新GREIssue官方范文

新GRE _Issue模板指令分析指令1：Write a response in which you 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.首先，这个introduction所对应的issue题目一定是个陈述型的statement。

做题者可以同意或反对，或者参半。

在论述过程中，一定要考虑到有什么方法，可以让这个statement的对错性改变。

1.题目中的事实或观点是否在特定的条件下成立？如果是，我如何认可它们？2.其不成立的条件是什么？我如何抵御它们？3.正反兼顾的体现立场。

指令2：Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.这个要求和第一种基本雷同，同一道题目，基本上，两种introduction都可能出现，主要区别在于，这个强调的是recommendation，也就是建议，一般来说，也是针对一种行为，或者措施的陈述事实的句子。

gre issue写作模板GRE Issue写作模板可以帮助考生快速构建文章结构，以下是一个常用的模板：一、开头段（Introduction）重述题目：用简洁的语言重述题目，并指出自己的立场。

例如：The issue of _____（主题）has been widely debated. In this essay， I will argue that ____（自己的立场）.提出背景：介绍与主题相关的背景信息，为下文的论述打下基础。

例如：Recently， there has been increasing concern about ____（主题）due to ____（相关背景）.二、主体段1（Body Paragraph 1）提出分论点1：说明支持自己立场的第一个原因或论据。

例如：Firstly， ____（分论点1）.举例或解释：用具体的例子或解释来支持分论点。

例如：For instance， ____（具体例子或解释）.三、主体段2（Body Paragraph 2）提出分论点2：说明支持自己立场的第二个原因或论据。

例如：Secondly， ____（分论点2）.举例或解释：用具体的例子或解释来支持分论点。

例如：To illustrate this point， ____（具体例子或解释）.四、主体段3（Body Paragraph 3）承认对方观点：承认与自己立场相反的观点，并简要说明其合理性。

例如：It is true that some people argue that ____（对方观点）. However， this view is not entirely convincing.反驳对方观点：用具体的例子或解释来反驳对方观点，并强调自己立场的正确性。

例如：For example， ____（反驳的例子或解释）. Therefore，my argument stands.五、结尾段（Conclusion）重申立场：重申自己的立场，并总结上文论述。

英语考试作文新GRE写作ISSUE题库中英文对照及分类整理之法律保护类虽然新GRE考试的官方机构ETS在官方上公开了写作部分的题库，但由于其数量众多，考生要全部练习一遍相当费时费力。

对于官方题库，如何使用才能最大程度的节约复习时间提高复习效率?为大家整理了其中ISSUE类作文题目，并根据编号进行了中英文对照和分类，希望能对各位考生的作文复习有所帮助。

新GRE考试ISSUE题库中英对照分类整理(法律类题目)21 Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places.法律应该根据不同的环境、时期和地点而足够灵活。

65 Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.每个社会成员都有责任遵守公正的法律，违抗不公平的法律。

新GRE考试ISSUE题库中英对照分类整理(保护类题目)题目编号：10/125/148题目内容：保留原生态地区10 Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.国家应该通过法令保护任何存留的原生态地区保持原状，即便这些地区可以用作商业开发。

125 Some people claim that a nation’s government should preserve its wilderness areas in their natural state. Others argue that these areas should be developed for potential economic gain.有些人认为，国家应该通过法令保护任何存留的原生态地区保持原状。

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.。

ISSUE新题库翻译&重题合并&范文GRE Analytical Writing ISSUE Essay T opic - 003 / 035 / 037Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.教育机构有责任劝阻学生不要从事不太可能成功的科学研究。

Position:有保留的反对不同意作者的观点，人应该按照自己的理想和兴趣选择自己的学习方向；但是有些时候教师的建议，也是值得考虑的。

1、由于老师不可能对每个人的性格特点都了解清楚，所以对一个学生未来职业的选择的建议也不一定是客观的。

2、就算老师很了解一个人的特点，但是人是会变的。

通过在学习过程，不断改变自己，很有可能把那么自己不是原来不是很擅长但是很喜欢的工作做好。

3、但是，老师毕竟经验比较丰富，做出的判断也往往是合适的。

所以，我们应该多听听老师的意见，然后加上自己的思考，作出自己的选择。

General statement:教育机构对学生的未来负有责任，应该尽可能的去帮助学生取得成功。

Thesis statement:帮助学生取得成功是教育机构的责任。

但是教育机构在帮助学生的过程中，应该更多的考虑学生自己对兴趣和对未来的选择，提出建议而不是力劝学生离开他们认为不可能成功的领域。

Development: 教育机构对学生的未来富有责任。

教育机构很难以区分某些学生在某些领域是不太可能取得成功的。

某些领域，可能目前来看不是成功的领域，但是若干年以后可能成功。

应该更多的考虑学生自己的兴趣。

兴趣才是成功的关键。

Giving a few second on interesting matter is better the spending an hours for boring issue”. It’s human’s tendency to work attentively and alertly on the issue which is of his interest and keeping him self away from annoying topic, even if it has been suggested and advised by many people. Interest and likeness of person matters a lot in his life.Every one likes to work in the field of interest and if we talk about students then they prefer the subject and faculty of their interest. In case of some students, they get confused in deciding that what is of their interest and what they choose for they expertisment. Availability of many option leads to this short of situation.After completing the secondary school education, it become very tough for students to select their main subject as a career option. As in their previous study there may be more then one subjects in which they are interested. So in this stage many influences effects on their thinking. What their colleagues are selecting as their field of further study, advices from parents and other relatives etc. take them to divert from their field of interest and catch up in any regardless field.This is where the Educational institution can come in picture and helps out the future of the country. Teachers and professors in education institutes has better vision to understand the interest of the students and guide them in proper way. And it has been reviewed that students consider their teachers advices more compare to other.Every one knows that “youth is the power of country”. To guide them in proper way is essential requirement for each country. If one intelligent student enters in the filed in which he should not be then he can not bring out from that situation and put him in proper place. In that case he works, but not with heartand interest. And this mistake become mater of repentance for him for whole life. And no gain in the development of the country become possible from him.So it is crucial for Educational institutes to help out student to lead them in appropriate future. There must be separate department in each institute to handle this stuff of guiding the students with highly qualified teachers. They should arrange Vocational guidance session to let the student to understand the filed of their interest and get information about there likeness. They must set arrangement to keep the students from being away from influences and listening words off heart towards their likeness. It also requires to give training to the teachers for this purpose.Without Acquiring the youth of country in proper manner, progress of the country is not possible And Educational institutes are the main source to lead the student in the field of their interest and likeness. So they have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.GRE Analytical Writing ISSUE Essay T opic - 006 / 014 / 096 / 116A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.在进行大学教育以前，国家应该要求所有的学生学习统一的国家课程。

GRE考试写作范文：Issue142第1篇：GRE考试写作范文：Issue 142thewell-beingofasocietyisenhancedwhenmanyofitspeoplequestionautho rity.thespeakerassertsthatwhenmanypeoplequestionauthorityso cietyisbetteroff.whileicontendthatcertainformsofdisobedienceca nbeharmfultoanysociety,iagreewiththespeakerotherwise.infact,i wouldgofurtherbycontendingthatsocietyswell-beingdependsonchallengestoauthority,andthatwhenitestopolitic alandlegalauthority,thesechallengesmustefrommanypeople.admittedly,whenmanypeoplequestionauthoritysomesocietal harmmightresult,evenifasocialcauseisworthy.massresistancetoau thoritycanescalatetoviolentpr未完，继续阅读 >第2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。

各位考生在备考时多看此类范文不仅能够拓宽语言能力，也能拓宽逻辑思维。

希望对大家有帮助。

high-speedelectronicmunicationsmedia,suchaselectronicmailandtelev ision,tendtopreventmeaningfulandthoughtfulmunication.dohigh-speedmeansofmunication,particularlytelevisionandputers,tendto preventmeaningfulandthoughtfulmunication,asthespeakersugg ests?althoughampleempiricalevidencesuggestssowithrespecttot elevision,theanswerisfarlessdearwhenitestomunicationviaputers.fewwouldarguethatsinceitsinceptionbroadcasttelevisionhas greatlyenhancedmunicationtothemasses.th未完，继续阅读 >第3篇：gre考试issue写作优秀范例题目：althoughinnovationssuchasvideo,puters,andtheinterseemto offerschoolsimprovedmethodsforinstructingstudents,thesetechn ologiesalltoooftendistractfromreallearning.尽管诸如电视、电脑和互联网这样的发明似乎给学校教育提供了进步的手段，但是所有这些技术往往也是在偏离真正的学习。

57 The main benefit of the study of history is to dispel the illusion that people living now are significantly different from people who lived in earlier times.I concede that basic human nature has not changed over recorded history, and that coming to appreciate this fact by studying history can be beneficial in how we live as a society. However, I disagree with the statement in two respects. First, in other ways there are marked differences between people of different time periods, and learning about those differences can be just as beneficial. Second, studying history carries other equally important benefits aswell.I agree with the statement insofar as through the earnest study of human history we learn that basic human nature---our desires and motives, as well as our fears and foibles---has remained constant over recorded time. And through this realization we can benefit as a society in dealing more effectively with our enduring social problems. History teaches us, for example, that it is a mistake to attempt to legislate morality, because humans by nature resist having their moral choices forced upon them. History also teaches us that our major social ills are here to stay, because they spring from human nature. For instance, crime and violence have troubled almost every society; all manner of reform, prevention, and punishment have been tried with only partial success. Today, the trend appears to be away from reform toward a "tough-on-crime" approach, to no avail. However beneficial it might be to appreciate the unchanging nature of humankind, it is equally beneficial to understand and appreciate significant differences between peoples of different time periods----in terms of cultural mores, customs, values, and ideals. For example, the ways in which societies have treated women, ethnic minorities, animals, and the environment have evolved over the course of human history. Society's attitudes toward artistic expression, literature, and scientific and intellectual inquiry are also in a continual state ofevolution. And, perhaps the most significant sort of cultural evolution involves spiritual beliefs, which have always spun themselves out, albeit uneasily, through clashes between established traditions and more enlightened viewpoints. A heightened awareness of all these aspects of cultural evolution help us formulate informed, reflective, and enlightened values and idealsfor ourselves; and our society dearly benefits as a result.Another problem with the statement is that it undervalues other, equally important benefits of studying history. Learning about the courage and tenacity of history's great explorers, leaders, and other achievers inspires us to similar accomplishments, or at least to face own fears as we travel through life. Learning about the mistakes of past societies helpsus avoid repeating them. For instance, the world is slowly coming to learn by studying history that political states whose authority stems from suppression of individual freedoms invariably fall of their own oppressive weight. And, learning about one's cultural heritage, or roots, fosters a healthy sense of self and cultivates an interest in preserving art, literature, and other cultural artifacts--all of which serve to enrich society.To sum up, history informs us that basic human nature has not changed, and this history lesson can help us understand and be more tolerant of one another, as well as develop compassionate responses to the problems and failings of others. Yet, history has other lessons to offer us as well. It helps us formulate informed values and ideals for ourselves, inspires us to great achievements, points out mistakes to avoid, and helps us appreciate our cultural heritage.这两句话说明 作者要论述的内容重点 是学习历史的好处而不是人们到底有 没有变化这篇文章有两个切入点：1. 过去和现在的人们到底一样还是不一样2. 学习历史的好处是不是仅仅是这个虽然理论上讲，这两个方面都可以，但是我建议大家可以侧重论述过去和现在的人们是不是一样的这段是范围拆分，证明从人性和社会两个方面 来讲，过去和现在都 没有什么区别点名了学习历史的其他 好处：认识到不同这段大部分内容都是 在讨论不同，但是没有涉及知道这些不同的 意义；如果中心句可以 写成学习历史可以让我们感受到社会的 进步会更好一点的 增强的意识，这个词组用的很好学习历史不仅可以 了解别人的成就，还 可以激励自己，这个中心句最好位于句首这个句式很简单，但是表意很清晰整体看这篇文章思路非常流畅，并且有很充分的理论说明但是在我们实际的考试过程中，这么缜密的理论推理不是每个人都可以做到的；那我们就可以使用一些具体的名人事例来支持自己的观点。

GRE作文5.5分轻松备考：ISSUE习作范文（4）IC： ISSUE234 - "Most people prefer restrictions and regulations to absolute freedom of choice, although they would probably deny such a preference."WORDS： 550 TIME： 0：45：00 DATE： 2007-7-31Freedom, one of the nicest 70 English words, always suggests a right of everyone in a democratic society. When it comes to the freedom of choice, there are always a host of different opinions held by different individuals in different fields. Do most people prefer restrictions and regulations to absolute freedom of choice? Admittedly, every person is willing to have the right to pursue his/her basic freedom, which reflects the nature of a democratic society. However, on many occasions people tend to one can never expect absolute freedom of choice without a single restriction or regulation. In fact, freedom is a relative concept and we should pursue freedom of choice with certain limits that cannot be obviated.As for the basic freedom, everybody has the right to pursue it. UYou can choose your hairstyle, the color of your shirt; you can decide which restaurant to have lunch and what kind of laptop you will buy. And women should have theirright to care about dress and to go to work, as well as children should have their right to play together and to go to the same school. For all black people, as Martin Luther King, the great black civil rights leader said, the basic freedom to choose to stop all discrimination should not be deprived. History is always replete with such examples.UActually, in a democratic society, no one could deny your pursuit of your basic freedom of choice in your life.However, nowadays everything in every aspect is new and complex; modern societies tend to have been making it increasingly difficult to make choices. UConsider that you are in a supermarket, in front of a host of commodities that are all colorfully wrapped and as a result, and you find that it is too hard to decide which to buy;U Uanother question makes you at a loss when you think over which school you should send your children to study in U; Uand still, even when you do not feel quiet yourself, you may have to takeinto account that which hospital you should go to U. All kinds of difficult choices are all around us that we need something to help make better choices. No wonder that most people prefer restrictions and regulations to absolute freedom of choice.Indeed, absolute freedom of choice might lead to chaos to our democratic societies. UWithout certain restrictions and regulations, how can you imagine that every person would behave himself/herself and there would not be any malefaction and how can you imagine that all the organizations of society would operate smoothly and normally? U UAs a matter of fact, even in the most democratic countries nowadays, laws and other restrictions are part and parcel of the society and even under so many laws and regulations there are still a large number of crimes such as thefts, plunders and soforth.U Actually, absolute freedom can never exist. In light of this, it would be regarded absurd to hold the proposalthat there should not be any restrictions or regulations in a democratic society.In summary, to pursue the basic freedom usually suggests a right that should be enjoyed by everyone in democratic societies. However, even in the most democratic society absolute freedom, as a matter of fact, can never exist, let alone in any other society. Wise people should enjoy their right of pursuing the basic freedom of choice, yet they should act within certain restrictions and regulations that can never be ignored.。

GREAWA范文Issue整合GRE的写作部分对于不少考生来说都挺头痛的，今日我搜集了一些GRE AWA范文,下面我就和大家共享，来观赏一下吧。

GRE AWA范文——IssueGovernment must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive,because it is primarily in cities that a nations cultural traditions are preserved and generated.The speakers claim is actually threeflod:(1)ensuing the survival of large cities and ,in turn,that of cultural traditions ,is a proper function of government;(2) government support is needed for our large dries and cultural traditions to survive and thrive;and (3) cultural traditions are preserved and generated primarily in our large cities.I strongly disagree with all three claims.First of all, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a proper role of government.Admittedly, certain objectives ,such as public health and safety,are so essential to the survival of large dries and of nations that government has a duty to ensure that they are met.However,these objectives should not extend tenuously to preserving cultural traditions.Moreover,government cannot possibly play an evenhanded role as cultural patron.Inadequate resources call for restrictions,priorities,and choices.It is unconscionable to relegatenomative decisions as to which cities or cultural traditions are more deserving,valuable,or needy to a few legislators, whose notions about culture might be misguided or unrepresentive of those of the general populace.Also,legislators are all too likely to make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of their home towns and states,or of lobbyists with the most money and influence.Secondly,subsidizing cultural traditions is not a necessary role of government.A lack of private funding might justify an exception.However,cultural-by which i chiefly mean the fine arts-has always depended primarily on the patronage of private individuals and businesses, and not on the government . The Medics ,a powerful banking family of Renaissance iltaly,supported artists Michelangelo and Raphael,During the 20th Century the primarily source of cultural support were private foundations established by industrial magnates Carnegie, Mellon,Rockefeller and Getty.And tomorrow cultural support will come from our new technology and media moguls-including the likes of Ted Turner and Bill Gates, In short,philanthropy is alive and well today,and so government need not intervene to ensure that our cultural traditions are preserved and promoted.Finally,and perhaps most importantly ,the speaker unfairly suggests that large cities serve as the primarily breeding ground and sanctuaries for a nations cultual traditions.Today a nations distinct culturaltradition-its folk art,crafts,traditional songs,customs and ceremonies-burgon instead in small towns and rural regions.Admittedly, our cities do serve as our centers for high art; big cities are where we deposit,display,and boast the worlds preeminent art ,architecture,and music,But big-city culture has little to do any-more with one nations distinct cultural traditions.After all,modern cities are essentially mutilcultural stew pots; accordingly, by assisting large cities a government is actually helping to create a gobal culture as well to subsidize the traditions of other nations cultures.In the final analysis,government cannot phiosophically justify assisting large cities for the purpose of either promoting or preserving the nations cultural traditions; nor is government assistance necessary toward these ends.Moreover ,assisting large cities would have little bearing on our distinct cultural traditions ,which abide elsewhere.GRE AWA 范文——IssueAll nations should help support the development of a global university to engage students in the process of solving the worlds most persistent social problems.I agree that it would serve the interest of all nations to establish a global university for the purpose of solving the worlds most persistent social problems.Nevertheless ,such a university poses certain risks which all participating nations must be careful to minimize -or risk defeatingthe universitys purpose.One compelling argument in favor of a golbal university has to do with fact that its faculty and students would bring diverse cultural and educational perspectives to the problems they seek to solve.It seems to me that nations can only benefit from a global university where sutdents learn ways in which other nations address certain soda problems-successfully or not. It might be tempting to think that an overly diversified academic community would impede communication among students and faculty. However,in my view any such concerns are unwarranted,especially considering the growing awareness of other peoples and cultures which the mass media,and especially the internet, have created .Moreover,many basic principle used to solve enduring social problems know no national boundaries;thus a useful insight or discovery can come from a researcher or student from any nation.Another compelling argument for a global university involves the increasingly global nature of certain problems.Consider,for instance, the depletion of atmospheric ozone,which has wanned the Earth to the point that it threatens the very survival of the human species.Also ,we are now learning that dear-cutting the worlds rainforests can set into motion a chain of animal extinction that threatens the delicate balance upon which all animas-including humans -depend .Also consider that a financial crisis-or a political crisis or natural disaster in one country canspell trouble for foreign companies,many of which are now multination in that they rely on the labor forces,equpment,and raw material of other nations.Environmental,economic,and political problems such as these all carry grave social consequences-increased crime,unemployment,insurrection,hunger,and so forth.Solving these problems requires global cooperation-which a global university can faciliate.Notwithstanding the foregoing reasons why a global university would help solve many of our most pressing social problems,the establishment of such a university poses certain problems of its own which must be addressed in order that the university can achieve its objectives.First, participant nations would need to overcome a myriad of administrative and political impediments .All nations would need to agree on which problems demand the universitys attention and resources,which areas of academic research are worthwhile,as well as agreeing on policies and procedures for making ,enforcing ,and amending these decisions. Query whether a functional global university is politically feasible,given that sovereign nations naturally wish to advance their own agendas.A second problems inherent in establishing a global university involes the risk that certain intellectual and research avenues would become officially sanctioned while others of equal or greater potentialvalue would be discouraged ,or perhaps even proscribed .A telling example of the inherent danger of setting and enforcing official research priorities involves the Soviet governments attempts during the 1920s to not only control the direction and the goals of its scientists research but also to distort the outcome of that research -ostensibly for the greatest good of the greatest number of people.Not surprisely,during this time period no significant scientific advances accurred under the auspices of the Soviet government.The Soviet lesson provides an important caveat to administrators of a global university; Significant progress in solving pressing social problems requires an open mind to all sound ideas,approaches,and theories-krespecitve of the ideologies of their propoents.A final problems with a global university is that the worlds preeminent intellectual talent might be drawn to the sorts of problems to which the university is charged with solving,while parochial social problem go unsolved.While this is not reason enough not to establish a global university,it nevertheless is a concern that university administrators and participant nations must be aware of in allocating resources and intellectual talent.To sum up,given the increasingly global nature or the worlds social problems,and the escalating costs of addressing these problems, a global university makes good sense.And , since all nations would have acommon interest in seeing this endeavor succeed,my intuition is that participating nations would be able to overcome whatever procedual and political obstacles that might stand in the way of success .As long as each nation is careful not to neglect its own unique social problems,and as long as the universitys administartors are careful to remain open-mind about the legitimacy and potential value of various avenues of intellectual inquury and research ,a global university might go along way toward solving many of the worlds pressing social problems.GRE AWA 范文——IssueMany of the worlds lesser-known languages are being lost as fewer and fewer people speak them.The government of countries in which these languages are spoken should act to prevent such languages from becoming extinct.The speaker asserts that government of countries where lesser-known languages are spoken should intervene to prevent these languages from becoming extinct.I agree in so far as a countrys indigenous and distinct languages should not be abandoned and forgot ten altogether.At some point ,however ,i think cultural identity should yield to the more practical considerations of day-to-day life in a global society.On the one hand,the indigenous language of any geographical region is part-and-parcel of the cultural heritage of the regions natives.Inmy observation we humans have a basic psychological need for individual identity,which we define by way of our memebership in distinct cultural groups.A culture defines itself in various ways-by its unique traditions ,rituals ,mores attitudes and beliefs ,but especially language.Therefore, when a peoples language becomes extinct the result is a diminished sense of pride ,dignity ,and self-worth.One need look no further than continental Europe to observe how people cling tenaciously to their distinct languages,despire the fact that there is no practical need for them anymore. And on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, the French Canadians stubbornly insist on French as their official language,for the sole purpose of preserbing their distinct cultural heritage.Even where no distinct language exists,peolple will invent one to gain a sense of cultural identity ,as the emergence of the distinct Ebonic cant among todays Afircan American aptly illustrates .In short.people resist language assimilation because of a basic human need to be part of a distinct cultural group.Another important reason to prevent the extinction of a language is to preserve the distinct ideas that only that particular language can convey.Certain Naive American an Oriental language,for instance,contain words symbolizing spiritual and other abstract concepts that only these cultures embrace.Thus,in some cases to lose a language would be to abandon cherished beliefs and ideas that can be conveyed only throughtlanguage.On the other hand,in todays high-tech world of satellite communications.global mobility,and especially the Internet,language,language barriers serve primarily to impede cross-cultural communication,which in turn impedes international commerce and nguage barriers naturally breed misunderstanding,a certain distrust and ,as a result,discord and even war among nations.Moreover,in my view the extinction of all but a few major language is inexorable-as supported by the fact that the Internet has adopted English as its official language.Thus by intervening to preserve a dying language a government might be deploying its resources to fight a losing battle,rather than to combat more pressing social problems-such as hunger ,homelessness,disease and ignorance-that plague nearly every society today.In sum, preserving indigenous language is ,admittedly ,a worthy goal;maintaining its own distinct language affords a people a sense of pride,dignity and self-worth.Moreover,by preserving languages we honor a peoples heritage,enhance our understanding of history,and preserve certain ideas that only some languages properly convey.Nevertheless,the economic and political drawbacks of languages barriers outweigh the benefits of preserving a dying language.In the final analysis,government should devote its time and resources elsewhere,and leave it to thepeople themselves to take whatever steps are needed to preserve their own dinstinct languagesGRE AWA 范文——IssueAlthough many people think that the luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life are entirely harmless, they in fact,prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals.Do modern luxuries serve to undermine our true strenghth and indepedence as individuals? The speaker believes so ,and i tend to agree.Consider the automobile,for example .Most people consider the automobile a necessarity rather than a luxury;yet it is for this very reason that the automobile so aptly supports the speakers point.To the extent that we depend on cars as crutches,they prevent us from becoming truly independent and strong in character as individuals.Consider first the effect of the automobile on our independence as individuals.In some respects the automobiles serves to enhances such independence .For example,cars make it possible for people in isolated and depressed areas without public transportation to become more independent by pursing gainful employment outside their communities.And teenagers discover that owning a car,or even borrowing one on occasion,affords them a needed sense of independence from their parents.However,cars have diminished our independence in a number ofmore significant respects.Weve grown dependent on our cars for commuting to work .We rely on them like crutches for short trips to the corner store, and for carting our children to and from school.Moreover,the car has become a means not only to our assorted physical destinations but also to the attainment of our socioeconomic golas,insofar as the automobile has becoming a symbol of status.In fact ,in my observation many,if not most, working professionals willingly undermine their financial security for the sake of being seen driving this years new SUV might afford a person a feeling and appearance of strength ,or machismo.But this feeling has nothing to do with a persons true character.In contrast,there is a certain strength of character that comes with eschewing modern conviences such as cars,and with the knowledge that one is contributing to a cleaner and quieter environment,a safer neighborhood,and arguably a more genteel society.Also ,alternative modes of transportation such as bicycling and walking are forms of exercise which require and promote the virtue of self-discipline.Finally ,in my observation people who have forsaken the automobile spend more time at home,where they are more inclined to prepare and even grow their own food ,and to spend more time with their families.The former enhances ones independence; the latter enhances the integrity of ones values and the strength of ones family.In sum up ,the automobile helps illustrate that when a luxury becomes a necessity it can sap our independence and strength as individuals.Perhaps our society is better off , on balance,with such luxuries; after all, the automobile industry has created countless jobs,raised our standard of living ,and made the world more interesting .However ,by becoming slaves to the automobile we trade off a certain independence and inner strength.GRE AWA范文Issue。

Present your perspective on the issue below, using relevant reasons and/or examples to support your views.Issue 1"We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own."; disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning."生词：undue discord 过分的对峙impede 抑制counterproductive 适得其反bouts 较量vie 针锋相对combatants 参战者，争斗者predispositions 倾向paleontology 考古学preclude 排除proviso 附文dispassionate 平心静气正文Do we learn more from people whose ideas we share in common than from those whose ideas contradict ours? The speaker claims so, for the reason that disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning. I concede that undue discord can impede learning. Otherwise, in my view we learn far more from discourse and debate with those whose ideas we oppose than from people whose ideas are in accord with our own.Admittedly, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counterproductive to learning. For supporting examples one need look no further than a television set. On today's typical television or radio talk show, disagreement usually manifests itself in meaningless rhetorical bouts and shouting matches, during which opponents vie to have their own message heard, but have little interest either in finding common ground with or in acknowledging the merits of the opponent's viewpoint. Understandably, neither the combatants nor the viewers learn anything meaningful. In fact, these battles only serve to reinforce the predispositions and biases of all concerned. The end result is that learning is impeded. Disagreement can also inhibit learning when two opponents disagree on fundamental assumptions needed for meaningful discourse and debate. For example, a student of paleontology learns little about the evolution of an animal species under current study by debating with an individual whose religious belief system precludes the possibility of evolution to begin with. And, economics and finance students learn little about the dynamics of a laissez-faire system by debating with a socialist whose view is that a centralized power shouldcontrol all economic activity.Aside from the foregoing two provisos, however, I fundamentally disagree with the speaker's claim. Assuming common ground between two rational and reasonable opponents willing to debate on intellectual merits, both opponents stand to gain much from that debate.Indeed it is primarily through such debate that human knowledge advances, whether at the personal, community, or global level. At the personal level, by listening to their parents' rationale for their seemingly oppressive rules and policies teenagers can learn how certain behaviors naturally carry certain undesirable consequences. At the same time, by listening to their teenagers concerns about autonomy and about peer pressures parents can learn the valuable lesson that effective parenting and control are two different things. At the community level, through dispassionate dialogue an environmental activist can come to understand the legitimate economic concerns of those whose jobs depend on the continued profitable operation of a factory. Conversely, the latter might stand to learn much about the potential public health price to be paid by ensuring job growth and a low unemployment rate. Finally, at the global level, two nations with opposing political or economic interests can reach mutually beneficial agreements by striving to understand the other's legitimate concerns for its national security, its political sovereignty, the stability of its economy and currency, and so forth.In sum, unless two opponents in a debate are each willing to play on the same field and by the same rules, I concede that disagreement can impede learning. Otherwise, reasoned discourse and debate between people with opposing viewpoints is the very foundation upon which human knowledge advances. Accordingly, on balance the speaker is fundamentally correct.。