GRE 作文分数有多难拿？首先，让我们直观的用一张图来看一下2018年中国考生的GRE成绩以及世界范围内的排名情况。中国学生最有优势的，当然是quantitative, 真的是在全世界都出名的“东亚数学天才”，平均分164.8， percentile全球前12%。Verbal 语文，中国学生作为非英语母语国家考生，虽说还差一点才能达到全球平均水平，但是148.6的成绩，也是全球42%的percentile了。

GRE 作文分数有多难拿？首先，让我们直观的用一张图来看一下2018年中国考生的GRE成绩以及世界范围内的排名情况。

中国学生最有优势的，当然是quantitative, 真的是在全世界都出名的“东亚数学天才”，平均分164.8， percentile全球前12%。Verbal 语文，中国学生作为非英语母语国家考生，虽说还差一点才能达到全球平均水平，但是148.6的成绩，也是全球42%的percentile了。

那么中国学生的写作呢？真的是非常非常的让人跌破眼镜了。平均分3.1， 全球倒数17%的percentile啊！全球倒数17%的写作成绩，真的是要想上文科类美国名校，是彻底没有任何希望的。宾大教育学就有一个不成文的规定，写作最最低要求是3.5分。这让很多3分的学生，不得不被拒之名校之外。

有的同学这时候可能会想，英语国家的平均分不也就只有4分嘛。3分到4分，也就一分之差，有很大的关系么？这个关系可就大了。

直观的来讲吧，什么叫全球17%的percentile呢？ 就相当于quantitative 只考了142分，是17%的percentile，相当于Verbal考了141分, 也是17%的percentile。这么低的成绩，真的用来申请是非常难的。而写作4分，全球59%的percentile,相当于Verbal 153, 数学152的成绩，也就是说，这写作从3-4，别看差距至于哦一分，相当于Verbal后者Quantitative差距10分之多。

那么，一篇好的GRE作文应该是什么样的呢？下面会从ETS官方给出的评分细则和范文中为大家分析应该如何写好一篇作文。

01 、GRE作文该怎么写？

首先，我们要考虑的问题是，我们想写一篇怎样的GRE作文？是一篇语言优美如散文一般的文章，还是一篇在grader眼中可以得高分的文章？很多同学，在考试之前，都错误的用“自己认为的一篇好文章的标准”去指导自己的写作，而从未考虑过，grader阅卷人，究竟以怎样的标准在给一篇文章打分。

那么这时候，如果你还不知道grader的打分标准，请一定打开官网，阅读这一段话。（GRE国内众多写作资料鱼龙混杂，请一定以官网为主，不要轻易相信一些机构给出的写作建议，一定认真阅读官网所展示的打分标准）以下是GRE argument 与issue的打分标准：

官网给出的Scoring Guide for the Argument Task

官网给出的Scoring Guide for the Issue Task

总结起来，大概是一下几点：

一定要看instruction！！

有些题目往往很相似，但是instruction不一样，那么就是两篇完全不同的题目。如果instruction没有扣住，想要拿到高分就很难了。

找对点，topic sentence要写对

对于argument来说，一定要找到前提到结论非要不可的桥梁。不可以质疑前提，或者从结论出发。这个桥梁是什么意思呢，就是要找前提到结论非要不可的一个条件，如果这个条件不成立，前提对结论就没有支持力度。

而对于issue来讲，就是要找到一个体现深刻思考，并且逻辑严密的理由，作为段落的topic sentence. 如果理由本身没有说服力，就算后面努力给出很多论证，也依旧很难说服别人。对于issue来讲，最重要的，永远是说服力。

给出强有力的支撑部分

这是一个非常重要的得分点。

对于argument来讲，就是你的举反例部分，是否能够足够有说服力，让别人觉得你就找的这个逻辑漏洞真的很对，文章中的前提确实可能推不出结论。比如说，前提是我上个月我发胖了，上个月我分手了，结论是我要想挽回我男朋友，就得减肥。

这里，找一条前提到结论非要不可的条件，就是作者assume了发胖是分手，的原因。然后努力的举有说服力的反例：而事实上，很有可能的情况是，男朋友劈腿才是分手的原因，或者性格不合吵架才是分手原因。如果情况是这样的，那么前提，对于支撑结论“要想挽回男朋友就要减肥”，就完全没有任何支撑力度了。

那么，对于issue来讲，给出强有力的支撑，就是要给出足够有支撑力，有细节，逻辑严密的论证。这里可以是说理论证，举例论证，数据统计等，原则就是，要对段落主题有足够的支撑，让人信服。

衔接！ 衔接！衔接！

很多同学不知道，GRE 打分标准中，衔接是很重要的一个得分点。

文章的逻辑连贯，非常需要起承转合等表达逻辑链条关系的词汇。文章的结构，通过这些linking words，应该是让人感受到一目了然的。句与句之间，段落与段落之间的关系，要交代的很清楚。官网4分的文章中，有一句话，与上下文没有衔接，就被grader单独拎了出来，叫做跳跃句，对逻辑链条关系交代的不够清楚。

词汇，句式，语法

语言重要么？只能说，对于GRE考试来讲，语言不是最重要的。

就相当于问一你个问题：博士论文，语言重要么？好的一篇博士论文，一定是没有语法错误，语言精练，清晰，用词准确的。但是，我们不能因为一篇论文语言非常优美，就说这是一篇好的论文。博士论文，最重要的，一定还是其中的内容。

GRE 作为一个英语为载体的考试，首先，语言必须清晰，就算有小错误，不可以影响到阅读。在不影响阅读的情况下，最重要的，就是文章的逻辑与说服力。但是，倘若文章语法错误百出，grader根本就很难读懂你的内容，那么，就算再好的内容，别人看不懂，看是没用的。

02 、GRE满分范文示范

以下，给大家呈上一篇GRE 官网6分issue范文及grader点评，以及相应的3分文章及点评，让大家看到grader眼中，究竟看重什么，怎样才能得到高分。题目如下：

As 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 6

The 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, chances are 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, technology frees 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 care triage 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.

Rater Commentary

for Essay Response — Score 6

The author of this essay stakes out a clear and insightful position on the issue and follows the specific instructions (一定要符合instruction)by presenting reasons to support that position. (清晰且富有洞察力的观点。这边如果过于肤浅的讨论,也是很难上4分的)The essay cogently(cogent, 有说服力)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;(例子非常的有说服力，而且展开充分)reasoning is logically sound and well supported(逻辑推理严密，有说服力).

Ideas in the essay are connected logically, with effective transitions used both between paragraphs("However" or "In contrast to the statement")and within paragraphs(观点衔接真的是grader非常看重的). 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(句式多样性体现语言能力). Thus, this essay meets all the requirements for receiving a top score, a 6.

Essay Response — Score 3

There 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 understanding and achievement. For example, the problem of dibilitating illnesses and diseases such as alzheimer's 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 alzheimer's 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.

Rater Commentary

for Essay Response — Score 3

This essay never moves beyond a superficial discussion of the issue. (肤浅的讨论，真的只能是3分)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（虽然relevant,也就是不跑题,但是证据却非常不充分,没有说服力）. 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)（论据不充分导致分数低。说服力真的是Issue高分至关重要的）.

Development of the second point is hindered by a lack of specificity and organization(不够具体,不够深入). 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")（解释部分模糊且有限,不够清晰）. There is neither explanation of consequences nor clarification of what is meant by "supplementing." This second paragraph is a series of generalizations that are loosely connected(逻辑衔接不够紧密) 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")（有一些严重的语法或者用词问题,导致理解困难,也是让分数低的重要原因）. Despite the accumulation of such flaws, the writer's meaning is generally clear. Thus, this essay earns a score of 3.

GRE写作，作为中国考试GRE 最弱的一项，真的是非常需要引起每个考生的注意。一定不能仅仅把GRE写作当做一次“考英语“的考试，觉得语言优美，用词高端就可以得高分，而要真正去关注阅卷人的打分标准，理解ETS真正想要的一篇文章是怎样的