美国研究生入学考试(Graduate Record Examinations, GRE)
会有加试，一般会有两种考试情况
每个section共10题，包括三种题型
一般第一个部分题型稳定
| 题型 | 文本填空 | 阅读 | 句子平衡 | 阅读 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 题目数量 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 4 |
| 题型数量 | 单空2 双空3 三空 |
短1(2) 长1(4) |
/ | 单1(1) 中1(3) |
第二个section难度
| 难度 | 对应分数 | 对应第一个section正确率 |
| easy | 130-154 | 0-6 |
| medium | 142-162 | 7-12 |
| hard | 150-170 | 13-20 |
填空的考察重点为题干中寻证，因此同义信息只会不断出现
一个词感情色彩的褒贬好坏和一个词的趋势正负不一定等同
做五选一题一种取巧的方法是看趋势正负（并列结构）
每个section共10题
写作包括以下两个部分
评分有几个点需要注意：
论述文，赞同或不赞同观点
: Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student’s major field of study.
Reason: Acquiring knowledge of various academic disciplines is the best way to become truly educated.
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.
| 题目 | 写作布局 |
|---|---|
| might | 双边 开头+对方观点+己方观点1+己方观点2+结尾 |
| both | 双边同上 |
| consequences | 双边同上 |
| circumstances | 双边中立 开头+成立情况+前提段+不成立情况1+不成立情况2+结尾 |
| challenge | 单边驳论 开头+己方观点+驳论段1+驳论段2+结尾 |
| claim+reason | 分别分析 开头+分析claim+分析reason+结尾 |
破题思路：
| 成立 | 会得到什么结果 | | | 成立前提（过渡-承上启下） | | 前提不成立 | 会得到什么结果 |
| 己方观点 | 己方理由 |
| 对方观点 | 反驳理由 讲另一边好处，而不要讲己方坏处 要直接反，不要做任何让步 |
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
Score 6 Response
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 occurences would 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.
Commentary
The author of this essay stakes out a clear and insightful position on the issue and follows the specific instructions by discussing ways in which the statement might or might not hold true, using specific reasons and examples to support that position. The essay cogently argues that technology does not decrease our ability to think for ourselves. It 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; reasoning is logically sound and well supported. Ideas in the essay are connected logically, with effective transitions used both between paragraphs (“However,” or “In contrast to the statement”) and within paragraphs. 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)” (see Issue Scoring Guide, pages 37–38), with only minor errors appearing. Thus, this essay meets all the requirements for receiving a top score, a 6.
批判性思维，判断文章逻辑/推理严谨性
不同指令(instruction)：一定要正面回应题目要求
The author/… draws a conclusion that …, but it seems the author is too quick to jump to that conclusion since there are fallacies in the letter.
It seems extremely rush to …, before the effects can be fully observed and interpreted.
The assumptions listed above need to be carefully examined.
数据漏洞：可能性->高中低
因果类：先质疑原因，再质疑结果
e.g.：因为便宜著称，因此不能通过提价盈利。
- 质疑原因：错误假设店以便宜著称，可能性：员工友好、影片讲解、试看服务
- 质疑结果：仍有提价空间，可能性：价格提升5%
条件类：先质疑条件是否适得其反，再质疑是否需要其他条件达成目的
错误类比：主要分析两者不同之处，false analogy between / hasty generalization
可能性速成
In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river’s water and the river’s smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is, therefore, sure to increase. The city government should for that reason devote more money in this year’s budget to riverside recreational facilities.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
Score 6 Response
While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this author’s argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding. Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident’s love of water sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author’s argument. Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident’s lack of river use and the river’s current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river. Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river’s water and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river usage. If the river’s water quality and smell result from problems which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell of sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be afffected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon river usage. Regardless of whether the river’s quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river usage. A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city’s property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide to invest in improving riverside recreational facilities. However, this author’s argument is not likely significantly persuade the city goverment to allocate increased funding.
Commentary
This insightful response identifies important assumptions and thoroughly examines their implications. The proposal to spend more on riverside recreational facilities rests on a number of questionable assumptions, namely that: 1. The survey provides a reliable basis for budget planning; 2. The river’s pollution and odor are the only reasons for its limited recreational use; 3. Efforts to clean the water and remove the odor will be successful. By showing that each assumption is highly suspect, this essay demonstrates the weakness of the entire argument. For example, paragraph 2 points out that the survey might not have used a representative sample, might have offered limited choices, and might have contained very few questions on water sports. Paragraph 3 examines the tenuous connection between complaints and limited use of the river for recreation. Complaints about water quality and odor may be coming from only a few people, and even if such complaints are numerous, other completely different factors may be much more significant in reducing river usage. Finally, paragraph 4 explains that certain geologic features may prevent effective river cleanup. Details such as these provide compelling support. In addition, careful organization insures that each new point builds upon the previous ones. Note, for example, the clear transitions at the beginning of paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the logical sequence of sentences within paragraphs (specifically paragraph 4). Although this essay does contain minor errors, it still conveys ideas fluently. Note the effective word choices (e.g.,“rife with . . . assumptions” and “may have swayed residents”). In addition, sentences are not merely varied; they also display skillful embedding of subordinate elements. Note, for example, the sustained parallelism in the first sentence of the concluding paragraph. Since this response offers a cogent examination of the argument and also conveys meaning skillfully, it earns a score of 6.
For each of Questions 1 to 9, select one answer choice unless otherwise instructed.
A person who agrees to serve as mediator between two warring factions at the request of both abandons by so agreeing the right to take sides later. To take sides at a later point would be to suggest that the earlier presumptive impartiality was a sham. The passage above emphasizes which of the following points about mediators? A. They should try to form no opinions of their own about any issue that is related to the dispute. B. They should not agree to serve unless they are committed to maintaining a stance of impartiality. C. They should not agree to serve unless they are equally acceptable to all parties to a dispute. D. They should feel free to take sides in the dispute right from the start, provided that they make their biases publicly known. E. They should reserve the right to abandon their impartiality so as not to be open to the charge of having been deceitful.
For each blank select one entry from the corresponding column of choices. Fill all blanks in the way that best completes the text.
It is refreshing to read a book about our planet by an author who does not allow facts to be (i)__________ by politics: well aware of the political disputes about the effects of human activities on climate and biodiversity, this author does not permit them to (ii)__________ his comprehensive description of what we know about our biosphere. He emphasizes the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations, and the (iii)__________, calling attention to the many aspects of planetary evolution that must be better understood before we can accurately diagnose the condition of our planet.
| Blank (i) | Blank (ii) | Blank (iii) |
|---|---|---|
| A. overshadowed | D. enhance | G. plausibility of our hypotheses |
| B. invalidated | E. obscure | H. certainty of our entitlement |
| C. illuminated | F. underscore | I. superficiality of our theories |
Select the two answer choices that, when used to complete the sentence, fit the meaning of the sentence as a whole and produce completed sentences that are alike in meaning.
Although it does contain some pioneering ideas, one would hardly characterize the work as __________. A. orthodox B. eccentric C. original D. trifling E. conventional F. innovative