下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
Issue写作考查考生根据具体的题目要求，就一般性话题进行批判性思考的能力，以及在写作中清晰表达观点的能力。每一道Issue题目都会提出一个观点，考生可以从不同的角度展开讨论。每道Issue题目都会提出具体的写作要求。考生要做的就是根据具体的写作要求展开自己的观点并提供有说服力的例证。在真正动笔前，首先仔细阅读作文题目，明确写作要求，从不同的角度思考问题，并考虑与其相关的论点的复杂性。然后，根据自己打算展开的论点记录要点，列出用来支持自己观点的主要理由和例证。
在Issue写作中，根据题目要求对中心论点发表自己的观点非常重要。每项写作任务都会带有以下题目要求中的一种。
· 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.
· 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.
· Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
· Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
· Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
· Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.
GRE评分人在评判考生的文章时并不是在寻找“正确”的答案， GRE作文没有标准答案，关键是要看考生在写作中能否“自圆其说”，建立严密的论证体系来佐证自己的观点。
In addressing the specific task directions, a 6 response presents a cogent, well-articulated analysis of the issue and conveys meaning skillfully.
A typical response in this category:
· articulates a clear and insightful position on the issue in accordance with the assigned task
· develops the position fully with compelling reasons and/or persuasive examples
· sustains a well-focused, well-organized analysis, connecting ideas logically
· conveys ideas fluently and precisely, using effective vocabulary and sentence variety
· demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English （i.e., grammar, usage and mechanics）, but may have minor errors
In addressing the specific task directions, a 5 response presents a generally thoughtful, well-developed analysis of the issue and conveys meaning clearly.
A typical response in this category:
· presents a clear and well-considered position on the issue in accordance with the assigned task
· develops the position with logically sound reasons and/or well-chosen examples
· is focused and generally well organized, connecting ideas appropriately
· conveys ideas clearly and well, using appropriate vocabulary and sentence variety
· demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English, but may have minor errors
In addressing the specific task directions, a 4 response presents a competent analysis of the issue and conveys meaning with acceptable clarity.
A typical response in this category:
· presents a clear position on the issue in accordance with the assigned task
· develops the position with relevant reasons and/or examples
· is adequately focused and organized
· demonstrates sufficient control of language to express ideas with reasonable clarity
· generally demonstrates control of the conventions of standard written English, but may have some errors
A 3 response demonstrates some competence in addressing the specific task directions, in analyzing the issue and in conveying meaning, but is obviously flawed.
A typical response in this category exhibits ONE OR MORE of the following characteristics:
· is vague or limited in addressing the specific task directions and in presenting or developing a position on the issue
· is weak in the use of relevant reasons or examples or relies largely on unsupported claims
· is poorly focused and/or poorly organized
· has problems in language and sentence structure that result in a lack of clarity
· contains occasional major errors or frequent minor errors in grammar, usage or mechanics that can interfere with meaning
A 2 response largely disregards the specific task directions and/or demonstrates serious weaknesses in analytical writing.
A typical response in this category exhibits ONE OR MORE of the following characteristics:
· is unclear or seriously limited in addressing the specific task directions and in presenting or developing a position on the issue
· provides few, if any, relevant reasons or examples in support of its claims
· is unfocused and/or disorganized
· has serious problems in language and sentence structure that frequently interfere with meaning
· contains serious errors in grammar, usage or mechanics that frequently obscure meaning
A 1 response demonstrates fundamental deficiencies in analytical writing.
A typical response in this category exhibits ONE OR MORE of the following characteristics:
· provides little or no evidence of understanding the issue
· provides little or no evidence of the ability to develop an organized response
· has severe problems in language and sentence structure that persistently interfere with meaning
· contains pervasive errors in grammar, usage or mechanics that result in incoherence
A typical response in this category is off topic （i.e., provides no evidence of an attempt to address the assigned topic）, is in a foreign language, merely copies the topic, consists of only keystroke characters or is illegible or nonverbal.
解读：
A. insightful=Data Mining， 所谓有深刻洞察力的文章，对于GRE这种思辨写作来说，对题目的核心概念进行背后直接含义或者间接关联含义的挖掘是很重要也是必要的。例如GRE作文题库有一道题目考查“我们是关注事物的差异性重要还是相似性重要”，similarity 和 difference两个词大家都认识，很多同学也能够像写TOEFL作文一样写作，但是在GRE作文中体现insightful的做法就是学会通过现象看本质。事物的相似和差异两个熟悉概念的背后，体现的是paradox，即矛盾的思想，矛盾的思想就是学会观察相似事物的差异性，学会理解差异事物的相似性，这就是分析事物的科学辩证的视角。因此这道题目真正考查的其实是“看待事物的方法论”，而不是真的让你选择“哪一个重要”。
B. position不等于attitude， 在GRE issue写作里，立场不等于态度，这是GRE作文考查逻辑辩证点的又一体现。很多GRE高分作文都要对一个事物的利弊两方面进行具体分析，而不进行倾向性的态度传递。这样做是完全可以的，而且体现了思考的全面性，也符合事物的基本规律：任何事物都具有两面性。TOEFL写作非常强调态度的传达，倾向哪个的选择，但是GRE作文强调分析事物的方法论，强调论证过程。
C. in accordance with=on topic， 切题的论述，论点和论据、论证要和题目要求相关、一致。很多同学认为一致容易做到，其实这个评分点和前面讲到的insightful一脉相承，因为很多时候GRE issue作文题目含义的深度导致了不是每一道题目的含义都很容易从字面意思理解。很多题目的“隐藏逻辑”和“隐藏含义”要求大家要想切题，首先必须准确地“审题”。
解读：
A. reasons=reasoning， GRE作文强调的是推理，而推理的过程远远重要于推理的结果，因为考官正是通过审视你的推理过程来判断你的逻辑陈述能力的，在GRE作文里，解释Why比给出What要重要得多。因此考生在写GRE作文的时候应该把重点放在分析推理上，而不是下各类小结论或者大结论。
B. persuasive=relevant， 在GRE作文里，无论举什么类型的例子，都要有说服力。所谓说服力，就是和你的论证要相关，无论是国外的例子还是国内的例子，相关的例子才是考官要求的和论证匹配的内容。
解读：
A. analysis 就是强调论述过程、分析过程，而不是下结论。
B. logically 大家都知道意思是“有逻辑地”，但是在GRE作文里的逻辑包含两层逻辑：形式逻辑和内容逻辑。形式逻辑就是指文章的起承转合的逻辑信号，它们连接不同的内容，让你的文章内容显得有层次。内容逻辑就是文章的含义推导过程，其实就是内在的论证逻辑，和我们前面解读的reasons以及analysis是高度一致相关的。
解读：
A. effective 指的是考生不需要在GRE作文中使用难词、长词，这里“有效的用词”就是指“恰当的”用词。所谓恰当就要考虑用词的语境，GRE作文在用词方面的要求和学术论文非常接近，在恰当的场景用恰当的词汇清晰准确地表达含义，这才是你要做的。真正的写作高手和高分选手都是用简单但准确的用词、用语表达非常严谨同时深刻的含义的。
B. variety 指用词、用句的多样性和变化性，这也是ETS考官非常看重的，因为它体现了考生的语言的丰富性以及语言使用的技巧。
解读：
standard written English 即标准的书面英文。很多口语性的表达是不合适用在GRE这种准学术型的分析性写作里的，因此大家对于标准书面英文的语法、用词、文法需要注意并多加练习。在句式上，要长短句相结合，被动句与主动句相结合，肯定句与否定句相结合，保证全文句式多样，长短不一，增添文章的可读性。
在Issue写作中，根据题目要求对中心论点发表自己的观点非常重要。每项写作任务都会带有以下指令中的一种。
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.
指令分析：
这条指令所对应的Issue 题目一般是陈述型的statement。考生可以表达同意或者不同意，也可以用“让步+转折”的结构进行两面分析。但是核心在于，在论述的过程中，一定要考虑有什么方法以及在什么条件变化的情况下，可以让这个statement的对错性改变或者立场改变。
针对这类指令，需考虑以下问题：
（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？我如何攻击它们？
（3）正反兼顾地体现立场。
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.
指令分析：
这条指令和第一条指令有些类似，主要区别在于，这个指令强调的是recommendation“建议”，一般来说，也是针对一种行为或者措施进行陈述。而在论述当中，一定要分析circumstances，也就是大环境对这个行为或者措施的效果的影响。例如，明确分析在什么情况下这样的建议可能无法达到预期的效果。
针对这类指令，需考虑以下问题：
（1）题目中的政策或建议可行性如何？实施的好处何在？
（2）如果实施题目中的建议，是否会导致同初始目的相矛盾或荒谬的结果？
（3）有无替代或折中的办法？
指令 3：
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
指令分析：
这条指令主要是对一个声称或者主张的讨论，重点在于在论述中要提出与考生自己观点对立的理由及例子并进行分析，也就是从对立面反证自己的观点。
针对这类指令，需考虑以下问题：
（1）题目中的主张基于什么标准？其合理性何在？
（2）与此主张形成挑战或对立的理由或例证是什么？
（3）如何修正原题中的不合理之处？
指令 4：
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented above.
指令分析：
这条指令所针对的题目本身肯定存在两个观点，那么考生在论述时，要指出哪个观点跟自己的观点比较接近，而且在论述过程中，必须对题中的两种观点都进行分析。
针对这类指令，需考虑以下问题：
（1）题目中的政策或建议可行性如何？实施的好处何在？
（2）如果实施题目中的建议，是否会导致同初始目的相矛盾或荒谬的结果？
（3）有无替代或折中的办法？
指令 5：
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim AND the reason on which that claim is based.
指令分析：
这条指令是典型的完全开放式的立论，没有严格的要求边界，可以开发式自由发挥，但是依然不能脱离“自圆其说”的核心原则。
针对这类指令，需考虑以下问题：
（1）这个题目中的原因是否成立？
（2）假设这个原因成立，从它是否能推出原题中的结果或主张？
指令 6：
Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy above and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.
指令分析：
这条指令是针对某个政策，而且考生在论述过程中，必须涉及实施这个政策可能带来的诸多效果，对效果进行分析，从而推出政策本身的好坏。
针对这类指令，需考虑以下问题：
（1）题目中的政策或建议可行性如何？实施的好处何在？
（2）如果实施题目中的政策，是否会导致同初始目的相矛盾或荒谬的结果？
（3）有无替代或折中的办法？