe the appropriate use of force to restrain a dangerous individual. Thus when it comes to making judgments about what we observe and about remembering what we observe, each persons individual perspective, values, and even emotions help form these judgments and recollections. It is crucial to distinguish between interpretations such as these and observation, which is nothing more than a sensory experience. Given the same spatial perspective and sensory acuity and awareness, it seems to me that our observations would all be essentially in accord--that is,observation can be objective.Lending credence to my position is Francis Bacons scientific method, according to which we can know only that which we observe, and thus all truth must be based on empirical observation. This profoundly important principle serves to expose and strip away all subjective interpretation of observation, thereby revealing objective scientific truths. For example, up until Bacons time the Earth was observed to lie at the center of the Universe, in accordance with the prevailing religious notion that man (humankind) was the center of Gods creation. Applying Bacons scientific method Galileo exposed the biased nature of this claim. Similarly, before Einstein time and space were assumed to be linear, in accordance with our observation. Einsteins mathematical formulas suggested otherwise, and his theories have been proven empirically to be true. Thus it was our subjective interpretation of time and space that led to our misguided notions about them. Einstein, like historys other most influential scientists, simply refused to accept conventional interpretations of what we all observe.In sum, the speaker confuses observation with interpretation and recollection. It is how we make sense of what we observe, not observation itself, that is colored by our perspective, expectations, and desires. The gifted individuals who can set aside their subjectivity and delve deeper into empirical evidence, employing Bacons scientificmethod, are the ones who reveal that observation not only can be objective but must be objective if we are to embrace the more fundamental notion that knowledge and truth exist.GRE考试写作范文IssueBoth parents and communities must be involved in the local schools. Education is too important to leave solely to a group of professional educators.Should parents and communities participate in local education because education is too important to leave to professional educators, as the speaker asserts? It might be tempting to agree with the speaker, based on a parents legal authority over, familiarity with, and interest in his or her own children. However, a far more compelling argument can be made that, except for major decisions such as choice of school, a childs education is best left to professional educators.Communities of parents concerned about their childrens education rely on three arguments for active parental and community participation in that process. The first argument, and the one expressed most often and vociferously, is that parents hold the ultimately legal authority to make key decisions about what and how their own children learn including choice of curriculum and text books, pace and schedule for learning, and the extent to which their child should learn alongside other children. The second argument is that only a parent can truly know theunique needs of a child including what educational choices are best suited for the child. The third argument is that parents are more motivated--by pride and ego--than any other person to take whatever measures are needed to ensure their children receive the best possible education.Careful examination of these three arguments, however, reveals that they are specious at best. As for the first one, were we to allow parents the right to make all major decisions regarding the education of their children, many children would go with little or no education. In a perfect world parents would always make their childrens education one of their highest priorities. Yet, in fact many parents do not. As for the second argument, parents are not necessarily best equipped to know what is best for their child when it comes to education. Although most parents might think they are sufficiently expert by virtue of having gone through formal education themselves, parents lack the specialized training to appreciate what pedagogical methods are most effective, what constitutes a balanced education, how developmental psychology affects a childs capacity for learning at different levels and at different stages of childhood. Professional educators, by virtue of their specialized training in these areas, are far better able to ensure that a child receives a balanced, properly paced education.There are two additional compelling arguments against thespeakers contention. First, parents are too subjective to always know what is truly best for their children. For example, many parents try to overcome their own shortcomings and failed self-expectations vicariously through their childrens accomplishments. Most of us have known parents who push their child to excel in certain areas--to the emotional and psychological detriment of the child. Secondly, if too many parties become involved in making decisions about day-to-day instruction, the end result might be infighting, legal battles, boycotts, and other protests, all of which impede the educational process; and the ultimate victims are the children themselves. Finally, in many jurisdictions parents now have the option of schooling their children at home, as long as certain state requirements are met. In my observation, home schooling allows parents who prefer it great control over a childs education, while allowing the professional educators to discharge their responsibilities as effectively as possible--unfettered by gadfly parents who constantly interfere and intervene.In sum, while parents might seem better able and better motivated to make key decisions about their childs education, in many cases they are not. With the possible exceptions of responsible home-schoolers, a childs intellectual, social, and psychological development is at risk when communities of parents dominate the decision-making process involving education.GRE考试写作范文IssueStudents should bring a certain skepticism to whatever they study. They should question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively.The speaker contends that students should be skeptical in their studies, and should not accept passively whatever they are taught. In my view, although undue skepticism might be counterproductive for a young childs education, I strongly agree with the speaker otherwise. If we were all to accept on blind faith all that we are taught, our society would never progress or evolve.Skepticism is perhaps most important in the physical sciences. Passive acceptance of prevailing principles quells innovation, invention, and discovery. In fact, the very notion of scientific progress is predicated on rigorous scientific inquiry--in other words, skepticism. And history is replete with examples of students of science who challenged what they had been taught, thereby paving the way for scientific progress. For example, in challenging the notion that the Earth was in a fixed position at the center of the universe, Copernicus paved the way for the corroborating observations of Galileo a century later, and ultimately for Newtons principles of gravity upon which all modern science is based. The staggering cumulative impact of Copernicus rejection of what he had been taught is proof enough of the value of skepticism.The value of skepticism is not limited to the physical sciences, of course. In the fields of sociology and political science, students must think critically about the assumptions underlying the status quo; otherwise, oppression, tyranny and prejudice go unchecked. Similarly, while students of the law must learn to appreciate timeless legal doctrines and principles, they must continually question the fairness and relevance of current laws. Otherwise, our laws would not evolve to reflect changing societal values and to address new legal issues arising from our ever-evolving technologies.Even in the arts, students must challenge established styles and forms rather than learn to imitate them; otherwise, no genuinely new art would ever emerge. Bee-bop musicians such as Charlie Parker demonstrated through their wildly innovative harmonies and melodies their skepticism about established rules for harmony and melody. In the area of dance Ballanchine showed by way of his improvisational techniques his skepticism about established rules for choreography. And Germanys Bauhaus School of Architecture, to which modern architecture owes its existence, was rooted in skepticism about the proper objective, and resulting design, of public buildings.Admittedly, undue skepticism might be counterproductive in educating young children. I am not an expert in developmental psychology; yet observation and common sense informs me thatyoungsters must first develop a foundation of experiential knowledge before they can begin to think critically about what they are learning. Even so, in my view no student, no matter how young, should be discouraged from asking Why? and Why not?To sum up, skepticism is the very stuff that progress is made of, whether it be in science, sociology, politics, the law, or the arts. Therefore, skepticism should be encouraged at all but the most basic levels of education.GRE考试写作范文IssueThe only responsibility of corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, is to make as much money as possible for their companies.Should the only responsibility of a business executive be to maximize business profits, within the bounds of the law? In several respects this position has considerable merit; yet it ignores certain compelling arguments for imposing on businesses additional obligations to the society in which they operate.On the one hand are two convincing arguments that profit maximization within the bounds of the law should be a business executives sole responsibility. First, imposing on businesses additional duties to the society in which they operate can, paradoxically, harm that society. Compliance with higher ethical standards than the lawrequires--m such areas as environmental impact and workplace conditions--adds to business expenses and lowers immediate profits. In turn, lower profits can prevent the socially conscious business from creating more jobs, and from keeping its prices low and the quality of its products and services high. Thus if businesses go further than their legal duties in serving their communities the end result might be a net disservice to those communities.Secondly, by affirming that profit maximization within legal bounds is the most ethical behavior possible for business, we encourage private enterprise, and more individuals enter the marketplace in the quest of profits. The inevitable result of increased competition is lower prices and better products, both of which serve the interests of consumers. Moreover, since maximizing profits enhances the wealth of a companys stakeholders, broad participation in private enterprise raises the wealth of a nation, expands its economy, and raises its overall standard of living and quality of life.On the other hand are three compelling arguments for holding business executives to certain responsibilities m addition to profit maximization and to compliance with the letter of the law. First, a growing percentage of businesses are related to technology, and haws often lag behind advances in technology. As a result, new technology-based products and services might pose potential harm toconsumers even though they conform to current laws. For example, Internet commerce is still largely unregulated because our lawmakers are slow to react to the paradigm shift from brick-and-mortar commerce to e-commerce. As a result, unethical marketing practices, privacy invasion, and violations of intellectual-property rights are going unchecked for lack of regulations that would clearly prohibit them.Secondly, since a nations laws do not extend beyond its borders, compliance with those laws does not prevent a business from doing harm elsewhere. Consider, for example, the trend among U.S. businesses in exploiting workers in countries where labor laws are virtually non-existent in order to avoid the costs of complying with U.S. labor laws.Thirdly, a philosophical argument can be made that every business enters into an implied social contract with the community that permits it to do business, and that this social contract, although not legally enforceable, places a moral duty on the business to refrain from acting in ways that will harm that community.In sum, I agree with the statement insofar as in seeking to maximize profits a business serves not only itself but also its employees, customers, and the overall economy. Yet todays rapidly changing business environment and increasing globalization call for certain affirmative obligations beyond the pursuit of profit and mere compliance with enforceable rules and regulations. Moreover, in the final analysis anybusiness is indebted to the society in which it operates for its very existence, and thus has a moral duty, regardless of any legal obligations, to pay that debt.GRE考试写作范文Issue。

新GREIssue官方范文整理今天给大家整理新GREIssue 官方范文，快来一起学习吧。

下面我就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

新GREIssue 官方范文整理1Issue test 1As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.Essay Response — Score 6The statement linking technology negatively with free thinking plays on recent human experience over the past century. Surely there has been no time in history where the lived lives of people have changed more dramatically. A quick reflection on a typical day reveals how technology has revolutionized the world. Most people commute to work in an automobile that runs on an internal combustion engine. During the workday, chancesare high that the employee will interact with a computer that processes information on silicon bridges that are .09 microns wide. Upon leaving home, family members will be reached through wireless networks that utilize satellites orbiting the earth. Each of these common occurrences could have been inconceivable at the turn of the 19th century.The statement attempts to bridge these dramatic changes to a reduction in the ability for humans to think for themselves. The assumption is that an increased reliance on technology negates the need for people to think creatively to solve previous quandaries. Looking back at the introduction, one could argue that without a car, computer, or mobile phone, the hypothetical worker would need to find alternate methods of transport, information processing and communication. Technology short circuits this thinking by making the problems obsolete.However, this reliance on technology does not necessarily preclude the creativity that marks the human species. The prior examples reveal that technology allows for convenience. The car, computer and phone all release additional time for people to live more efficiently. This efficiency does not preclude the need for humans to think for themselves. In fact, technologyfrees humanity to not only tackle new problems, but may itself create new issues that did not exist without technology. For example, the proliferation of automobiles has introduced a need for fuel conservation on a global scale. With increasing energy demands from emerging markets, global warming becomes a concern inconceivable to the horse-and-buggy generation. Likewise dependence on oil has created nation-states that are not dependent on taxation, allowing ruling parties to oppress minority groups such as women. Solutions to these complex problems require the unfettered imaginations of maverick scientists and politicians.In contrast to the statement, we can even see how technology frees the human imagination. Consider how the digital revolution and the advent of the internet has allowed for an unprecedented exchange of ideas. WebMD, a popular internet portal for medical information, permits patients to self research symptoms for a more informed doctor visit. This exercise opens pathways of thinking that were previously closed off to the medical layman. With increased interdisciplinary interactions, inspiration can arrive from the most surprising corners. Jeffrey Sachs, one of the architects of the UN Millenium Development Goals, based his ideas on emergency caretriage techniques. The unlikely marriage of economics and medicine has healed tense, hyperinflation environments from South America to Eastern Europe.This last example provides the most hope in how technology actually provides hope to the future of humanity. By increasing our reliance on technology, impossible goals can now be achieved. Consider how the late 20th century witnessed the complete elimination of smallpox. This disease had ravaged the human race since prehistorical days, and yet with the technology of vaccines, free thinking humans dared to imagine a world free of smallpox. Using technology, battle plans were drawn out, and smallpox was systematically targeted and eradicated.Technology will always mark the human experience, from the discovery of fire to the implementation of nanotechnology. Given the history of the human race, there will be no limit to the number of problems, both new and old, for us to tackle. There is no need to retreat to a Luddite attitude to new things, but rather embrace a hopeful posture to the possibilities that technology provides for new avenues of human imagination.Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 6The author of this essay stakes out a clear and insightfulposition on the issue and follows the specific instructions by presenting reasons to support that position. The essay cogently argues that technology does not decrease our ability to think for ourselves, but merely provides additional time for people to live more efficiently. In fact, the problems that have developed alongside the growth of technology (pollution, political unrest in oil-producing nations) actually call for more creative thinking, not less.In further examples, the essay shows how technology allows for the linking of ideas that may never have been connected in the past (like medicine and economic models), pushing people to think in new ways. Examples are persuasive and fully developed; reasoning is logically sound and well supported.Ideas in the essay are connected logically, with effective transitions used both between paragraphs (However or In contrast to the statement) and within paragraphs. Sentence structure is varied and complex and the essay clearly demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English (i.e., grammar, usage and mechanics), with only minor errors appearing. Thus, this essay meets all the requirements for receiving a top score.新GREIssue 官方范文整理2Essay Response — Score 5Surely many of us have expressed the following sentiment, or some variation on it, during our daily commutes to work: People are getting so stupid these days! Surrounded as we are by striding and strident automatons with cell phones glued to their ears, PDAs gripped in their palms, and omniscient, omnipresent CNN gleaming in their eyeballs, its tempting to believe that technology has isolated and infantilized us, essentally transforming us into dependent, conformist morons best equipped to sideswip one another in our SUVs.Furthermore, hanging around with the younger, pre-commute generation, whom tech-savviness seems to have rendered lethal, is even less reassuring. With Teen People style trends shooting through the air from tiger-striped PDA to zebra-striped PDA, and with the latest starlet gossip zipping from juicy Blackberry to teeny, turbo-charged cell phone, technology seems to support young peoples worst tendencies to follow the crowd. Indeed, they have seemingly evolved into intergalactic conformity police. After all, todays tech-aided teens are, courtesy of authentic, hands-on video games, literally trained to kill; courtesy of chat and instant text messaging, they have their own language; they even have tiny cameras to efficientlyphotodocument your fashion blunders! Is this adolescence, or paparazzi terrorist training camp?With all this evidence, its easy to believe that tech trends and the incorporation of technological wizardry into our everyday lives have served mostly to enforce conformity, promote dependence, heighten comsumerism and materialism, and generally create a culture that values self-absorption and personal entitlement over cooperation and collaboration. However, I argue that we are merely in the inchoate stages of learning to live with technology while still loving one another. After all, even given the examples provided earlier in this essay, it seems clear that technology hasnt impaired our thinking and problem-solving capacities. Certainly it has incapacitated our behavior and manners; certainly our values have taken a severe blow. However, we are inarguably more efficient in our badness these days. Were effective worker bees of ineffectiveness!If T\technology has so increased our senses of self-efficacy that we can become veritable agents of the awful, virtual CEOs of selfishness, certainly it can be beneficial. Harnessed correctly, technology can improve our ability to think and act for ourselves. The first challenge is to figureout how to provide technology users with some direly-needed direction.Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 5The language of this essay clearly illustrates both its strengths and weaknesses. The flowery and sometimes uncannily keen descriptions are often used to powerful effect, but at other times this descriptive language results in errors in syntax. See, for example, the problems of parallelism in the second-to-last sentence of paragraph 2 (After all, todays tech-aided teens ...).There is consistent evidence of facility with syntax and complex vocabulary (Surrounded as we are by striding and strident automatons with cell phones glued to their ears, PDAs gripped in their palms, and omniscient, omnipresent CNN gleaming in their eyeballs, its tempting to believe...). However, such lucid prose is often countered by an over-reliance on abstractions and tangential reasoning. For example, what does the fact that video games literally train [teens] to kill have to do with the use or deterioration of thinking abilities?Because this essay takes a complex approach to the issue (arguing, in effect, that technology neither enhances norreduces our ability to think for ourselves, but can do one or the other, depending on the user) and because the author makes use of appropriate vocabulary and sentence variety, a score of 5 is appropriate.新GREIssue 官方范文整理3Essay Response — Score 4In all actuality, I think it is more probable that our bodies will surely deteriorate long before our minds do in any significant amount. Who cant say that technology has made us lazier, but thats the key word, lazy, not stupid. The ever increasing amount of technology that we incorporate into our daily lives makes people think and learn every day, possibly more than ever before. Our abilities to think, learn, philosophize, etc. may even reach limits never dreamed of before by average people. Using technology to solve problems will continue to help us realize our potential as a human race.If you think about it, using technology to solve more complicating problems gives humans a chance to expand their thinking and learning, opening up whole new worlds for many people. Many of these people are glad for the chance to expand their horizons by learning more, going to new places, and trying new things. If it wasnt for the invention of new technologicaldevices, I wouldnt be sitting at this computer trying to philosophize about technology. It would be extremely hard for children in much poorer countries to learn and think for themselves with out the invention of the internet. Think what an impact the printing press, a technologically superior mackine at the time, had on the ability of the human race to learn and think.Right now we are seeing a golden age of technology, using it all the time during our every day lives. When we get up theres instant coffee and the microwave and all these great things that help us get ready for our day. But we arent allowing our minds to deteriorate by using them, we are only making things easier for ourselves and saving time for other important things in our days. Going off to school or work in our cars instead of a horse and buggy. Think of the brain power and genius that was used to come up with that single invention that has changed the way we move across this globe.Using technology to solve our continually more complicated problems as a human race is definately a good thing. Our ability to think for ourselves isnt deteriorating, its continuing to grow, moving on to higher though functions and more ingenious ideas. The ability to use what technology we have is an exampleReader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 4This essay meets all the criteria of a level-4 essay. The writer develops a clear position (Using technology to solve our problems will continue to help us realize our potential as a human race). The position is then developed with relevant reasons (using technology to solve more complicat[ed] problems gives humans a chance to expand their thinking and learning and we are seeing a golden age of technology).Point 1, using technology, is supported with the simple but relevant notion that technology allows us access to information and abilities to which we would not normally have access. Similarly, point 2, the golden age, is supported by the basic description of our technologically saturated social condition. Though the overall development and organization of the essay does suffer from an occasional misdirection (see paragraph 3s abrupt progression from coffee pots to the benefits of technology to cars), the essay as a whole flows smoothly and logically from one idea to the next.It is useful to compare this essay to the level-3 essay presented next. Though both essays entail some surface-level discussion and often fail to probe deeply into the issue, this writer does take the analysis a step further. In paragraph 2,the distinction between this essay and the next one (the level-3 response) can most clearly be seen. To support the notion that advances in technology actually help increase thinking ability, the writer draws a clever parallel between the promise of modern, sophisticated technology (computer) and the actual impact of equally promising and pervasive technologies of the past (printing press).Like the analysis, the language in this essay clearly meets the requirements for a score of 4. The writer displays sufficient control of language and the conventions of standard written English. The preponderance of mistakes are of a cosmetic nature (trying to solve more complicating problems.) There is a sentence fragment (Going off ...) along with a comma splice (Our ability ... isnt deteriorating, its continuing to grow ...) in paragraph 3. However, these errors are minor and do not interfere with the clarity of the ideas being presented.新GREIssue 官方范文整理4Essay Response — Score 3There is no current proof that advancing technology will deteriorate the ability of humans to think. On the contrary, advancements in technology had advanced our vast knowledge in many fields, opening opportunities for further understandingand achievement. For example, the problem of dibilitating illnesses and diseases such as alzheimers disease is slowing being solved by the technological advancements in stem cell research. The future ability of growing new brain cells and the possibility to reverse the onset of alzheimers is now becoming a reality. This shows our initiative as humans to better our health demonstrates greater ability of humans to think.One aspect where the ability of humans may initially be seen as an example of deteriorating minds is the use of internet and cell phones. In the past humans had to seek out information in many different enviroments and aspects of life. Now humans can sit in a chair and type anything into a computer and get an answer. Our reliance on this type of technology can be detrimental if not regulated and regularily substituted for other information sources such as human interactions and hands on learning. I think if humans understand that we should not have such a reliance on computer technology, that we as a species will advance further by utilizing the opportunity of computer technology as well as the other sources of information outside of a computer. Supplementing our knowledge with internet access is surely a way for technology to solve problems while continually advancing the human race.Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 3This essay never moves beyond a superficial discussion of the issue. The writer attempts to develop two points: that advancements in technology have progressed our knowledge in many fields and that supplementing rather than relying on technology is surely a way for technology to solve problems while continually advancing the human race. Each point, then, is developed with relevant but insufficient evidence. In discussing the potential of technology to advance knowledge in many fields (a broad subject, rife with possible examples), the writer uses only one limited and very brief example from a specific field (medicine and stem-cell research).Development of the second point is hindered by a lack of specificity and organization. The writer creates what might be best described as an outline. The writer cites a need for regulation/supplementation and warns of the detriment of over-reliance upon technology. However, the explanation of both the problem and solution is vague and limited (Our reliance ... can be detrimental. If humans understand that we should not have such a reliance ... we will advance further). There is neither explanation of consequences nor clarification of what is meant by supplementing. This second paragraph is aseries of generalizations that are loosely connected and lack a much-needed grounding.In the essay, there are some minor language errors and a few more serious flaws (e.g., The future ability of growing new brain cells or One aspect where the ability of humans may initially be seen as an example of deteriorating minds). Despite the accumulation of such flaws, the writers meaning is generally clear. Thus, this essay earns a score of 3.新GREIssue 官方范文整理5Essay Response — Score 2In recent centuries, humans have developed the technology very rapidly, and you may accept some merit of it, and you may see a distortion in society occured by it. To be lazy for human in some meaning is one of the fashion issues in thesedays. There are many symptoms and resons of it. However, I can not agree with the statement that the technology make humans to be reluctant to thinkng thoroughly.Of course, you can see the phenomena of human laziness along with developed technology in some place. However, they would happen in specific condition, not general. What makes human to be laze of thinking is not merely technology, but the the tendency of human that they treat them as a magic stick and ablack box. Not understanding the aims and theory of them couses the disapproval problems.The most important thing to use the thechnology, regardless the new or old, is to comprehend the fundamental idea of them, and to adapt suit tech to tasks in need. Even if you recognize a method as a all-mighty and it is extremely over-spec to your needs, you can not see the result you want. In this procedure, humans have to consider as long as possible to acquire adequate functions. Therefore, humans can not escape from using their brain.In addition, the technology as it is do not vain automatically, the is created by humans. Thus, the more developed tech and the more you want a convenient life, the more you think and emmit your creativity to breakthrough some banal method sarcastically.Consequently, if you are not passive to the new tech, but offensive to it, you would not lose your ability to think deeply. Furthermore, you may improve the ability by adopting it.Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 2The language of this essay is what most clearly links it to the score of 2. Amidst sporadic moments of clarity, this essay is marred by serious errors in grammar, usage andmechanics that often interfere with meaning. It is unclear what the writer means when he/she states, To be lazy for human in some meaning is one of the fashion issues in thesedays, or to adapt suit tech to tasks in need.Despite such severe flaws, the writer has made an obvious attempt to respond to the prompt (I can not agree with the statement that the technology make humans to be reluctant to thinking thoroughly) as well as an unclear attempt to support such an assertion (Not understanding the aims and theory of them [technology] couses the disapproval problems and The most important thing to use the thechnology ... is to comprehend the fundamental idea of them). On the whole, the essay displays a seriously flawed but not fundamentally deficient attempt to develop and support its claims.(Note: In this specific case, the analysis is tied directly to the language. As the language falters, so too does the analysis.)Essay Response — Score 1Humans have invented machines but they have forgot it and have started everything technically so clearly their thinking process is deterioating.Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 1The essay is clearly on topic, as evidenced by the writers usage of the more significant terms from the prompt: technically (technologically), humans, thinking (think) and deteriorating (deteriorate). Such usage is the only clear evidence of understanding. Meaning aside, the brevity of the essay (one sentence) clearly indicates the writers inability to develop a response that follows the specific instructions given (Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement above and explain your reasoning for the position you take).The language, too, is clearly level 1, as the sentence fails to achieve coherence. The coherent phrases in this one-sentence response are those tied to the prompt: Humans have invented machines and their thinking process is deteriorating. Otherwise, the point being made is unclear新GREIssue 官方范文整理。

GREIssue高分范文想要更好的备考GRE写作考试，需要多看一些范文哦，小编整理了一些范文，下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

GRE Issue高分范文"Students should memorize facts only after they have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts. Students who have learned only facts have learned very little."The speaker makes a threshold claim that students who learn only facts learn very little, then condudes that students should always learn about concepts, ideas, and trends before they memorize facts. While I wholeheartedly agree with the threshold claim, the condusion unfairly generalizes about the learning process. In fact, following the speaker's advice would actually impede the learning of concepts and ideas, as well as impeding the development of insightful and useful new ones. Turning first to the speaker's threshold daim, I strongly agree that ifwe learn only facts we learn very little. Consider the task of memorizing the periodic table of dements, which any student can memorize without any knowledge of chemistry, or that the table relates to chemistry. Rote memorization of the table amounts to a bit of mental exercise-an opportunity to practice memorization techniques and perhaps learn some new ones. Otherwise, the student has learned very little about chemical dements, or about anything for that matter.As for the speaker's ultimate claim, I concede that postponing the memorization of facts until after one leams ideas and concepts holds certain advantages. With a conceptual framework already in place a student is better able to understand the meaning of a fact, and to appreciate its significance. As a result, the student is more likely to memorize the fact to begin with, and less likely to forget it as time passes. Moreover, in my observation students whose first goal is to memorize facts tend to stop there--for whatever reason. It seems that by focusing on facts first students risk equating the learning process with the assimilation of trivia; in turn, students risk learning nothing of much use in solving real world problems.Conceding that students must learn ideas and concepts, as well as facts relating to them, in order to learning anything meaningful, I nevertheless disagree that the former should always precede the latter--for three reasons. In the first place, I seeknow reason why memorizing a fact cannot precede learning about its meaning and significance--as long as the student does not stop at rote memorization. Consider once again our hypothetical chemistry student. The speaker might advise this student to first learn about the historical trends leading to the discovery of the elements, or to learn about the concepts of altering chemical compounds to achieve certain reactions--before studying the periodic table. Having no familiarity with the basic vocabulary of chemistry, which includes the informarion in the periodic table, this student would come away from the first two lessons bewildered and confused in other words, having learned little.In the second place, the speaker misunderstands the process by which we learn ideas and concepts, and by which we develop new ones. Consider, for example, how economics students learn about the relationship between supply and demand, and the resulting concept of market equilibrium, and of surplus and shortage. Learning about the dynamics of supply and demand involves (1) entertaining a theory, and perhaps even formulating a new one, (2) testing hypothetical scenarios against the theory, and (3) examining real-world facts for the purpose of confirming, refuting, modifying, or qualifying the theory. But which step should come first? The speaker would have us follow steps 1 through 3 in that order. Yet, theories, concepts, and ideas rarely materialize out of thin air; they generally emerge from empirical observations--i.e., facts. Thus the speaker's notion about how we should learn concepts and ideas gets the learning process backwards.In the third place, strict adherence to the speaker's advice would surely lead to illconceived ideas, concepts, and theories. Why? An idea or concept conjured up without the benefit of data amounts to little more than the conjurer's hopes and desires. Accordingly, conjurers will tend to seek out facts that support their prejudices and opinions, and overlook or avoid facts that refute them. One telling example involves theories about the center of the universe.Understandably, we ego-driven humans would prefer that the universe revolve around us.Early theories presumed so for this reason, and facts that ran contrary to this ego-driven theory were ignored, while observers of these facts were scorned and even vilified. In short, students who strictly follow the speaker's prescription are unlikely to contribute significantly to the advancement of knowledge.To sum up, in a vacuum facts are meaningless, and only by filling that vacuum with ideas and concepts can students learn, by gaining useful perspectives and insights about facts. Yet,since facts are the very stuff from which ideas, concepts, and trends spring, without some facts students cannot learn much of anything. In the final analysis, then, students should learn facts right along with concepts, ideas, and trends.GRE Issue高分范文The speaker asserts that rather than merely highlighting certain sensational events the media should provide complete coverage of more important events .While the speaker's assertion has merit from a normative standpoint,in the final analysis i find this assertion indefensible.Upon first impression the speaker's claim seems quite compelling ,for two reasons.First ,without the benefit of a complete, unfiltered, and balanced account of a current evnets ,it is impossible to develop an informed and intelligent opinion about important social and political issue and , in turn, to contribute meaningfully to our democratic society ,which relies on broad participation in an ongoing debate about such issues to steer a proper course.the end result of our being a largely uninformed people is that we relegate the most important decisions to a handful of legislators,jurists ,and executives who may not know what is best for us.Second,by focusing on the "sensational"-by which i take the speaker to mean comparatively shocking, entertaining , and titillating events which easily catch one's attention-from trashy talk shows and local news broadcasts to The National Enquixer and People Magazine.This trend dearly serves to undermine a society's collective sensibilities and renders a society's members more vulnerable to demagoguery; thus we should all abhor and resist the trend.However,for serveral reasons i find the media's current trend toward highlights and the sensational to be justifiable.First ,the world is becoming an increasingly eventful place;thus with each passing year it becomes a more onerous task for the media to attempt full news coverage.Second ,we are becoming an increasingly busy society.The average U.S.worker spends nearly 60 hours per week at work now;and in most families both spouses work. Compare this startlingly busy pace to the pace a generation ago,when one bread-winner worked just over 40 hours per week.We have far less time today for news, so highlights must suffice .third,the media does infact provide full coverage of important events;anyone can find such coverage beyond their newspaper's front page,on daily PBS news programs, and on the Internet.I would wholeheartedly agree with the speaker if the sensational highlights were all the media were willing or permited to provide;this scenario would be tantamount to thought control on a mass scale and would serve to undermine our free society.However , i am aware of no evidence of any trend in this direction.To the contrary,in my observation the media are informing us more fully than ever before;we just need to seek out that information.On balance,then, the speaker's claim is not behave-regardless of its merits from a normative standpoint begs the question.GRE Issue高分范文Long black coat, large sunglasses, face buried deeply down in the turned-up collar and hurried steps denying any attempt to stop them---no, don't be alarmed; this is not a criminal at large, but only a public figure escaping the voyeuristic eyes and cameras of omnipresent tabloid reporters.Yet it is only one side of the coin. When you come back home, what greets you in newspapers, on TV or on the Internet, are a sargasso sea of so-called exclusive news telling tales about privacies of public figures. Not only tabloids are selling what they find by voyeurism, public figures, especially singers, movie stars and such alike in show businesses, are also themselves brandishing their underwear, so as to attract the eyes and attention of the public and to remain in the spotlight.It is a human nature to have the propensity to pry into other people's lives, especially the private lives of famous public figures, for their public lives are all so shining, so different from those of ours, that we cannot help but want to know what they are really like in real daily life and if they too have such sorrows and happiness as those common to us. By peeping into the private lives of public figures, our curiosity is satisfied, our distance from those "shining guys shortened", and our self-assurance secured by knowing that those "shining guys", too, are no more than ordinary humans.Whereas those "shining guys", on the one hand, detest to be mixed up with ordinary human beings for they are naturally arrogant and supercilious--the inevitable by-products of fame and fortune--and strive to sustain their status and mystery, on the other hand, they have to please the public, for they know quite clearly that attentionof the public is the very basis of their fame and fortune, whatever the causes of that attention. Thus, having a private life or not having a private life should not be a big bother to singers and movie stars. Actually, they sometimes are themselves selling their privacies in exchange for fame and fortune.Yet for politicians, it is a different and a little bit complicated story. As leaders of our government, surely they have more significant responsibilities to shoulder and their behaviors matter more to the society and to every one of us. Considering the onerous tasks of politicians, should we, the public, and the mass media leave them alone and let them concentrate on their job, or thinking of the interests of the public, should the mass media act as a supervisor to those politicians and let the public be informed of their misdeeds?As officials elected by the public and paid for by the public, politicians should undoubtedly under the supervision of the public and answer for the public. And the public, surely enough, have the right to ask for honest dealings of all kinds of issues of the government. When a politician's private affairs, such as using what power he has to secure a higher position and a higher salary for his girl friend as the Director of the World Bank did, undermine the interests of the public, the public have the right to know such scandals and reconsider their faith been laid on the politician.But what complicates the problem is that mass media, a commercial institution, is not always so just and serves only the interests of the public and the society--its shareholders' interests have the first and foremost priority. As a result, reporters all too often pry into the private lives of politicians, trying to dig out something provocative that could serve to stimulate the public's appetite and skyrocket the sales of the newspaper.Private life of a politician is also a vital card in the hands of his opponents. During the presidential election, private lives of presidential candidates have been snooped, exposed, exaggerated, distorted, fabricated and attacked. President Clinton's affair with L. Monica almost costs him his presidency, while helps start his wife, Hilary Clinton's political career.All these cause pressure on politicians. Concededly, moderate pressure can help politicians remain high-spirited, discreet and prudent with their behaviors, too much pressure surely strains their nerves too much and thus undermines their energy and spirit, and therefore their working efficiency.However, a politician also takes advantage of his own private life to establish a wanted image of himself, to win him the critical vote, or to convey a particular political gesture. For instance, the former president of Argentina, Peron married 26-year old Evita, an actress who came from the lower rung of the social ladder, to indicate his determination to stand by the poor and fight for their rights, and this private affair won Peron hearts and faith of millions of peasants and, consequently, the presidency of Argentina.Thus, private lives of public figures are a two-edged sword--proper use of it could bring magnificent benefits for them, while abuse of it could leave them cut and injured, even fatally.GRE Issue高分范文"The primary goal of technological advancement should be to increase people's efficiency so that everyone has more leisure time."The speaker contends that technology's primary goal should be to increase our efficiency for the purpose of affording us more leisure time. I concede that technology has enhanced our efficiency as we go about our everyday lives. Productivity software helps us plan and coordinate projects; intranets, the Internet, and satellite technology make us more efficient messengers; and technology even helps us prepare our food and access entertainment more efficiently. Beyond this concession, however, I find the speaker's contention indefensible from both an empirical and a normative standpoint.The chief reason for my disagreement lies in the empirical proof: with technological advancement comes diminished leisure time. In 1960 the average U.S. family included only one breadwinner, who worked just over 40 hours per week. Since then the average work week has increased steadily to nearly 60 hours today; and in most families there are now two breadwinners. What explains this decline in leisure despite increasing efficiency that new technologies have brought about? I contend that technology itself is the culprit behind the decline. We use the additional free time that technology affords us not for leisure but rather for work. As computer technology enables greater and greater office productivity it also raises our employers' expectations--or demands--for production. Further technological advances breed still greater efficiency and, in turn, expectations. Our spiraling work load is only exacerbated by the competitive business environment in which nearly allof us work today. Moreover, every technological advance demands our time and attention in order to learn how to use the new technology. Time devoted to keeping pace with technology depletes time for leisure activities.I disagree with the speaker for another reason as well: the suggestion that technology's chief goal should be to facilitate leisure is simply wrongheaded. There are far more vital concerns that technology can and should address. Advances in bio-technology can help cure and prevent diseases; advances in medical technology can allow for safer, less invasire diagnosis and treatment; advances in genetics can help prevent birth defects; advances in engineering and chemistry can improve the structural integrity of our buildings, roads, bridges and vehicles; information technology enables education while communication technology facilitates global participation in the democratic process. In short, health, safety, education, and freedom--and not leisure--are the proper final objectives of technology. Admittedly, advances in these areas sometimes involve improved efficiency; yet efficiency is merely a means to these more important ends.In sum, I find indefensible the speaker's suggestion that technology's value lies chiefly in the efficiency and resulting leisure time it can afford us. The suggestion runs contrary to the overwhelming evidence that technology diminishes leisure time, and it wrongly places leisure ahead of goals such as health, safety, education, and freedom as technology's ultimate aims.。

GREIssue优秀范文GRE写作不仅考察考生的英语力量，还考察考生的规律与思维力量，我整理了一些GRE的范文，盼望可以关心到大家，下面我就和大家共享，来观赏一下吧。

GRE Issue优秀范文Most cultures encourage individuals to sacrifice a large part of their own personalities in order to be like other people.Thus ,most people are afraid to think or behave differently because they do not want to be excluded.The speaker claims that most cultures encourage conformity at the expense of individuality, and as a result most people conform for fear of being excluded.While i find the second prong of this dual claim well support overall by empirical evidence,I take exception with the first prong;aside from the cultures created by certain oppressive political regimes,no culture need encourage its members to conform to prevailing ways of thought and behavior;in fact ,all the evidence shows that cultures attempt to do just the opposite.As a threshold matter ,it is necessary to distinguish between conformity that an oppressive ruling state imposes on its own culture and conformity in a free democratic society.In the former case , people are not only encouraged but actually coerced into suppressing individualpersonality; and indeed these people are afraid to think and behave differently-but not for fear of being excluded but rather for fear of punishment and persecution by the state.the modern Communist and Fascist regimes are fitting examples.With respect to free democratic societies, it might be tempting to dismiss the speakers dual claim out of hand .After all ,true democratic states are predicted on individual freedoms-of choice ,speech,expression,religion,and so forth.Ostensibly ,these freedoms serve to promote individuality,even non-conformity,in our personas,our lifestyles ,and our opinioons and attitudes.Yet,one look at any democratic society reveals a high degree of conformity among its members.Every society has its own bundle of values,customs ,and mores which most of its members share.Admittedly,within any culture springs up various subcultures which try to distinguish themselves by their own distinct values,customs, and mores.In the U.S,for instance, African-American have developed a distinct dialect,known as Ebonics,and a distinct body language and attitude which affords them a strong sub-cultural identity of their own.Yet , the undeniable fact is that humans,given the actual freedom to either conform or not conform, choose to think and behave in ways similar to most people in their social group-however we define that group.Nor is there much empirical evidence of any cultural agenda,either overt or covert, to encourage conformity in thought and behavior among the members of any culture.To the contrary,the predominant message in most cultures is that people should cultivate their individuality.Consider,for example,the enduring and nearly ubiquitous icon of the ragged individualist,who charts his or her own course,bucks the trend,and achieves notoriety through individual creativity,imagination, invention,or entrepreneurship.Even our systems of higher education seem to encourage individualism by promoting and cultivating critical and independent thought among its students.Yet,all the support for forging ones one unique persona,career,lifestyle,opinions ,and even belief system,turns out to be hype.In the final analysis,most people choose to conform. And understandably so ;after all ,it is human nature to distrust,and even shun,others who are too difference from us .Thus to embrace rugged individualism is to risk becoming an outcast,the natural consquence of which is to limit ones socioeconomic and career opportunities.This prospect suffices to quell our yearning to be different ;thus the speaker is correct that most of us resign ourselves to conformity for fear of being left behind by our peers.Admittedly ,few cultures are without rugged individualists-the exceptional aritsts ,inventors,explorers,social reformers,and entrepreneurs who embrace their autonomy of thoughtand behavior,then test their limits.And paradoxically,it is the achievements of these notable non-conformists that are responsible for most cultural evolution and progress.Yet such notables are few and far between in what is otherwise a world of insecure,even fearful,cultural conformists.To sum up,the speaker is correct that most people choose to conform rather than behave and think in ways that run contraty to their cultures norms,and that fear of being exduded lies at the heart of this choice.Yet, no culture need encourage conformity;most humans recognize that there is safety of numbers ,and as a result freely choose conformity over the risks,and potential rewards ,of non-conformity.GRE Issue优秀范文There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws.According to this statement, each person has a duty to not only obey just laws but also disobey unjust ones. In my view this statement is too extreme, in two respects. First, it wrongly categorizes any law as either just or unjust; and secondly, it recommends an ineffective and potentially harmful means of legal reform.First, whether a law is just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue. The fairness of any law depends on ones personal value system. This isespecially true when it comes to personal freedoms. Consider, for example, the controversial issue of abortion. Individuals with particular religious beliefs tend to view laws allowing mothers an abortion choice as unjust, while individuals with other value systems might view such laws as just.The fairness of a law also depends on ones personal interest, or stake, in the legal issue at hand. After all, in a democratic society the chief function of laws is to strike a balance among competing interests. Consider, for example, a law that regulates the toxic effluents a certain factory can emit into a nearby river. Such laws are designed chiefly to protect public health. But complying with the regulation might be costly for the company; the factory might be forced to lay off employees or shut down altogether, or increase the price of its products to compensate for the cost of compliance. At stake are the respective interests of the companys owners, employees, and customers, as well as the opposing interests of the regions residents whose health and safety are impacted. In short, the fairness of the law is subjective, depending largely on how ones personal interests are affected by it.The second fundamental problem with the statement is that disobeying unjust laws often has the opposite affect of what was intended or hoped for. Most anyone would argue, for instance,that our federal system of income taxation is unfair in one respect or another. Yetthe end result of widespread disobedience, in this case tax evasion, is to perpetuate the system. Free-riders only compel the government to maintain tax rates at high levels in order to ensure adequate revenue for the various programs in its budget. 14Yet another fundamental problem with the statement is that by justifying a violation of one sort of law we find ourselves on a slippery slope toward sanctioning all types of illegal behavior, including egregious criminal conduct. Returning to the abortion example mentioned above, a person strongly opposed to the freedom-of-choice position might maintain that the illegal blocking of access to an abortion clinic amounts to justifiable disobedience. However, it is a precariously short leap from this sort of civil disobedience to physical confrontations with clinic workers, then to the infliction of property damage, then to the bombing of the clinic and potential murder.In sum, because the inherent function of our laws is to balance competing interests, reasonable people with different priorities will always disagree about the fairness of specific laws. Accordingly, radical action such as resistance or disobedience is rarely justified merely by ones subjective viewpoint or personal interests. And in any event, disobedience is never justifiable when the legal rights or safety of innocent people are jeopardized as a result.GRE Issue优秀范文Anyone can make things bigger and more complex. What requires real effort and courage is to move in the opposite direction---in other words, to make things as simple as possible.Whether making things simple requires greater effort and courage than making them bigger and more complex depends on the sort of effort and courage. Indisputably, the many complex technological marvels that are part-and-parcel of our Lives today are the result of the extraordinary cumulative efforts of our engineers, entrepreneurs, and others. And, such achievements always call for the courage to risk failing in a large way. Yet, humans seem naturally driven to make things bigger and more complex; thus refraining from doing so, or reversing this natural process, takes considerable effort and courage of a different sort, as discussed below.The statement brings immediately to mind the ever-growing and increasingly complex digital world. Todays high-tech firms seem compelled to boldly go to whatever effort is required to devise increasingly complex products, for the ostensible purpose of staying ahead of their competitors. Yet, the sort of effort and courage to which the statement refers is a different one--bred of vision, imagination, and a willingness to forego near term profits for the prospect of making lasting contributions. Surely, a number of entrepreneurs and engineers today are mustering that courage, and are making the effort to create farsimpler, yet more elegant, technologies and applications, which will truly make our lives simpler in sharp contrast to what computer technology has delivered to us so far.Lending even more credence to the statement is the so-called big government phenomenon. Human societies have a natural tendency to create unwieldy bureaucracies, a fitting example of which is the U.S. tax-law system. The Intemal Revenue Code and its accompanying Treasury Regulations have grown so voluminous and complex that many certified accountants and tax attorneys admit that they cannot begin to understand it all.Admittedly, this system has grown only through considerable effort on the part of all three branches of the federal government, not to mention the efforts of many special interest groups.Yet, therein lies the statements credibility. It requires great effort and courage on the part of a legislator to risk alienating special interest groups, thereby risking reelection prospects, by standing on principle for a simpler tax system that is less costly to administer and better serves the interests of most taxpayers.Adding further credibility to the statement is the tendency of most people to complicate their personal lives--a tendency that seems especially strong in todays age of technology and consumerism. The greater our mobility, the greater our number of destinations each day;the more time-saving gadgets we use, the more activities we try to pack into our day; and with readier access to information we try to assimilate more of it each day. I am hard-pressed to think of one person who has ever exclaimed to me how much effort and courage it has taken to complicate his or her life in these respects. In contrast, a certain self-restraint and courage of conviction are both required to eschew modern conveniences, to simplify onesdaily schedule, and to establish and adhere to a simple plan for the use of ones time and money.In sum, whether we are building computer networks, government agencies, or personal lifestyles, great effort and courage are required to make things simple, or to keep them that way. Moreover, because humans na~traUy tend to make things big and complex, it arguably requires more effort and courage to move in the opposite direction. In the final analysis, making things simple---or keeping them that way--takes a brand of effort born of reflection and restraint rather than sheer exertion, and a courage character and conviction rather than unbridled ambition.GRE Issue优秀范文Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any societys past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on the ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purpose. In such situation, modern development should be givenprecedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that comtemporary needs can be served;The speaker asserts that wherever a practical, utilitarian need for new buildings arises this need should take precedence over our conflictiong interest in preserving historic buildings as a record of our past. In my view, however, which interest should take precedence should be determined on a cast-by-cast basis-and should account not only for practical and historic consideration but also aethetic ones.In determing whether to raze an older building, planners should of course consider tht communitys current and anticipated utilitarain needs. For example, if an additional hospital is needed to adequately serve the health-care needs of a fast-growing community, this compelling interest might very well outweigh any interest in preserving a historic building that sits on the proposed site. Or if additional parking is needed to ensure the economic servival of a citys downtown district, this interest might take precedence over the historic value of an old structure that stands in the way of a parking structure. On the other hand, if the need is mainly for more office space, in some cases an architecturally appropriate add-on or annex to an older building might serve just as well as razing the old building to make way for a new one. Of course, an expensive retrofit might not be worthwhile if no amount of retrofitting would meet the need.Competing with a communitys utilitarian needs is an interest preserving the historical record. Again, the weight of this interest should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps an older building uniquely represents a bygone area, or once played a central role in the citys history as a municipal structure. Or perhaps the building once served as the home of a founding family or other significant historical figure, or as the location of an important historical event. Any of these scenarios might justify saving the building at the expense of the practical needs of the community. On the other hand, if several older buildings represent the same historical era just as effectively, or if the buildings history is an unremarkable one, then the historic value of the building might pale in comparison to the value of a new structure that meets a compelling practical need.Also competing with a communitys utilitarian needs is the aesthetic and architectural value of the building itself-apart from historical events with which it might be associated. A building might be one of only a few that represents a certain architectural style. Or it might be especially beautiful, perhaps as a result of the craftsmanship and materials employed in its construction-which might be cost-prohibitive to replicate today. Even retrofitting the building to accommodate current needs might undermine its aesthetic as well as historic value, by altering its appearance and architectural integrity. Of course it is planners shouldstrive to account for aesthetic value nonetheless.In sum, whether to raze an older building in order to construct a new one should never be determined indiscriminately. Instead, planners should make such decision on a case-by-case basis, weighing the communitys practical needs against the buildings historic and aesthetic value.。

GRE考试Issue写作范文详解(1~19)(1):Issue"The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished."观点陈述型作文/[题目]"被置于媒体审视下的任何人，其名誉终将受毁损。

"Sample EssayThe intensity of today's media coverage has been greatly magnified by the sheer number and types of media outlets that are available today. Intense competition for the most revealing photographs and the latest information on a subject has turned even minor media events into so-called "media frenzies". Reporters are forced by the nature of the competition to pry ever deeper for an angle on a story that no one else has been able to uncover. With this type of media coverage, it does become more and more likely that anyone who is subjected to it will have his or her reputation tarnished, as no individual is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. The advances in technology have made much information easily and instantaneously available. Technology has also made it easier to dig further than ever before into a person's past, increasing the possibility that the subject's reputation may be harmed.[范文正文]当今媒体报道的力度，由于当今时代所能获得的媒体渠道那前所未有的数量和种类，从而被极大地增强。

gre作文issue【篇一：gre考试issue写作范文详解】gre考试issue写作范文详解(1~19)(1):issue the reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished.观点陈述型作文/[题目]被置于媒体审视下的任何人，其名誉终将受毁损。

sample essaythe intensity of todays media coverage has been greatly magnified by the sheer number and types of media outlets that are available today. intense competition for the most revealing photographs and the latest information on a subject hasturned even minor media events into so-called media frenzies. reporters are forced by the nature of the competition to pryever deeper for an angle on a story that no one else has been able to uncover. with this type of media coverage, it does become more and more likely that anyone who is subjected toit will have his or her reputation tarnished, as no individual is perfect. everyone makes mistakes. the advances in technology have made much information easily and instantaneously available. technology has also made it easier to dig furtherthan ever before into a persons past, increasing the possibility that the subjects reputation may be harmed.[范文正文]当今媒体报道的力度，由于当今时代所能获得的媒体渠道那前所未有的数量和种类，从而被极大地增强。

Issue 官方范文全新整理版说明：本版主要基于iq28的“ETS官方Issue范文”，删除了其中的重复题目，根据原始来源修订了部分错误，并制作了目录。

致谢：iq28, 红蝎子, imong, blackdoor@; Steven Jiang@上海新东方———————————————Topic List:All can be found at the ETS website:/Media/Products/Criterion/topics/topics-gre.htm1. "Both the development of technological tools and the uses to which humanity has put them have created modern civilizations in which loneliness is ever increasing." (From Practice Book & PP3)2. "The media (books, film, music, television, for example) tend to create rather than reflect the values of a society." (From PP3)3. "Our declining environment may bring the people of the world together as no politician, philosopher, or war ever could. Environmental problems are global in scope and respect no nation's boundaries. Therefore, people are faced with the choice of unityand cooperation on the one hand or disunity and a common tragedy on the other." (From Practice Book & PP3)4. "In our time, specialists of all kinds are highly over-rated. We need more generalists — people who can provide broad perspectives." (From Practice Book & ETS website & PP3)5. "It is unfortunate that today's educators place so much emphasis on finding out what students want to include in the curriculum and then giving it to them. It is the educators' duty to determine the curriculum and the students' duty to study what is presented to them." (From PP3)6. "The best ideas arise from a passionate interest in commonplace things." (From PP3)7. "Wisdom is rightfully attributed not to people who know what to look for in life but to people who know what to overlook." (From PP3) 8. “It is important for higher education to challenge established traditions and values.”(From imong)ContentsIssue test 1: Technology and Loneliness (2)Issue test 2: Media and Social Values (9)Issue test 3: Declining Environment (17)Issue test 4: Generalists vs. Specialists (25)Issue test 5: Duty of Educators (34)Issue test 6: Best Ideas (44)Issue test 7: Wisdom (51)Issue test 8: Higher Education (58)Issue test 1: Technology and Loneliness"Both the development of technological tools and the uses to which humanity has put them have created modern civilizations in which loneliness is ever increasing."6Technology, broadly defined as the use of tools, has a long history. Ever since Erg the caveman first conked an animal with a rock, people have been using technology. For thousands of years, the use of tools allowed people to move ever closer together. Because fields could be cultivated and the technology to store food existed, people would live in cities rather than in small nomadic tribes. Only very lately have Erg's descendants come to question the benefits of technology. The Industrial Revolution introduced and spread technologies that mechanized many tasks. As a result of the drive toward more efficient production and distribution (so the ever larger cities would be supported), people began to act as cogs in the technological machine. Clothing was no longer produced by groups of women sewing and gossiping together, but by down-trodden automation's operating machinery in grim factories.The benefits of the new technology of today, computers and the internet, are particularly ambiguous. They have made work ever more efficient and knit the world together in a web of information and phone lines. Some visionaries speak of a world in which Erg need not check in to his office; he can just dial in from home. He won't need to go to a bar to pick up women because there are all those chat rooms. Hungry? Erg orders his groceries from an online delivery service. Bored? Download a new game. And yet...Many people, myself included, are a little queasy about that vision. Erg may be doing work, but is it real work? Are his online friends real friends? Does anything count in a spiritual way if it's just digital? Since the Industrial Revolution, we have been haunted by the prospect that we are turning into our machines: efficient, productive, and soulless. The newest technologies, we fear, are making us flat as our screens. We may know a lot of people, but we havefew real friends. We have a lot of things to do, but no reason to do them. In short, the new technology emphasizes a spiritual crisis that has been building for quite some time.As I try to unravel which I believe about the relative merits of technology, I think it is instructive to remember technology's original result. A better plow meant easier farming, more food, longer lives, and more free time to pursue other things such as art. Our newest technology does not give us more free time; it consumes our free time. We are terminally distracted from confronting ourselves or each other. We stay safe, and lonely, in our homes and offices rather than taking the risk of meeting real people or trying new things.While I am certainly not a Luddite, I do believe we need to look for a bit more balance between technology and life. We have to tear ourselves away from the fatal distractions and go out into the world. Technology has given us long lives and endless supplies of information. Now we need to apply that information, use the time we're not spending conking our dinner with a club, and find our reasons for living.COMMENTARYThis outstanding response displays cogent reasoning, insightful, persuasive analysis, and superior control of language. The essay immediately identifies the complexities of the issue and then playfully explores both the benefits and the drawbacks of technological developments over the course of human history. The writer maintains that a "balance between technology and life" is necessary if humans are going to abate the loneliness that is part of modern existence.I disagree with the argument that "Both the development of technological tools and the uses to which humanity has put them have created modern civilizations in which loneliness is ever increasing."" Arguments can be made for this thesis, but they depend largely upon what I believe to be a poor definition of "loneliness".If one defines loneliness as the absence of as much physical, face-to-face contact with other people, then this argument is probably true. The invention of modern telecommunications devices such as telephones, fax machines, and computers has definitely cut down on the amount of physical contact with other people. This is especially true in recent times due to the extremely rapid expansion of the Internet. E-mail and tele-conferencing are direct substitutes for physical contact, especially in the business world.However, I believe that loneliness can be better measured by intellectual contact with other individuals. Unarguably, modern technology makes this faster and easier, with better communication with a larger number of people.Some employers have argued that productivity is lessened since they have had computers linked to the Internet, as the employees spend much of their time "chatting" with friends, acquaintances, or business contacts across the country.This is probably not a good thing for the employers, but it demonstrates theincreased degree of communication due to modern technology.Of course, some technologies have increased loneliness by any standards, suchas the automobile or other transportation mechanisms. These encouragesubstantially longer commutes between home and work. Automobiles have made possible the pattern of suburbanization that has been in place in the United States since immediately after World War Two. Time spent commuting is generally unproductive and spent alone, unless the individual in question is car-pooling or using mass transit. The contribution of the commuting culture to loneliness may actually be changing now due to new technology that is being invented and used by the general public. Popular new devices, such as the cellular phone, the laptop computer, and the combination thereof may actually convert commuting time to a period of increased communications between people, to "pass the time". This will be especially true as use of mass transit grows, which will probably happen, due to problems with gas shortages, air pollution, and the creation of further mass transit by federal and local governments.The motivation for the declaration that loneliness is increasing may be due tothe fact that many people, especially blue-collar workers, are unable to affordor use these new devices. However, since the advent of the personal computer, the price per computing power has continually lowered rapidly, and this trend shows no sign of changing. Several companies, such as Sun Microsystems and Oracle have announced that they are attempting to develop terminals with little computing power, but a full capability to access the Internet. These devices will be in approximately the $500 price range, which is much more reasonable than the price of the current top of the line PC. In addition, to cater to a larger mass of the public, software companies have been carefully making their products easier to use by non-"computer nerds". This trend is not likely to cease.In conclusion, although early development of modern transportation may have increased loneliness, I believe that more recent technologies are actually doing the opposite, stimulating interpersonal contact and encouraging intellectual expansion. The perception that the opposite is true derives from what I believe is poor definition of loneliness and the difficulty that the working class has in acquiring and using modern telecommunications devices.COMMENTARYThis strong response analyzes the complexities of the issue. In disagreeing with the prompt, the writer makes a distinction between two types of loneliness -- loneliness caused by "the absence of??? physical contact" and loneliness brought about by a lack of "intellectual contact" with others. The essay reasons that while "the automobile and other transportation mechanisms"originally kept passengers physically and intellectually isolated from one another, modern technology, such as the cellular telephone and laptop computer, has made intellectual contact "faster and easier" and has benefitedusers by allowing them to communicate with "a larger number of people."The response provides clear and relevant examples of the ways in which technological developments facilitate and encourage intellectual communication. The writer examines the impact of user-friendly Internet access on the individual's ability to interact with others even when physical distance separates the communicating parties.The organization is clear, yet transitions between paragraphs are not always smooth. The body of the essay lacks the focus that would help move it to a score of 6. It is not always clear how the information given relates to the essay's initial position (e.g., the discussion of current prices for personal computers in paragraph five). The conclusion, while clearly relevant, attempts to impose order on the somewhat loosely connected paragraphs, yet fails to add substance to the analysis.On the whole, the essay displays clarity and control, but the language is sometimes imprecise and less tightly controlled than it would be in a 6 essay. The following sentence is one such example: "The motivation for the declaration that loneliness is increasing may be due to the fact that many people, especially blue-collar workers, are unable to afford or use these new devices."Looking at the above statement, I see a lot of truth to the statement . There are many ways that society has used the advanced technology in order to isolate themselves. It may or may not be a conscious move, but the results are all the same. The isolation occurs in a variety of ways and in all different areas. By computerizing factories, there are more and more people working long hours by themselves, with there only companion as a computer monitor. Although the company may be getting better production, the question that needs to be ask is at what cost to their employees.It is not only the management of big factories that are responsible for this isolation. This loneliness can be seen in many other settings. With the growing popularity of the television, the nation is seeing a decline in families talking and an increase in watching the television. Not only can this result in a generation of "coach potatoes", it is also causes less communication and a feeling of isolation from everyone that a person cares about.So far technology has entered the work place and the home, it has also entered the social relm. When you go to order food in the drive-thru, who is or better yet what is it that you talk to? It is a machine, although there is a person on the other end, you are still reciting your order to a machine. If it is ten o'clockat night and you need money, there are ATM's. All of these gadgets may be very nice and convent, but they result in lack of human contact.Although it might be easy to blame technology for our feelings of loneliness, itis just a cop out. By looking at all the ways technology causes isolation, it isstill people who choose to use these convenient methods. If a person wants to have human contact, all they have to do is go inside to the bank or go insidethe restaurant to order. What it basically boils down to, is that it is our choicewhether or not we use technology. It is a scary thought to think maybe one day we might live in a society where you will never have to leave your house. That by using FAX machines, computers, modems, and the telephone a person would never have to have human contact to get their job done. The thing is that if that is not what we as a society wants, we are the ones to speak out and change the outcome.COMMENTARYThis response presents a competent discussion of the issue. The position presented in the first paragraph -- that "there are many ways that society has used the advanced technology in order to isolate themselves" -- is adequately sustained, but the examples given are not always clearly relevant (e.g., in the case of paragraph one's "computerizing" of factories, the decision to use the technology is not made by the individual worker.) Also, the reasoning is not developed as fully as it would be in a response at the score level of 6 or 5.While organization is adequate, the response lacks the organized coherence of ideas that exemplify a 5 essay. Transitions, within and between paragraphs, are not always smooth or logical. The last paragraph could be much more clearly focused, i.e., several sentences repeat the same idea -- that "it is our choice whether or not we use technology" -- and the purpose or meaning of others (e.g., the last) is not immediately clear.In general, ideas are presented clearly, although awkward phrasing sometimes contributes to vagueness (e.g., "By looking at all the ways technology causes isolation, it is still people who choose to use these convenient methods"). Lack of sentence structure variety seems to inhibit the communication of ideas (e.g., many short sentences are often used where one or two compound ones could make the points more effectively). Overall, this is an adequate response to the topic.The technological tools we as a society have developed are not in themselves positive or negative, they are just that, tools. The uses, however, are definitely a different story. Computers, I believe at one time, were developed to save us time. Do our work more quickly for us so that we could have more leisure time to spend doing those things we enjoy. We have found now, especially those of us that are parents, that all of the leisure time we havegained is either spent watching our children learn things on the computer or creating our own unique something on the family computer. For one thing, it has become a very fun item, the computers have become more than just workrelated technological tools. The amount of human interaction is limited,because people in general are spending much of their leisure time doing solo onthe computer. In the past, it was common for the new young executive to get a membership to the exercise club as a perk, where he could socialize with the upper crust. Now the new young exec. gets a car phone or a portable fax, so that he can work from wherever he is, usually doing that solo trip to somewhere. Given these as examples, I would tend to agree with the statement that loneliness has increased as a direct result.COMMENTARYThis response is limited in both its analysis of the issue and its control of language.The writer clearly expresses the idea that "the technological tools we as a society have developed are not in themselves positive or negative." However, the essay provides only limited support for the position; the two examples are loosely connected and undeveloped.At times the organization of the essay makes for confusing reading. For example, the relevance of the "young executive" example is not clear because there is no transition from the preceding example of the computer. The conclusion, one sentence long, simply restates the claim made in the topic. The awkward sentences are evidence of a limited fluency. Greater use of compound sentences could help eliminate structural problems and facilitate the communication of ideas (e.g., sentences 3 and 4 could be combined).For all of these reasons, the essay received a score of 3.2、Computers of all shapes and sizes, p.c.'s, laptops, faxes, phones, the list never ends. All considered by our society as great technological advances. Not many would argue that the development of these tools has not advanced our world in some ways. However they certainly seem to be making our world one in which contact with our fellow man is less and less necessary. Though some may be more comfortable not having to engage in direct contact, it is questionable whether this is beneficial to society as a whole. The very least result could in fact be a very lonely world, but it may result in more significant problems.COMMENTARYThis response is seriously flawed. The analysis of the issue is extremelylimited, and there are serious problems in sentence structure. The writer's position, never clearly stated, seems to be that as a result of technological developments, "contact with our fellow man is less and less necessary."However, the implications of this statement (and others) are never explored ordeveloped. Furthermore, the list of technological advancements does notsupport or clarify the writer's already tenuously held position. Each new sentence could serve as a springboard to a thoughtful analysis but instead takes the response further from the apparent premise.While the essay exhibits a lack of sentence variety and contains somegrammatical errors, the language is for the most part controlled. Thisresponse did not receive a score of 2 because of a language problem, but because reasoning, analysis, and development are extremely thin and insubstantial.This statement is stating. The more advance in technology that society becomes, the more we depend on technology to live our everyday lives. Society as a whole will out do daily tasks and depend more on machines and computers to accomplish those tasks for them. For example; I was told that the younger generations use calculators in classes on a everyday level. We couldn’t do that. We had to resolve a problem on our own. Because calculators are being used, math problems are being adjusted around the calculators. If I didn’t know how to use a calculator today then I most likely wouldn’t know how to attempt to tackle the math of today. Computers of today are another example. Writing a essay took a lot of thought and hard work in past. Today, I can type some words in the computer and that computer will spell, make grammar correction, and dictate a right form to use in my essay. In the past we had to all these things on our own. I'm not putting down modern technology totally. I just want to state that if we take away people's ability to think then we will slowly loose our ability to function with out modern technology.COMMENTARYThis response is fundamentally deficient because it does not discuss the issue. Instead, it briefly discusses the drawbacks of specific types of technology (e.g., calculators and computers) in terms of the effect they have on an individual's ability to function without them.Furthermore, the essay lacks control of the basic elements of academic writing. Awkward and imprecise phrasing often interferes with meaning (e.g., "Society as a whole will out do daily tasks???").Issue test 2: Media and Social Values"The media (books, film, music, television, for example) tend tocreate rather than reflect the values of a society."6For our grandparents it occurred through films and books. For the babyboomers it was a result of television and revolutionary music. No matter how the impact took place, it is clear that since its very advent, the media haveplayed a crucial role in not simply being representative of the values of oursociety but creating them as well.During the roaring twenties Americans found themselves in a struggle betweenthe old ways of their ancestors and the new ways of the future. The once steadfast beliefs that men and women should not touch while dancing, and that ladies should not drink or smoke were suddenly being challenged. From where was all this rebellion stemming? Partly it was due to the returning doughboys from the shores of Europe bringing home revolutionary ideas they had encountered while at war. Nonetheless, returning soldiers could not be held responsible for the social upheaval that America experienced. There had to be another cause, and there was, the media. Although the films of the era were silent they spoke volumes to the society for which they were created. Women in these movies wore their hemlines a few inches shorter than the decade before them and they wore cosmetics to accentuate their new bobbed haircuts. The movies, as well as the books of that era, demonstrated a new materialistic attitude that America had never before experienced. Films portrayed every character as having the money to buy a new car, drink, smoke and partake in the leisure’s of life, a philosophy that was soon adopted by the youth of the decade. The use of the media in the twenties was to serve as a catalyst for the revolutionary ideas that were circulating. The films and books of that era sped America along its path of change that eventually led to the greatest social unrest that the United States had ever known.Unlike the twenties, the sixties and seventies utilized the media in a way that appealed to those searching for truth in a lost and confused world. Martin Luther King Jr. realized the impact of the media on society during his campaign for civil rights. King urged his followers to withstand any abuse that they might encounter because the media will take their peacefulness into the homes of their society. By doing so, King successfully began to change the traditional view of race. Americans began to sympathize with the protesters because of the undeserved turmoil they faced at the hands of the government. As a result, America relinquished the Jim Crow laws and saw many other groups press for their individual rights as well. Television cameras rolled as Cesar Chavez organized the migrant workers in California and as Bella Abzug and Gloria Steinham linked arms to protest the lack of women's rights.While the media helped to shape some attitudes about racism and gender it also helped to uncover the truth behind government lies. During the Nixon COMMENTARYThis is an outstanding response, even though it is not quite finished. The writer's views on the issue are so cogent, well articulated, and well developed that the writer was not penalized for failing to provide a conclusion. What matters is the quality of thinking and writing displayed, not whether an essay is totally finished or has a certain number of words.The writer's skill is apparent in the opening lines. The first words, "For our grandparents it occurred," immediately spark the reader's interest. The quick repetition of sentence structure and, once again, the intentionally vague use of "it" ("For the baby boomers it was") effectively draw the reader in. By the third sentence, we know that this essay will address the complexity of the issue ("not simply being representative??? but creating them as well") and that the writer is fully in command of this discussion.The rest of the essay addresses the influence of historical events and media on the values of modern society, from the "roaring twenties" to the "sixties and seventies." Insightful analysis accompanies the historical references. For example, the writer persuasively argues that prominent figures (King, but also Chavez, Abzug, and Steinham) advanced their social agendas by capitalizing on the power of the media to change public opinion.Throughout the essay, the writer uses language and syntax effectively. Word choice is precise ("cosmetics to accentuate their new bobbed haircuts"), sentences are structured to communicate ideas clearly ("There had to be another cause, and there was, the media"), and transitional phrases help move the argument forward ("Unlike the twenties, the sixties????" and "By doing so, King successfully began to change the traditional view of race.") Occasional errors do appear (e.g., note the lack of logical comparison in "women??? wore their hemlines??? shorter than the decade before them"), but they are not intrusive.Other 6 essays might be more fully developed; indeed, this essay would be stronger if the writer had gone on to discuss the media's role in Nixon's Watergate scandal and to bring the argument to its conclusion. However, even in its unfinished state, the essay does present an insightful, well-articulated discussion of the issue.5、There are some who would say that the media reflects the values of society. I believe however, that the media in fact tend to create values in a society.The values created may be far different from the values that our society would choose to embrace. I offer two examples that serve well to illustrate that the media can in fact shape the very moral fibers in our society.The first medium that comes to mind is music. Through music we can proclaim our love, communicate feelings, and express new attitudes. Music is widely available to almost everyone in our society. To see how music has changed the values of our society, one needs only to look to the urban sprawl. Rap and gangster styles of music reach millions of city teens and young adults. It's message is quite simple- violence, drugs, and sex . Young people are constantly bombarded with the message that if you want something all you have to do is to take it. The values of human life, respect for elders and children have been lost. We have gangs and random killings in the streets of most cities in our country. Are these my values? They are most certainly not. This music does not reflect the values of this society. This music is the very core of this degradation of our values. How many tricked out gang cars to you see that don't have the annoying bass rumble of Rap music vibrating out of them? This music is part of the persona of a whole generation of people. It is just as much a part of their ego as the guns, drugs, and abuse of women. Another medium that is shaping the values of our society is advertising.Advertising is everywhere, on T.V., billboards, radio, even at the ballpark. Through advertising some vendors can create "values". To illuminate my point I will use tobacco companies as an example. Joe Camel has convinced millions of young people that it is cool to smoke. The Marlboro man has done the same. The audience is always the same. These ads are targeting young people. They have created the "value" among children that it is ok for kids to smoke. Again the values of society have been changed by a powerful media. I'm sure there are not too many parents out there who would want their children to start smoking. Another advertising media that will surely change the values of ours society is the Internet.The internet is really just the world's largest commercial launched under the veil of access of useful information. It will be interesting to see just how this new network that has brought the world together will affect our values. These are just examples but I think they are effective at making my point. I think they serve to illustrate that the media can in fact change our values. As for me, I'll be out back smoking a Don Lino, on a beautiful trout stream while sipping a cold beer, waiting for the trout to rise and hoping a couple of those girls from the Coors commercial show up.COMMENTARYThis is a well-developed response. The four-paragraph organizational structure serves as a useful framework for the writer to develop a position on the issue.The opening paragraph presents the writer's position ("media in fact tend to。

GREIssue高分范文想要更好的备考GRE写作考试，需要多看一些范文哦，我整理了一些范文，下面我就和大家共享，来观赏一下吧。

GRE Issue高分范文Students should memorize facts only after they have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts. Students who have learned only facts have learned very little.The speaker makes a threshold claim that students who learn only facts learn very little, then condudes that students should always learn about concepts, ideas, and trends before they memorize facts. While I wholeheartedly agree with the threshold claim, the condusion unfairly generalizes about the learning process. In fact, following the speakers advice would actually impede the learning of concepts and ideas, as well as impeding the development of insightful and useful new ones.Turning first to the speakers threshold daim, I strongly agree that ifwe learn only facts we learn very little. Consider the task of memorizing the periodic table of dements, which any student can memorize without any knowledge of chemistry, or that the table relates to chemistry. Rote memorization of the table amounts to a bit of mental exercise-an opportunity to practice memorization techniques and perhaps learn some new ones. Otherwise, the student has learned very little aboutchemical dements, or about anything for that matter.As for the speakers ultimate claim, I concede that postponing the memorization of facts until after one leams ideas and concepts holds certain advantages. With a conceptual framework already in place a student is better able to understand the meaning of a fact, and to appreciate its significance. As a result, the student is more likely to memorize the fact to begin with, and less likely to forget it as time passes. Moreover, in my observation students whose first goal is to memorize facts tend to stop there--for whatever reason. It seems that by focusing on facts first students risk equating the learning process with the assimilation of trivia; in turn, students risk learning nothing of much use in solving real world problems.Conceding that students must learn ideas and concepts, as well as facts relating to them, in order to learning anything meaningful, I nevertheless disagree that the former should always precede the latter--for three reasons. In the first place, I see know reason why memorizing a fact cannot precede learning about its meaning and significance--as long as the student does not stop at rote memorization. Consider once again our hypothetical chemistry student. The speaker might advise this student to first learn about the historical trends leading to the discovery of the elements, or to learn about the concepts of altering chemical compounds to achieve certain reactions--beforestudying the periodic table. Having no familiarity with the basic vocabulary of chemistry, which includes the informarion in the periodic table, this student would come away from the first two lessons bewildered and confused in other words, having learned little.In the second place, the speaker misunderstands the process by which we learn ideas and concepts, and by which we develop new ones. Consider, for example, how economics students learn about the relationship between supply and demand, and the resulting concept of market equilibrium, and of surplus and shortage. Learning about the dynamics of supply and demand involves (1) entertaining a theory, and perhaps even formulating a new one, (2) testing hypothetical scenarios against the theory, and (3) examining real-world facts for the purpose of confirming, refuting, modifying, or qualifying the theory. But which step should come first? The speaker would have us follow steps 1 through 3 in that order. Yet, theories, concepts, and ideas rarely materialize out of thin air; they generally emerge from empirical observations--i.e., facts. Thus the speakers notion about how we should learn concepts and ideas gets the learning process backwards.In the third place, strict adherence to the speakers advice would surely lead to illconceived ideas, concepts, and theories. Why? An idea or concept conjured up without the benefit of data amounts to little more than the conjurers hopes and desires. Accordingly, conjurers willtend to seek out facts that support their prejudices and opinions, and overlook or avoid facts that refute them. One telling example involves theories about the center of the universe.Understandably, we ego-driven humans would prefer that the universe revolve around us.Early theories presumed so for this reason, and facts that ran contrary to this ego-driven theory were ignored, while observers of these facts were scorned and even vilified. In short, students who strictly follow the speakers prescription are unlikely to contribute significantly to the advancement of knowledge.To sum up, in a vacuum facts are meaningless, and only by filling that vacuum with ideas and concepts can students learn, by gaining useful perspectives and insights about facts. Yet,since facts are the very stuff from which ideas, concepts, and trends spring, without some facts students cannot learn much of anything. In the final analysis, then, students should learn facts right along with concepts, ideas, and trends.GRE Issue高分范文The speaker asserts that rather than merely highlighting certain sensational events the media should provide complete coverage of more important events .While the speakers assertion has merit from a normative standpoint,in the final analysis i find this assertion indefensible.Upon first impression the speakers claim seems quite compelling ,for two reasons.First ,without the benefit of a complete, unfiltered, and balanced account of a current evnets ,it is impossible to develop an informed and intelligent opinion about important social and political issue and , in turn, to contribute meaningfully to our democratic society ,which relies on broad participation in an ongoing debate about such issues to steer a proper course.the end result of our being a largely uninformed people is that we relegate the most important decisions to a handful of legislators,jurists ,and executives who may not know what is best for us.Second,by focusing on the sensational-by which i take the speaker to mean comparatively shocking, entertaining , and titillating events which easily catch ones attention-from trashy talk shows and local news broadcasts to The National Enquixer and People Magazine.This trend dearly serves to undermine a societys collective sensibilities and renders a societys members more vulnerable to demagoguery; thus we should all abhor and resist the trend.However,for serveral reasons i find the medias current trend toward highlights and the sensational to be justifiable.First ,the world is becoming an increasingly eventful place;thus with each passing year it becomes a more onerous task for the media to attempt full news coverage.Second ,we are becoming an increasingly busy society.Theaverage U.S.worker spends nearly 60 hours per week at work now;and in most families both spouses work. Compare this startlingly busy pace to the pace a generation ago,when one bread-winner worked just over 40 hours per week.We have far less time today for news, so highlights must suffice .third,the media does in fact provide full coverage of important events;anyone can find such coverage beyond their newspapers front page,on daily PBS news programs, and on the Internet.I would wholeheartedly agree with the speaker if the sensational highlights were all the media were willing or permited to provide;this scenario would be tantamount to thought control on a mass scale and would serve to undermine our free society.However , i am aware of no evidence of any trend in this direction.To the contrary,in my observation the media are informing us more fully than ever before;we just need to seek out that information.On balance,then, the speakers claim is not behave-regardless of its merits from a normative standpoint begs the question.GRE Issue高分范文Long black coat, large sunglasses, face buried deeply down in the turned-up collar and hurried steps denying any attempt to stop them---no, dont be alarmed; this is not a criminal at large, but only a public figure escaping the voyeuristic eyes and cameras of omnipresent tabloid reporters.Yet it is only one side of the coin. When you come back home, what greets you in newspapers, on TV or on the Internet, are a sargasso sea of so-called exclusive news telling tales about privacies of public figures. Not only tabloids are selling what they find by voyeurism, public figures, especially singers, movie stars and such alike in show businesses, are also themselves brandishing their underwear, so as to attract the eyes and attention of the public and to remain in the spotlight.It is a human nature to have the propensity to pry into other peoples lives, especially the private lives of famous public figures, for their public lives are all so shining, so different from those of ours, that we cannot help but want to know what they are really like in real daily life and if they too have such sorrows and happiness as those common to us. By peeping into the private lives of public figures, our curiosity is satisfied, our distance from those shining guys shortened, and our self-assurance secured by knowing that those shining guys, too, are no more than ordinary humans.Whereas those shining guys, on the one hand, detest to be mixed up with ordinary human beings for they are naturally arrogant and supercilious--the inevitable by-products of fame and fortune--and strive to sustain their status and mystery, on the other hand, they have to please the public, for they know quite clearly that attention of the public is the very basis of their fame and fortune, whatever the causes of thatattention. Thus, having a private life or not having a private life should not be a big bother to singers and movie stars. Actually, they sometimes are themselves selling their privacies in exchange for fame and fortune.Yet for politicians, it is a different and a little bit complicated story. As leaders of our government, surely they have more significant responsibilities to shoulder and their behaviors matter more to the society and to every one of us. Considering the onerous tasks of politicians, should we, the public, and the mass media leave them alone and let them concentrate on their job, or thinking of the interests of the public, should the mass media act as a supervisor to those politicians and let the public be informed of their misdeeds?As officials elected by the public and paid for by the public, politicians should undoubtedly under the supervision of the public and answer for the public. And the public, surely enough, have the right to ask for honest dealings of all kinds of issues of the government. When a politicians private affairs, such as using what power he has to secure a higher position and a higher salary for his girl friend as the Director of the World Bank did, undermine the interests of the public, the public have the right to know such scandals and reconsider their faith been laid on the politician.But what complicates the problem is that mass media, a commercial institution, is not always so just and serves only the interests of thepublic and the society--its shareholders interests have the first and foremost priority. As a result, reporters all too often pry into the private lives of politicians, trying to dig out something provocative that could serve to stimulate the publics appetite and skyrocket the sales of the newspaper.Private life of a politician is also a vital card in the hands of his opponents. During the presidential election, private lives of presidential candidates have been snooped, exposed, exaggerated, distorted, fabricated and attacked. President Clintons affair with L. Monica almost costs him his presidency, while helps start his wife, Hilary Clintons political career.All these cause pressure on politicians. Concededly, moderate pressure can help politicians remain high-spirited, discreet and prudent with their behaviors, too much pressure surely strains their nerves too much and thus undermines their energy and spirit, and therefore their working efficiency.However, a politician also takes advantage of his own private life to establish a wanted image of himself, to win him the critical vote, or to convey a particular political gesture. For instance, the former president of Argentina, Peron married 26-year old Evita, an actress who came from the lower rung of the social ladder, to indicate his determination to stand by the poor and fight for their rights, and this private affair won Peronhearts and faith of millions of peasants and, consequently, the presidency of Argentina.Thus, private lives of public figures are a two-edged sword--proper use of it could bring magnificent benefits for them, while abuse of it could leave them cut and injured, even fatally.GRE Issue高分范文The primary goal of technological advancement should be to increase peoples efficiency so that everyone has more leisure time.The speaker contends that technologys primary goal should be to increase our efficiency for the purpose of affording us more leisure time.I concede that technology has enhanced our efficiency as we go about our everyday lives. Productivity software helps us plan and coordinate projects; intranets, the Internet, and satellite technology make us more efficient messengers; and technology even helps us prepare our food and access entertainment more efficiently. Beyond this concession, however, I find the speakers contention indefensible from both an empirical and a normative standpoint.The chief reason for my disagreement lies in the empirical proof: with technological advancement comes diminished leisure time. In 1960 the average U.S. family included only one breadwinner, who worked just over 40 hours per week. Since then the average work week has increased steadily to nearly 60 hours today; and in most families there are now twobreadwinners. What explains this decline in leisure despite increasing efficiency that new technologies have brought about? I contend that technology itself is the culprit behind the decline. We use the additional free time that technology affords us not for leisure but rather for work. As computer technology enables greater and greater office productivity it also raises our employers expectations--or demands--for production. Further technological advances breed still greater efficiency and, in turn, expectations. Our spiraling work load is only exacerbated by the competitive business environment in which nearly all of us work today. Moreover, every technological advance demands our time and attention in order to learn how to use the new technology. Time devoted to keeping pace with technology depletes time for leisure activities.I disagree with the speaker for another reason as well: the suggestion that technologys chief goal should be to facilitate leisure is simply wrongheaded. There are far more vital concerns that technology can and should address. Advances in bio-technology can help cure and prevent diseases; advances in medical technology can allow for safer, less invasire diagnosis and treatment; advances in genetics can help prevent birth defects; advances in engineering and chemistry can improve the structural integrity of our buildings, roads, bridges and vehicles; information technology enables education while communication technology facilitates global participation in thedemocratic process. In short, health, safety, education, and freedom--and not leisure--are the proper final objectives of technology. Admittedly, advances in these areas sometimes involve improved efficiency; yet efficiency is merely a means to these more important ends.In sum, I find indefensible the speakers suggestion that technologys value lies chiefly in the efficiency and resulting leisure time it can afford us. The suggestion runs contrary to the overwhelming evidence that technology diminishes leisure time, and it wrongly places leisure ahead of goals such as health, safety, education, and freedom as technologys ultimate aims.GRE Issue高分范文。

GRE考试推荐：issue字数第1篇：GRE考试推荐：issue字数greissue字数要求是怎样的?很多考生担心考试时issue字数上不去。

其实，只要掌握的技巧，一切就变得容易了。

下面就向大家简单介绍几招。

招术一：如果复习时间充裕，提议你多瞧瞧英文杂志，积累1些例子，如果时间短，就记一些通用地例子(很多网站上都有整理)，到时候换着花样说就可以，其实500字的issue已经足够了。

所谓言多必失，700多字3分的作文比比皆是，所以，字数只要适当就好。

招术二：ets从来地都是字数为王的，issue的强标是600,你先不要限时，每1个论点说150就行了(三个论点)，开头和结尾加起来150给你一些提议：稍微用一些套话，较为复杂的句子，可以增加字数例子越具体越好，尤其是外国人不晓得的例子重要的不是例子本身，而是你如何利用例子*论点的，也就是说一定要有例子和论*之间的联络。

以下是网友的经历：1.增加字数最直接地办法是加些事例，或者把事例说透彻些，详细些。

2.积累素材最直接的办法是看1.孙远作文工具箱2.韦晓亮作文大讲堂3.pooh百宝箱，网上都能下到电子版的，其中有非常多例子，还有围绕例子的说理，好好学习可以丰富你的举例素材，并学到一些说理的方法。

还有搜一些常用的名人名言背背。

3.爱因斯坦，比尔盖茨之类的例子少用，因为国内学生用烂了，找一些“次熟悉”的例子比未完，继续阅读 >第2篇：GRE考试的issue模板greissue模板同意观点nowadays,thereisacontroversialissueabout_____.dependingonpersonalexperiencesandbeliefs,wemayfindthatsomepeoplehol dtheopinionthat____,whileothershaveanoppositeattitudethat____. asfarasiamconcerned,iagreethat______.myviewwillbesubstantiate dbyfollowingdiscussion.firstofall,themostimportantreasonformyviewisthat_____.toillu stratethis,thereisanappropriateexamplethatisverypersuasive:____ _.underthissituation,itisobviousthat____.inaddition,thereisanotherreasonformetoexpressstatement.__ ____.finally,asaproverbsays,“everythinghastwosides”.alt未完，继续阅读 >第3篇：GRE考试Issue写作范文编辑点评：本系列是nativespeaker针对gre写作issue部分的高频话题所写的范文。

GRE考试写作范文Issue整合想要提高GRE写作水平，需要多仿照优秀的范文，我整理了一些范文，下面我就和大家共享，来观赏一下吧。

GRE考试写作范文IssuePeople who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are the most critical of it.The speaker claims that people who are the most firmly committed to an idea or policy are the same people who are most critical of that idea or policy. While I find this claim paradoxical on its face, the paradox is explainable, and the explanation is well supported empirically. Nevertheless, the claim is an unfair generalization in that it fails to account for other empirical evidence serving to discredit it.A threshold problem with the speakers claim is that its internal logic is questionable. At first impression it would seem that firm commitment to an idea or policy necessarily requires the utmost confidence in it, and yet one cannot have a great deal of confidence in an idea or policy if one recognizes its flaws, drawbacks, or other problems. Thus commitment and criticism would seem to be mutually exclusive. But are they? One possible explanation for the paradox is that individuals most firmly committed to an idea or policy are often the same people who are most knowledgeable on the subject, and therefore are in the best position to understand and appreciate the problems with the idea or policy.Lending credence to this explanation for the paradoxical nature of the speakers claim are the many historical cases of uneasy marriages between commitment to and criticism of the same idea or policy. For example, Edward Teller, the so-called father of the atom bomb, was firmly committed to Americas policy of gaining military superiority overthe Japanese and the Germans; yet at the same time he attempted fervently to dissuade the U.S. military from employing his technology for destruction, while becoming the most visible advocate for various peaceful and productive applications of atomic energy. Another example is George Washington, who was quoted as saying that all the worlds denizens should abhor war wherever they may find it. Yet this was the same military general who played a key role in the Revolutionary War between Britain and the States. A third example was Einstein, who while committed to the mathematical soundness of his theories about relativity could not reconcile them with the equally compelling quantum theory which emerged later in Einsteins life. In fact, Einstein spent the last twenty years of his life criticizing his own theories and struggling to determine how to reconcile them with newer theories.In the face of historical examples supporting the speakers claim are innumerable influential individuals who were zealously committed to certain ideas and policies but who were not critical of them, at least not outwardly. Could anyone honestly claim, for instance, that Elizabeth Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who in the late 19th Century paved the way for the womens rights movement by way of their fervent advocacy, were at the same time highly critical or suspicious of the notion that women deserve equal rights under the law? Also, would it not be absurd to claim that Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, historys two leading advocates of civil disobedience as a means to social reform, had serious doubts about the ideals to which they were so demonstrably committed? Finally, consider the two ideologues and revolutionaries Lenin and Mussolini. Is it even plausible that their demonstrated commitment to their own Communist and Fascist policies, respectively, belied some deep personal suspicion about the merits of these policies? To my knowledge no private writing of any of these historical figures lends any support to the claim that these leaders were particularly critical of their own ideas or policies.To sum up, while at first glance a deep commitment to and incisivecriticism of the same idea or policy would seem mutually exclusive, it appears they are not. Thus the speakers claim has some merit. Nevertheless, for every historical case supporting the speakers claim are many others serving to refute it. In the final analysis, then, the correctness of the speakers assertion must be determined on a case-by-case basis.GRE考试写作范文IssueTradition and modernization are incompatible. One must choose between them.Must we choose between tradition and modernization, as the speaker contends? I agree that in certain cases the two are mutually exclusive. For the most part, however, modernization does not reject tradition; in fact, in many cases the former can and does embrace the latter.In the first place, oftentimes so-called modernization is actually an extension or new iteration of tradition, or a variation on it. This is especially true in language and in law. The modern English language, in spite of its many words that are unique to modern Western culture, is derived from, and builds upon, a variety of linguistic traditions--and ultimately from the ancient Greek and Latin languages. Were we to insist on rejecting traditional in favor of purely modern language, we would have essentially nothing to say. Perhaps an even more striking marriage of modernization and tradition is our system of laws in the U.S., which is deeply rooted in English common-law principles of equity and justice. Our system requires that new, so-called modern laws be consistent with, and in fact build upon, those principles.In other areas modernization departs from tradition in some respects, while embracing it in others. In the visual arts, for example, modern designs, forms, and elements are based on certain timeless aesthetic ideals--such as symmetry, balance, and harmony. Modern art that violates these principles might hold ephemeral appeal due to its novelty andbrashness, but its appeal lacks staying power. An even better example from the arts is modern rock-and-roll music, which upon first listening might seem to bear no resemblance to classical music traditions. Yet, both genres rely on the same twelve-note scale, the same notions of what harmonies are pleasing to the ear, the same forms, the same rhythmic meters, and even many of the same melodies.I concede that, in certain instances, tradition must yield entirely to the utilitarian needs of modern life. This is true especially when it comes to architectural traditions and the value of historic and archeological artifacts. A building of great historic value might be located in the only place available to a hospital desperately needing additional parking area. An old school that is a prime example of a certain architectural style might be so structurally unsafe that the only practicable way to remedy the problem would be to raze the building to make way for a modern, structurally sound one. And when it comes to bridges whose structural integrity is paramount to public safety, modernization often requires no less than replacement of the bridge altogether. However, in other such cases architecturally appropriate retrofits can solve structural problems without sacrificing history and tradition, and alternative locations for new buildings and bridges can be found in order to preserve tradition associated with our historic structures. Thus, even in architecture, tradition and modernization are not necessarily mutually exclusive options.To sum up, in no area of human endeavor need modernization supplant, reject, or otherwise exclude tradition. In fact, in our modern structures, architecture andGRE考试写作范文IssueBecause of television and worldwide computer connections, people can now become familiar with a great many places that they have never visited. As a result, tourism will soon become obsolete.The speaker asserts that television and computer connectivity will soon render tourism obsolete. I agree that these technologies might eventually serve to reduce travel for certain purposes other than tourism. However, I strongly disagree that tourism will become obsolete, or that it will even decline, as a result.As for the claim that television will render tourism obsolete, we already have sufficient empirical evidence that this will simply not happen. For nearly a half-century we have been peering through our television sets at other countries and cultures; yet tourism is as popular today as ever. In fact, tourism has been increasing sharply during the last decade, which has seen the advent of television channels catering exclusively to our interest in other cultures and countries. The more reasonable conclusion is that television has actually served to spark our interest in visiting other places.It is somewhat more tempting to accept the speakers further claim that computer connectivity will render tourism obsolete. However, the speaker unfairly assumes that the purpose of tourism is simply to obtain information about other people and places. Were this the case, I would entirely agree that the current information explosion spells the demise of tourism. But, tourism is not primarily about gathering information. Instead, it is about sensory experience--seeing and heating firsthand, even touching and smelling. Could anyone honestly claim that seeing a picture or even an enhanced 3-D movie of the Swiss Alps serves as a suitable substitute for riding a touting motorcycle along narrow roads traversing those mountains? Surely not. The physical world is laden with a host of such delights that we humans are compelled to experience firsthand as tourists.Moreover, in my view tourism will continue to thrive for the same reason that people still go out for dinner or to the movies: we all need to get away from our familiar routines and surroundings from time to 6me.Will computer connectivity alter this basic need? Certainly not. In short, tourism is a manifestation of a basic human need for variety and for exploration. This basic need is why humans have come to inhabit every corner of the Earth, and will just as surely inhabit other planets of the solar system.In fact, computer connectivity might actually provide a boon for tourism. The costs of travel and accommodations are likely to decrease due to Internet price competition. Even more significantly, to the extent that the Internet enhances communication among the worlds denizens, our level of comfort and trust when it comes to dealing with people from other cultures will only increase. As a result, many people who previously would not have felt safe or secure traveling to strange lands will soon venture abroad with a new sense of confidence.Admittedly, travel for purposes other than tourism might eventually decline, as the business world becomes increasingly dependent on the Internet. Products that can be reduced to digital bits and bites can now be shipped anywhere in the world without any human travel. And the volume of business-related trips will surely decline in the future, as teleconferencing becomes more readily available. To the extent that business travelers play tourist during business trips, tourism will decline as a result. Yet it would be absurd to claim that these phenomena alone will render tourism obsolete.In sum, while business travel might decline as a result of global connectivity, tourism is likely to increase as a result. Global connectivity, especially the Internet, can only pique our curiosity about other peoples, cultures, and places. Tourism helps satisfy that curiosity, as well as satisfying a fundamental human need to experience new things first-hand and to explore the world.GRE考试写作范文IssueHigh-speed electronic communications media, such as electronic mail and television, tend to prevent meaningful and thoughtful communication.Do high-speed means of communication, particularly television and computers, tend to prevent meaningful and thoughtful communication, as the speaker suggests? Although ample empirical evidence suggests so with respect to television, the answer is far less dear when it comes to communication via computers.Few would argue that since its inception broadcast television has greatly enhanced communication to the masses. The circulation of even the most widely read newspapers pales compared to the number of viewers of popular television news programs. Yet traditional television is a one-way communications medium, affording viewers no opportunity to engage those so-called talking heads in dialogue or respond. Of course, there is nothing inherent about television that prevents us from meaningful and thoughtful communication with each other. In fact, in televisions early days it was a fairly common occurrence for a family to gather around the television together for their favorite show, then afterwards discuss among themselves what they had seen and heard. Yet over time television has proven itself to serve primarily as a baby-sitter for busy parents, and as an means of escape for those who wish to avoid communicating with the people around them. Moreover, in the pursuit of profit, network executives have determined over time that the most effective uses of the medium are for fast-paced entertainment and advertising--whose messages are neither thoughtful nor meaningful.Do computers offer greater promise for thoughtful and reflective communication than television? Emphatically, yes. After all, media such as email and the Web are interactive by design. And the opportunity for two-way communication enhances the chances of meaningful and thoughtful communication. Yet their potential begs the question: Do these media in fact serve those ends? It is tempting to hasten that the answer isyes with respect to email; after are, weve all heard stories about how email has facilitated reunions of families and old friends, and newlong-distance friendships and romances. Moreover, it would seem that two-way written communication requires far more thought and reflection than verbal conversation. Nevertheless, email is often used to avoidface-to-face encounters, and in practice is used as a means of distributing quick memos. Thus on balance it appears that email serves as an impediment, not an aide, to thoughtful and reflective communication.With respect to Web-based communication, the myriad of educational sites, interactive and otherwise, is strong evidence that the Web tends to enhance, rather than prevent, meaningful communication. Distance learning courses made possible by the Web lend further credence to this assertion. Nonetheless, by all accounts it appears that the Web will ultimately devolve into a mass medium for entertainment and for e-commerce, just like traditional television. Meaningful personal interactivity is already yielding to advertising, requests for product information, buy-sell orders, and titillating adult-oriented content.Thus, on balance these high-speed electronic media do indeed tend to prevent rather than facilitate meaningful and thoughtful communication. In the final analysis, any mass medium carries the potential for uplifting us, enlightening us, and helping us to communicate with and understand one another. However, by all accounts, television has not fulfilled that potential; and whether the Web will serve us any better is ultimately up to us as a society.。