GRE考试评分标准详细说明

  GRE写作Issue满分评分标准解读

  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。

  标准解读

  要点 1:

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

  关键词:insightful ,position,in accordance with

  1. insightful即Data Mining(数据挖掘)。

  GRE写作强调思辨,挖掘题目的核心概念十分必要。 例如GRE作文题库中有一道题目:事物的差异性重要还是相似性重要? “insightful”的分析应当是通过similarity 和 difference的现象看到背后所体现的本质--矛盾(paradox)的思想。 具体来说就是要学会观察相似事物的差异性,以及差异事物的相似性,辩证地分析事物。 因此本题真正考查的是“看待事物的方法论”, 而非简单的选择“哪一个重要”。

  2. position

  在GRE issue写作里,position不等于attitude,即立场不等于态度。 这又是GRE作文中对于逻辑辩证点的考查。 很多高分GRE文章都是对一个事物的利弊进行具体问题的具体分析,而非进行倾向性的态度传递,这也符合事物的基本规律,即任何事物都具有两面性。 TOEFL独立写作非常强调态度的传达,但GRE作文更强调分析事物的方法论和论证过程。

  3. in accordance with

  指切题(on-topic)的论述:论点、论据,论证要和题目要求一致,这个评分点和上文中insightful的要求一脉相承。 许多GRE issue题目的含义很难依赖字面意思来理解, 题目的“隐藏逻辑”和“隐藏含义”要求考生首先要准确地“审题”、思考题面背后的含义, 然后选择相关的论点和论据进行支撑。

  要点 2:

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

  关键词:reasons, persuasive

  1. reasons=reasoning

  GRE作文强调推理,并且推理的过程远重要于推理的结果。在GRE作文里,解释Why比给出What 更重要,因为考官是通过审视推理过程来判断考生的逻辑陈述能力。 因此建议考生在准备GRE作文时,应把重点放在分析推理上,而不是频频给出各类结论。

  2. persuasive=relevant

  在GRE作文里,考生给出的所有例证都要有说服力。要有说服力,首先要与文中的论证相关。无论例证是来自西方世界还是中国,相关的例子才是和论证匹配的内容。

  要点 3:

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

  关键词:analysis, logically

  1. analysis

  GRE写作强调论述过程与分析过程,而非结论本身。

  2. logically

  “GRE写作的逻辑”包含形式逻辑和内容逻辑: 形式逻辑就是指文章起承转合的逻辑信号、逻辑连接词。它们连接不同的内容,使行文显得有层次。内容逻辑就是指文章含义推导过程的严密性,和我们后文即将解读的排序方式是高度相关的。

  要点 4:

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

  关键词:effective, variety

  1. effective

  有效的--所谓有效的词汇,是指根据语境所选择“恰当的用词”。 在GRE写作里考生不需要哗众取宠地用“大词、难词”来显示词汇量。 真正的高手能够用简单而精确的词语来阐述深刻的道理。

  2. variety

  用词用句的变化性能有效地体现行文语言的多样性。

  要点 5:

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

  关键词:standard written English, may have minor errors

  1. standard written English

  即使用标准的书面英语。英语口语体不合适用于GRE这类准学术型的分析性写作中。 因此考生应注意标准的书面英语的语法,用词和文法。

  2. may have minor errors

  GRE作文允许有错误的存在。 考官认为,一篇满分的文章可以有错误,尤其是个别的拼写错误、语法错误和用词不当。这不影响一篇文章得高分。只要这篇文章准确地提炼了要点、做到了精确的对应匹配、逻辑性强、语言水平高即可。

  范文赏析

  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写作Argument满分评分标准解读

  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

  标准解读

  要点 1:

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

  关键词:identifies important features, insightfully

  1.identifies important features即鉴别一篇Argument的逻辑漏洞和错误。 important一词说明考生无需指出原文所有的逻辑错误,只要发现主要的错误,并进行有理有据的批判即可。

  2.insightfully即Data Mining(数据挖掘)。GRE作文看重思辨,并且非常强调对于每个主要逻辑错误进行深入的“理性批判”。理性批判的意思是洞察和挖掘每一类逻辑错误“背后的逻辑原理”。 “insightful”要求考生从逻辑原理的层面来攻击每一类逻辑错误。

  例如,在GRE Argument题库里调查(survey)类错误属于高频逻辑错误。考生在写文章的时候, 仅仅强调“此调查有问题,数据不真实,结论站不住脚”等,是非常肤浅的。 真正的“理性批判”是要从“统计学”原理出发来指出调查的问题。 例如从样本的“quantity”和“quality”两个角度来分析题中给出的调查。

  1)"quantity"指样本数量。此攻击原理是“必须同时给出样本的绝对数量以及所占的相对比例”。 例如某题目中给出如下的调查数据:5万名被调查者建议取消公司的打卡制度。对于此题我们要看到题干中并未给出公司员工的总量: 如果总量很大,那么5万只占了很小的比例。 同样地,另一题中:99%被调查的学生认为作业量过大。对于此题我们依然要指出调查样本总量的问题:如果被调查学生的总量很小, 99%这一看似很高的比例也不能说明问题。

  2)“quality”指样本质量。这也是调查类题目常见的一个错误点。 题库中大量的调查类问题都未指出样本选择是否随机(random)。如果不随机,这些样本的代表性(representativeness)无疑就被弱化了。

  要点 2:

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

  关键词: organizes them logically、connects、clear transitions

  “GRE写作的逻辑”包含形式逻辑和内容逻辑: 形式逻辑就是指文章起承转合的逻辑信号、逻辑连接词。它们连接不同的内容,使行文显得有层次。内容逻辑就是指文章含义推导过程的严密性,和我们后文即将解读的排序方式是高度相关的。

  organizes them logically是本条评分标准的核心。 在GRE Argument写作里,只找到各类逻辑错误(find problems)是不够的。评分标准还要求我们很好地组织这些错误(organize the problems which you have found)。 只找到逻辑错误而没有将其组织好是无法拿到满分甚至高分的。

  通常,考生可以运用三种“排序方式”来组织逻辑错误,即顺序排序、主次排序和让步排序。

  1)顺序排序--即按照各类错误在原文中出现的顺序进行攻击;

  2)主次排序--即按照逻辑错误的主次顺序来排序,此种排序方式相比顺序排序更为合理;

  3)让步排序--最逻辑化的排序方式:首先攻击A错误不成立;其次在攻击B错误不成立之前,假定即便A成立,B仍然不成立;最后引出即便A、B均成立,还可以得到C不成立。 这样的“organization”显示了强大的逻辑思辨能力。

  因此,GRE作文考试要求考生不仅仅零散地找到几个逻辑错误,而且要合理地组织逻辑错误的呈现顺序,让文章的段落之间连贯一致,浑然一体。

  要点 3:

  provides compelling and thorough support for its main points

  关键词:compelling and thorough support, main points

  1. compelling and thorough support

  这一点要求考生在指出原文逻辑错误的同时,提供有说服力的论证和论据。 关于论证,上文中提到的“理性批判”就是强有力的“support”。关于argument写作中的论据,与issue不同的是,考生不需要进行发散举例,只需要用合理的理由来阐释自己的反驳观点。例如考生指出原文的错误是A和B之间没有因果关系,即A不是B的原因,则需要阐释B真正的原因是什么;再例如,若考生指出原文中A和B不能进行类比,则需要指出哪些差异导致它们不能构成类比关系--此类论据才可称得上是有力的“support”。

  2. main points

  此条标准与上文中第一条评分标准,即identifies important features,非常一致,强调鉴别一篇驳论文的重要特征以及主要逻辑漏洞。

  要点 4:

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

  关键词:effective,variety

  1. effective

  有效的--所谓有效的词汇,是指根据语境所选择“恰当的用词”。 在GRE写作里考生不需要哗众取宠地用“大词、难词”来显示词汇量。 真正的高手能够用简单而精确的词语来阐述深刻的道理。

  2. variety

  用词用句的变化性能有效地体现行文语言的多样性。

  要点 5:

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

  关键词:standard written English, may have minor errors

  1. standard written English

  即使用标准的书面英语。英语口语体不合适用于GRE这类准学术型的分析性写作中。因此考生应注意标准的书面英语的语法,用词和文法。

  2. may have minor errors

  GRE作文允许有错误的存在。 考官认为,一篇满分的文章可以有错误,尤其是个别的拼写错误、语法错误和用词不当。这不影响一篇文章得高分。只要这篇文章准确地提炼了要点、做到了精确的对应匹配、逻辑性强、语言水平高即可。

  范文赏析

  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.


0 分享到:

要回复文章请先登录注册