GRE考試評分標準詳細說明

2018/03/09 作者:小貴貴

  學為貴GRE考試培訓-北京GRE培訓機構項目部提供:GRE考試評分標準詳細說明。


  GRE寫作Issue滿分評分標準解讀


  In addressing the specific task directions, a 6 response presents a cogent, well-articulated examination of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.


  A typical paper in this category exhibits the following characteristics:


  1.articulates a clear and insightful position on the issue in accordance with the assigned task


  2.develops the position fully with compelling reasons and/or persuasive examples


  3.sustains a well-focused, well-organized analysis, connecting ideas logically


  4.conveys ideas fluently and precisely, using effective vocabulary and sentence variety


  5.demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English(i.e., grammar, usage and mechanics), but may have minor errors。


  標準解讀


  要點 1:


  articulates a clear and insightful position on the issue in accordance with the assigned task


  關鍵詞:insightful ,position,in accordance with


  1. insightful即Data Mining(數據挖掘)。


  GRE寫作強調思辨,挖掘題目的核心概念十分必要。 例如GRE作文題庫中有一道題目:事物的差異性重要還是相似性重要? “insightful”的分析應當是通過similarity 和 difference的現象看到背后所體現的本質--矛盾(paradox)的思想。 具體來說就是要學會觀察相似事物的差異性,以及差異事物的相似性,辯證地分析事物。 因此本題真正考查的是“看待事物的方法論”, 而非簡單的選擇“哪一個重要”。


  2. position


  在GRE issue寫作里,position不等于attitude,即立場不等于態度。 這又是GRE作文中對于邏輯辯證點的考查。 很多高分GRE文章都是對一個事物的利弊進行具體問題的具體分析,而非進行傾向性的態度傳遞,這也符合事物的基本規律,即任何事物都具有兩面性。 TOEFL獨立寫作非常強調態度的傳達,但GRE作文更強調分析事物的方法論和論證過程。


  3. in accordance with


  指切題(on-topic)的論述:論點、論據,論證要和題目要求一致,這個評分點和上文中insightful的要求一脈相承。 許多GRE issue題目的含義很難依賴字面意思來理解, 題目的“隱藏邏輯”和“隱藏含義”要求考生首先要準確地“審題”、思考題面背后的含義, 然后選擇相關的論點和論據進行支撐。


  要點 2:


  develops the position fully with compelling reasons and/or persuasive examples


  關鍵詞:reasons, persuasive


  1. reasons=reasoning


  GRE作文強調推理,并且推理的過程遠重要于推理的結果。在GRE作文里,解釋Why比給出What 更重要,因為考官是通過審視推理過程來判斷考生的邏輯陳述能力。 因此建議考生在準備GRE作文時,應把重點放在分析推理上,而不是頻頻給出各類結論。


  2. persuasive=relevant


  在GRE作文里,考生給出的所有例證都要有說服力。要有說服力,首先要與文中的論證相關。無論例證是來自西方世界還是中國,相關的例子才是和論證匹配的內容。


  要點 3:


  sustains a well-focused, well-organized analysis, connecting ideas logically


  關鍵詞:analysis, logically


  1. analysis


  GRE寫作強調論述過程與分析過程,而非結論本身。


  2. logically


  “GRE寫作的邏輯”包含形式邏輯和內容邏輯: 形式邏輯就是指文章起承轉合的邏輯信號、邏輯連接詞。它們連接不同的內容,使行文顯得有層次。內容邏輯就是指文章含義推導過程的嚴密性,和我們后文即將解讀的排序方式是高度相關的。


  要點 4:


  conveys ideas fluently and precisely, using effective vocabulary and sentence variety


  關鍵詞:effective, variety


  1. effective


  有效的--所謂有效的詞匯,是指根據語境所選擇“恰當的用詞”。 在GRE寫作里考生不需要嘩眾取寵地用“大詞、難詞”來顯示詞匯量。 真正的高手能夠用簡單而精確的詞語來闡述深刻的道理。


  2. variety


  用詞用句的變化性能有效地體現行文語言的多樣性。


  要點 5:


  demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English (i.e., grammar, usage and mechanics), but may have minor errors


  關鍵詞:standard written English, may have minor errors


  1. standard written English


  即使用標準的書面英語。英語口語體不合適用于GRE這類準學術型的分析性寫作中。 因此考生應注意標準的書面英語的語法,用詞和文法。


  2. may have minor errors


  GRE作文允許有錯誤的存在。 考官認為,一篇滿分的文章可以有錯誤,尤其是個別的拼寫錯誤、語法錯誤和用詞不當。這不影響一篇文章得高分。只要這篇文章準確地提煉了要點、做到了精確的對應匹配、邏輯性強、語言水平高即可。


  范文賞析


  Issue-69:


  Some people believe it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. Others believe that the public has a right to be fully informed.


  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 views presented.


  Answer:


  It is absolutely necessary for political leaders to withhold certain information from the public. However, a governed body must not allow political leaders undue freedom to withhold all information, otherwise, a people would risk being subjected to abuse of power.


  One of the basic reasons that certain information has to be withheld from the public is because the public, in and of itself, is an irrational beast. In the game of politics, complete forthrightness is a death warrant. The public generally requires certain forms of untruth or some exposed truth with some hidden facts behind it. For example, were all politicians to fully disclose every personal shortcoming, no person would ever get elected. The public has unrealistic expectations and politicians in democratic societies have the responsibility to meet these unrealistic demands if they wish to gain office. It’s a basic, realistic view of the world in which we live.


  Another reason why the public should not be privy to all information is in cases of safety and security. For example, if the government were forced to disclose security strategies, enemies of the state could quickly defend themselves, risking the immediate safety of soldiers and later on even citizens of the state. Withholding information might also be necessary to avoid public panic. While such cases are rare, they do occur occasionally. For example, during the first few hours of the new millennium the U.S. Pentagon's missile defense system experienced a Y2K- related malfunction. This fact was withheld from the public until later in the day; once the problem had been solved it was immediately disclosed. In order to avoid mass hysteria, it was best to keep the information a state secret.


  Withholding information from the public is often necessary to serve the interests of that public. However, legitimate political leadership must be clear on its actions and agenda. In history, there are a number of leaders who lack such forthrightness. These leaders often seek illegitimate power. In short, hiding information for personal gain is ok unless that information is important to the state.


  In conclusion, it is safe to say that the public is an immature and irrational creature prone to emotional reactions. This creature needs to be kept in the dark about information that could cause the public to do something that would hurt itself.


  GRE寫作Argument滿分評分標準解讀


  In addressing the specific task directions, a 6 response presents a cogent, well-articulated examination of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.


  A typical paper in this category exhibits the following characteristics:


  1.clearly identifies aspects of the argument relevant to the assigned task and examines them insightfully


  2.develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions


  3.provides compelling and thorough support for its main points


  4.conveys ideas fluently and precisely, using effective vocabulary and sentence variety


  5.demonstrates superior facility with the conventions of standard written English (i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) but may have minor errors


  標準解讀


  要點 1:


  clearly identifies aspects of the argument relevant to the assigned task and examines them insightfully


  關鍵詞:identifies important features, insightfully


  1.identifies important features即鑒別一篇Argument的邏輯漏洞和錯誤。 important一詞說明考生無需指出原文所有的邏輯錯誤,只要發現主要的錯誤,并進行有理有據的批判即可。


  2.insightfully即Data Mining(數據挖掘)。GRE作文看重思辨,并且非常強調對于每個主要邏輯錯誤進行深入的“理性批判”。理性批判的意思是洞察和挖掘每一類邏輯錯誤“背后的邏輯原理”。 “insightful”要求考生從邏輯原理的層面來攻擊每一類邏輯錯誤。


  例如,在GRE Argument題庫里調查(survey)類錯誤屬于高頻邏輯錯誤。考生在寫文章的時候, 僅僅強調“此調查有問題,數據不真實,結論站不住腳”等,是非常膚淺的。 真正的“理性批判”是要從“統計學”原理出發來指出調查的問題。 例如從樣本的“quantity”和“quality”兩個角度來分析題中給出的調查。


  1)"quantity"指樣本數量。此攻擊原理是“必須同時給出樣本的絕對數量以及所占的相對比例”。 例如某題目中給出如下的調查數據:5萬名被調查者建議取消公司的打卡制度。對于此題我們要看到題干中并未給出公司員工的總量: 如果總量很大,那么5萬只占了很小的比例。 同樣地,另一題中:99%被調查的學生認為作業量過大。對于此題我們依然要指出調查樣本總量的問題:如果被調查學生的總量很小, 99%這一看似很高的比例也不能說明問題。


  2)“quality”指樣本質量。這也是調查類題目常見的一個錯誤點。 題庫中大量的調查類問題都未指出樣本選擇是否隨機(random)。如果不隨機,這些樣本的代表性(representativeness)無疑就被弱化了。


  要點 2:


  develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions


  關鍵詞: organizes them logically、connects、clear transitions


  “GRE寫作的邏輯”包含形式邏輯和內容邏輯: 形式邏輯就是指文章起承轉合的邏輯信號、邏輯連接詞。它們連接不同的內容,使行文顯得有層次。內容邏輯就是指文章含義推導過程的嚴密性,和我們后文即將解讀的排序方式是高度相關的。


  organizes them logically是本條評分標準的核心。 在GRE Argument寫作里,只找到各類邏輯錯誤(find problems)是不夠的。評分標準還要求我們很好地組織這些錯誤(organize the problems which you have found)。 只找到邏輯錯誤而沒有將其組織好是無法拿到滿分甚至高分的。


  通常,考生可以運用三種“排序方式”來組織邏輯錯誤,即順序排序、主次排序和讓步排序。


  1)順序排序--即按照各類錯誤在原文中出現的順序進行攻擊;


  2)主次排序--即按照邏輯錯誤的主次順序來排序,此種排序方式相比順序排序更為合理;


  3)讓步排序--最邏輯化的排序方式:首先攻擊A錯誤不成立;其次在攻擊B錯誤不成立之前,假定即便A成立,B仍然不成立;最后引出即便A、B均成立,還可以得到C不成立。 這樣的“organization”顯示了強大的邏輯思辨能力。


  因此,GRE作文考試要求考生不僅僅零散地找到幾個邏輯錯誤,而且要合理地組織邏輯錯誤的呈現順序,讓文章的段落之間連貫一致,渾然一體。


  要點 3:


  provides compelling and thorough support for its main points


  關鍵詞:compelling and thorough support, main points


  1. compelling and thorough support


  這一點要求考生在指出原文邏輯錯誤的同時,提供有說服力的論證和論據。 關于論證,上文中提到的“理性批判”就是強有力的“support”。關于argument寫作中的論據,與issue不同的是,考生不需要進行發散舉例,只需要用合理的理由來闡釋自己的反駁觀點。例如考生指出原文的錯誤是A和B之間沒有因果關系,即A不是B的原因,則需要闡釋B真正的原因是什么;再例如,若考生指出原文中A和B不能進行類比,則需要指出哪些差異導致它們不能構成類比關系--此類論據才可稱得上是有力的“support”。


  2. main points


  此條標準與上文中第一條評分標準,即identifies important features,非常一致,強調鑒別一篇駁論文的重要特征以及主要邏輯漏洞。


  要點 4:


  conveys ideas fluently and precisely, using effective vocabulary and sentence variety


  關鍵詞:effective,variety


  1. effective


  有效的--所謂有效的詞匯,是指根據語境所選擇“恰當的用詞”。 在GRE寫作里考生不需要嘩眾取寵地用“大詞、難詞”來顯示詞匯量。 真正的高手能夠用簡單而精確的詞語來闡述深刻的道理。


  2. variety


  用詞用句的變化性能有效地體現行文語言的多樣性。


  要點 5:


  demonstrates superior facility with the conventions of standard written English (i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) but may have minor errors


  關鍵詞:standard written English, may have minor errors


  1. standard written English


  即使用標準的書面英語。英語口語體不合適用于GRE這類準學術型的分析性寫作中。因此考生應注意標準的書面英語的語法,用詞和文法。


  2. may have minor errors


  GRE作文允許有錯誤的存在。 考官認為,一篇滿分的文章可以有錯誤,尤其是個別的拼寫錯誤、語法錯誤和用詞不當。這不影響一篇文章得高分。只要這篇文章準確地提煉了要點、做到了精確的對應匹配、邏輯性強、語言水平高即可。


  范文賞析


  Arg-39


  A recent sales study indicated that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent over the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants that specialize in seafood. Moreover, the majority of families in Bay City are two-income families, and a nationwide study has shown that such families eat significantly fewer home-cooked meals than they did a decade ago but at the same time express more concern about eating healthily. Therefore, a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood will be quite popular and profitable.


  Answer:


  This argument's conclusion is that a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood would be both popular and profitable. To justify this conclusion the argument indicates that seafood consumption in Bay City's restaurants has risen by 30% during the last five years. The argument also indicates that most Bay City families are two-income families. Citing a national survey, the argument indicates that two-income families eat out more often, express more concern about eating healthily than they did ten years ago and would therefore lead to a new Bay City restaurant becoming popular and profitable. That argument fails to be persuasive as the assumptions upon which it is based do not link with the author’s conclusion.


  Firstly, a 30% increase in the sales of seafood at Bay City restaurants does not adequately represent the demand necessary to justify the opening of a new restaurant. While a 30% is certainly significant, the actual volume might be too low to generate revenue. Lacking evidence that a significant number of the city's restaurant patrons are ordering seafood, the argument's conclusion that a new seafood restaurant would be popular and profitable is unfounded.


  Secondly, even if the current demand is driving a profit in the other restaurants, the argument assumes that Bay City's restaurant patrons who order seafood would frequent the new restaurant. Maybe they wouldn’t favor a change in venue. And it is further possible that they prefer to eat in restaurants that are not specializing in seafood since they want to take some other food besides seafood. Lacking evidence that these patrons would be willing to try the new restaurant the argument's claim that a new seafood restaurant would be popular isn’t founded.


  Thirdly, the nationwide study indicating that two-income families exhibit the tendency towards dining out and eating healthily does not indicate that this trend will extend to a Bay City restaurant. This is to say that perhaps the two-income families polled may equate Bay City with dining out but not necessarily eating healthy. In this case, Bay City could not depend on their patronage.


  Fourth, even if most of Bay City's families are following the nationwide trends indicated above, it is unreasonable to infer that these families will necessarily patronize a new seafood restaurant in Bay City. Bay City may already boast a variety of competitive health-oriented restaurants. For that matter, perhaps Bay City's existing restaurants are already responding to the trends by providing both more healthy alternatives and more seafood dishes. Moreover, perhaps either or both of these trends will soon reverse themselves. Any of these scenarios, if true, would compromise the argument.


  Finally, even if Bay City families flock to the new seafood restaurant, the restaurant would not necessarily be profitable as a result. Profitability is a function of both revenue and expense. Thus it is entirely possible that the restaurant's costs of obtaining high-quality, healthful seafood, or of promoting the new restaurant, might render it unprofitable despite its popularity. Without a study, the argument seems a bit premature.


  As it stands, the argument is unpersuasive. To bolster it the author must demonstrate that the demand among restaurant patrons for seafood is sufficient to justify the opening of a new seafood restaurant. The argument must also demonstrate that the restaurants would be a consideration of Bay City families. The author could also strengthen the argument by providing reliable evidence that Bay City reflects the nationwide trends cited, and that these trends will continue in the foreseeable future in Bay City.


  更多GRE考試資訊,請關注學為貴教育官網!屆時,學為貴將為廣大貴粉們提供準確、及時、專業的考試信息。

評論
發布
最新評論
双色球兑奖 吉祥棋牌长春麻将下 …? 支付宝天天红包赛怎么打卡 股票配资怎么做 湖南宁远怎么打麻将 现役nba球星排名 三多棋牌游戏中心? 熊猫四川麻将有挂吗 今天晚上3d开奖结 好彩1开奖结果查询 捕鱼送彩金38 体彩p3彩网 宁夏体彩11选五开奖查询