GRE寫作想要在短時間內(nèi)得到提升，大家可以多看一些滿分范文，這有助于大家更好地了解寫作高分的秘訣，學(xué)習(xí)啦為大家整理了相關(guān)的范文，供大家參考學(xué)習(xí)。希望對大家接下里的寫作備考有更好的幫助。

GRE寫作滿分范文1

The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage英畝數(shù),面積would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."

This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state. The letter states that the entire community could benefit from an undeveloped parkland. The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping centers or houses would be built there. This, in turn, would provide everyone in the community with a valuable resource, a natural park.

The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land. The author reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the land would be devoted to athletic fields. The author of the letter comes to the conclusion that building a school on the land would be the best thing for everyone in the community.

This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods. The author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school, a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community, or just a resident of Morganton. Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.

Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland. While all the members of the community could potentially benefit from a parkland, only a percentage of the population would realistically benefit from a new school. The author fails to recognize people like the senior citizens of the community. What interest do they have in a new school? It only means higher taxes for them to pay. They will likely never to and utilize the school for anything. On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness. The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone. In turn, it would supply a school only to groups of people in exactly the right age range, not too young or too old, to reap the benefits.

Another point the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes the destruction of the park. What about children who don't play sports? Without the school, they could enjoy the land for anything. A playing field is a playing field. Children are not going to go out there unless they are into sports. There are many children in schools who are not interested in or are not able to play sports. This is yet another group who will be left out of the grand benefits of a school that the author talks about.

The author's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this...""is easily arguable. The destruction of Scott Woods for the purpose of building a school would not only affect the ambience of Morganton, it would affect who would and would not be able to utilize the space. If the residents as a whole voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state, this argument will not sway their decision. The use of the land for a school will probably benefit even less people than a shopping center would. The whole purpose of the vote was to keep the land as an asset for everyone. The only way to do this is to keep it in an undeveloped state. Using the land for a school does not accomplish this.

Comments:

This outstanding response begins somewhat hesitantly; the opening paragraphs summarize but do not immediately engage the argument. However, the subsequent paragraphs target the central flaws in the argument and analyze them in almost microscopic detail.

The writer's main rebuttal points out that "using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for natural parkland." Several subpoints develop this critique, offering perceptive reasons to counter the argument's unsubstantiated assumptions. This is linked to a related discussion that pointedly exposes another piece of faulty reasoning: that using land for athletic fields "rationalizes the destruction of the park."

The extensively developed and organically organized analysis continues into a final paragraph that takes issue with the argument's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this."

Diction and syntax are varied and sophisticated, and the writer is fully in control of the standard conventions. While there may be stronger papers that merit a score of 6, this response demonstrates insightful analysis, cogent development, and mastery of writing. It clearly earns a 6.

GRE寫作滿分范文2

The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."

The author's argument is weak. Though he believes Scott Woods benefits the community as an undeveloped park, he also thinks a school should be built on it. Obviously the author is not aware of the development that comes with building a school besides the facilities devoted to learning or sports. He does not realize that parking lots will take up a substantial area of property, especially if the school proposed is a high school. We are not given this information, nor the size of the student body that will be attending, nor the population of the city itself, so it is unclear whether the damage will be great or marginal. For a better argument, the author should consider questions like what sort of natural resources are present on the land that will not remain once the school is built? Are there endangered species whose homes will be lost? And what about digging up the land for water lines? It is doubtful whether the integrity of Scott Woods as natural parkland can be maintained once the land has been developed. It is true that a school would probably not cause as much damage as a shopping center or housing development, but the author must consider whether the costs incurred in losing the park-like aspects of the property are worth developing it, when there could be another, more suitable site. He should also consider how the city will pay for the property, whether taxes will be raised to compensate for the expense or whether a shopping center will be built somewhere else to raise funds. He has not given any strong reasons for the idea of building a school, including what kind of land the property is, whether it is swampland that will have to be drained or an arid, scrubby lot that will need extensive maintenance to keep up the athletic greens. The author should also consider the opposition, such as the people without children who have no interest in more athletic fields. He must do a better job of presenting his case, addressing each point named above, for if the land is as much a popular community resource as he implies, he will face a tough time gaining allies to change a park to a school.

Comments:

After describing the argument as "weak," this strong response goes straight to the heart of the matter: building a school is not (as the argument seems to assume) innocuous; rather, it involves substantial development. The essay identifies several reasons to support this critique. The writer then points to the important questions that must be answered before accepting the proposal. These address

-- the costs versus the benefits of developing Scott Woods

-- the impact of development on Scott Woods

-- the possibility of "another, more suitable site"

The generally thoughtful analysis notes still more flaws in the argument:

-- whether the school is necessary

-- whether the selected site is appropriate

-- whether some groups might oppose the plan

Although detailed and comprehensive, the writer's critique is neither as fully developed nor as tightly organized as required for a 6 essay. The response exhibits good control of language, although there is some awkward phrasing (e.g., ".??爂aining allies to change a park to a school"). Overall, this essay warrants a score of 5 because it is well developed, clearly organized, and shows facility with language.

GRE寫作滿分范文3

The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."

The argument that the writer is trying to make contains several flaws. First of all, the writer needs to be clear on whether or not he or she wishes to keep Scott Woods in a "natural, undeveloped state." To be natural and undeveloped suggest that Scott Woods is free from anything man-made. It has not been infected with man-made buildings of any kind. The author suggests that the building of a school in Scoot Woods would preserve Morganton's "natural parkland" by preventing the construction of shopping centers and houses. Yet, the building of a school would prevent Morganton from preserving this natural parkland just as shopping centers and houses. While the school may provide substantial acreage for athletic fields, it would be still contributing to pollution, the loss of vegetation and overall disruption to the natural ecosystem of Scott Woods. Consequently, the area would not be a "natural parkland" as the author suggests.

Furthermore, the author appeals to the sensitivity of the readers through his discussion on the children's participation in sports. He falsely states that the the children's use of the athletic fields that the school would provide is the best way to utilize this natural parkland. Again, the author mistakingly feels that athletic fields constitute a natural parkland. Since the author continuously misuses the word "natural parkland," the validity of the letter is weakened.

Comments:

After acknowledging that the argument "contains several flaws," this adequate response identifies a basic problem in the reasoning -- the letter writer's ambivalence about the desirability of maintaining Scott Woods as natural and undeveloped parkland. The writer recognizes that the argument's confused intentions are indirectly related to a root flaw in the argument: the assumption that construction of new buildings -- even school buildings -- would not impact the preservation of the parkland. Further, the writer does a competent job of explaining how both of these problems are the result of a lack of clarity about what constitutes a "natural parkland."

Paragraph 2 identifies an additional weakness in the argument; the writer refuses to be taken in by the emotional appeal of a proposal that promises to benefit children. However, this critique is stated in a confusing way (".??燼ppeals to the sensitivity of the readers through his discussion on the children's participation in sports") and is not sufficiently developed.

The writer generally demonstrates adequate control of diction, syntax, grammar, and usage. Ideas are conveyed clearly, if mechanically. Some sentences, though, are awkwardly worded (e.g., ".??爌reserving this natural parkland just as shopping centers and houses"). In sum, both the unevenly developed critique of the argument and the level of control of language warrant a score of 4.

GRE寫作滿分范文4

The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."

The argument about Scott Woods being undeveloped land seem to be a well thought out. The community has thought long and hard about what they wanted to do with the land. They do not want any homes or shopping malls on the land because it would not benefit the community as a natural parkland. By building the school on the vacant land is not benfiting the community as natural parkland either. There would be the same type of construction and traffic. That is very contradictory in itself. I think that the community would have to meet again and decide exactly was is best for this particular community and the children in the community. The presentation sounded so close and shut about what was going to be done about the land that it seemed usless for anybody to try to purchase it and do anything with the land. So if the Morganton community want something such as a school being built on the land that should have been what they voted on in the first place. They look very indecisive and even controlling. These are not very good ways to accomplish or do business.

Comments:

The opening sentences of this limited response seem to agree with the argument, describing it as "well thought out." However, the writer begins to construct a critique in the fourth sentence, identifying and briefly describing one flawed assumption: if the community members want to retain natural parkland, they will not be able to do so by building a school on that land.

This is the only analysis in the response, marking it as "plainly flawed." The remaining five sentences fail to develop or add to this critique. Some are tangential ("I think that the community would have to meet again???") and others are irrelevant ("They look very indecisive and even controlling").

The writing demonstrates limited language control. There are missing words, syntax errors, and several grammatical errors. For these reasons, the essay earns the score of 3.

gre 英語考試作文范文匯總相關(guān)文章：