GRE作文論據素材準備問題解決辦法
爲了幫助大家備考gre。瞭解更多關GRE作文論據素材準備問題解決辦法，希望大家喜歡。
GRE作文論據素材準備問題解決辦法
對於絕大多數的考生，準備GRE寫作時最頭疼的問題就是沒有例子。雖然上了這麼多年的學，腦子裏的知識也不少，可以只要一舉例子，就只有那麼稀稀拉拉的幾個"大路貨"。一舉科學家，大凡就是愛因斯坦，牛頓，居里夫人;一提到"失敗是成功之母"，就只有愛迪生玩命地試燈泡了。可是，想要舉出一個與衆不同的例子，真的就這麼難嗎?
其實，如果你留心觀察生活，就會發現，生活中到處都是好例子，遺憾的是，我們從來沒有想過把它們變成GRE寫作的一部分。
那麼該怎麼去發現這些好例子呢?方法其實也很簡單：
首先，你必須要很熟悉題庫。很多老師對issue部分的題目都有分類，網上也有很多這方面的資料。其實不論是何種分類方法，你都必須要通過分類對整個244道題庫有個全面的瞭解，知道ETS會考什麼，不會考什麼。
接下來，有了對題庫的瞭解之後，這是你會發現，有些生活中看似無關的事情，突然變得有用了。這裏，我就以一個八杆子打不着的"犀利哥"給大家做個示範。
犀利哥的背景大家都熟，這裏就不多介紹了。可是他的事情怎麼就能寫到GRE作文裏呢?
首先，犀利哥是一個普通的流浪人員，但是卻一夜暴紅，這和媒體的炒作不無關係。而我們的issue題庫中，就有很多討論媒體對公衆影響的題目。這時，犀利哥就是個媒體影響很好的證明。
其次，犀利哥的出名也反映了當今社會對外表和時尚的狂熱。人們完全無視他是個有精神障礙的病人，而只是因爲他的穿着恰好符合當時的審美趨勢而追捧他。這在討論到issue33題"外表和內在那個更重要的時候"也非常適合。
當然，這個例子還可以用來討論公衆隱私(29, 161題)和快餐文化(107， 151， 215等題)中，這裏就不多解釋。
根據剛剛的分析，我們就很容易把犀利哥的例子，按照事件的積極消極意義，整理成下面的一些要點：
Positive side：
1)Media's magic power to turn a nobody into somebody overnight
2)Media's role in bringing public attention to the misfortune and the helpless who may otherwise be neglected and discarded by the society
negative side:
1)The world's over-emphasis on the appearance, not on the inner-self. By turning a homeless to a fashion model, the story of Brother Xili is just an extreme case of many.
2)The frenetic pursuit of instant fame and interests by modern people dwarfs the most fundamental basis of human nature: love, equality, respect and compassion.
3)The world only cares about the "fashionable" photos of Brother Xili and flocks to Ningbo to see him in person. But no one really cares about him as a person, a man with mental disorder, a brother that needs our care and love, not relentless media exposure and disturbance.
經過這樣一番思考之後，你會發現，在真正寫GRE作文時，你需要準備的案例的數量其實並不多，關鍵是，你能不能通過對例子深入的分析使一個例子可以同時解決許多道題目，達到"以一當十"的效果。
GRE作文範文：審查的公正性
Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified.
GRE作文範文參考：
“Censorship” is a word which seems to be authoritative rather than democratic, which implies the will of the governors rather than the will of general people. Since the occurrence of the censorship, which could be traced back to the Ancient Rome, it has been playing an important part in the domestic affairs while arousing applause and condemnation as well. Here the our government faces a dilemma, is it fair to carry on the censorship at the cost of sacrificing part of democracy, or just open the gate letting flows of ideas and thoughts in, at the risk of losing its own rampart.
Since censorship suggest an act of changing or suppressing speech, writing or any other forms of expression that is condemned as subversive of the common good, it must have a close relationship with the one who applies such supervision, and the word “common good” should be redefined under different conditions. There is time when we were all under a powerful monarchy, and the “common good” is the “monarch good”, then the censorship itself is the instrument of the monarch which solely depended on the will of the monarch; in the Middle Ages, both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches practiced censorship that seemed to be oppressive to any ideas challenging the doctrines of churches and the existence of God; even now, in some authoritative countries, the censorship is used to rule its people by restricting their minds, of course, for the stability of their governing over the people. With these regards, censorship itself is questioned at the rationality of existing, regardless of the practices made by the democratic government, while the justice of the democratic government is quite doubtable.
The matter concerning is not only who practices the censorship but also how it is practiced. Since different men make different comments on the same work of art, for example, it is hard to set up a measure by which we could decide whether one should be prohibited, especially to the work of arts, as its content always labeled as “subversive” and “revolutionary”, two words detested by the governors most. Such cases could be found in Ulysses by J. Joyce and Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H Lawrence, these two great novels were firstly considered to be guilty of obscenity and were put to prohibition by the American government, but turned out to be true masterpieces today. So any form of censorship, to some extent, lags behind the development of ideas and will put more or less a negative effect on their development.
Though the censorship is such a disgusting word embodying so much oppression and might, it is a compromise we made with the reality far from being perfect, to provide a comparative stable ground which we could stand on. At this point, I don’t agree with the institute like ACLU who oppose any censorship. The censorship, though rarely justified, should exist as long as a more ideal and practical form is found to replace it, or we could only expect our God to create a more ideal species instead of imperfect human beings.
GRE作文範文：如何避免偏激
Most people often look for similarities, even between very different things, and even when it it is unhelpful or harmful to do so. Instead, a thing should be considered on its own terms: we should avoid the tendency to compare it to something else.
GRE作文範文參考：
In the age of accelerating changes, the eagerness to understand things in an effective and equally efficient way is more than ever. Although all kinds of complex techniques, skills and equipments helpful for understanding and studying the objects are easily accessible to people, the basic strategies stay the same as before: one is starting from similarities and the other from distinction. From my personal point of view, only by using the two in proper proportion and order can one achieve his/her goal to understand a thing.
Looking for similarities is a proper starting point. When we first meet something new,we need to clarify its basic attributes, finding similarites with other familiar things and classify it according to those attributes. Classification according to similaties is of great assistance to provide us with an outline, basic knowledge which we can base further investigation upon. Although things in contemporary age represent themselves in various forms and styles, similarities exist in any pair as long as certain perspective can be found. For instance, Bookcase and window are so different that at first glance, one
may not be able to find the similarities, or even such an effort seems to be meaningless. Yet, they are both part of a house, something that must be taken into consideration when decorating or refurnishing the house. Such a comparison would be helpful for us to realize that “buy” and “sell” are two basic operation we can have upon window even though we have no idea what window is made of, how it is produced or what its function ’s more, looking for similarities not only refer to the object itself, but the relationship with others. Similar relationships helps people understand things in groups or pairs using the strategy: analogy. Analogy is especially useful when the charactertistics of a relationship rather than the objects themselves are the focus of understanding and when similar relationships are known and objects unknown. For example, if told that the relationship between window and ASVE is similar to that between book and read, one can safely guess that ASVE is the operation people can take on window although ASVE stays an unknown action.
Definitely, mere similarity usually exclude the distinctive characteristics of a thing. We need to investigate its own terms for deeper understanding. Within the rough outline sketched by similarity, a more detailed and well-articulated picture can be drawn by grasping own terms of a thing. Still take window as an example. From careful observation, we know that it is transparent, it consists of different chemical materials, it performs the function as to protect privacy, to preserve desirable temperature indoor, and sometimes to prevent rains and snows from going inside. Deeper and further understanding of window can only be gained when we take its own terms besides those it shares with bookcase into consideration.
In the newly development software engineering model named Object-oriented model,the strategy “similarity first and differences later” functions as the core and focus of the whole model. Objects sharing common points are put into same “classes” and common points are processed together, later they are defined, discussed and processed respectively according to their own characteristics. This method greatly reduces the repetive time and energy spent over and over again on similar, if not utterly same, terms. Translated into daily life, starting from similarites for a quick outline and transferring to grasp distinctive characteristics for deeper understanding isthe approach we should always bear in mind when hoping to understand a thing with effectiveness and efficiency.
GRE作文範文：事物不會一成不變
Much of the information that people assume is‘factual’actually turns out to be inaccurate. Thus，any piece of information referred to as a‘fact’should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future.
GRE作文範文參考：
Should we be doubtful to all the information at hands because the rightness of which is uncertain? The speaker claims so，I concede that people often commit various fallacies in the course of cognizing things，however I fundamentally take exception of the arguer's assertion to mistrust every fact we might encounter. And I will substantially discuss my views thereinafter.
To begin with，the speaker seems to implicate that a fact would be proven false in the future under numerous circumstance. Nevertheless I prefer to arguer that facts never change. No matter how did the Medieval Church and Inquisition persecute Bruno，the fact never changes that the earth is far from being the center of the universe as the religious sovereigns had assumed or hoped for，while just a minor particle in it. Equally，no matter how Edison had tried to incite the public fear and distrust to the alternative current electricity，the fact never changes that Teals’ electrical system is vastly superior to his direct current electrical one，and would be accepted and applied in larger range.
However，what do change are the human's objective interpretations to facts. One compelling argument to this point is that，due to the limitation of human’s knowledge and comprehensive capability，they tend to make insufficient or even false understanding to the certain fact. An apt illustration is the changes of cognition to disease. While at the ancient time，our progenitors believed the a man becoming a patient for the reason that he had conduct crimes or offended some ghosts or spirits，the contemporary people have well know that the varies of pathogens are the basic causes to our diseases，and the defects of our immune system and so forth are also the factors as well. Another argument for the change of comprehension to fact is that different people always observe and interpret from different perspectives. Though the Relativity theory is not well compliable with the Quantum mechanism，no one call the greatness of both Einstein and Bohr，because their theories are based on distinct views，the former from the macrocosm and the later from the microcosm.
Notwithstanding the foregoing reasons for that human tend to make fallacies during the cause of comprehending and cognizing facts，these reasons should never be the excuses to doubt every conclusion we might draw from facts. Based on certain rational inference and proper knowledge fundament，the conclusions we make might well be justifiable，if not completely right，to certain degree. What we need to do is to promote the enterprise of pursuing the better answer and try to use the result we have get to application，instead of wasting our time to undue doubt and suspicion. Though the medical scientists have not fully understood the mechanism of how the does the implanted organ interact with the wounded body，they are not refrain from using the implanting skill to save patients，of course the precondition or which is that this technology is much well established than the fundamental theory.
To sum up，while I advocate the speaker's opinion that it is inevitable for human to comprehend facts inaccurately，for the reason of the limitation of the abilities，I essentially disagree with his assertion that facts will continually alter themselves，as well as his recommendation to discredit any piece of fact. In the final analysis，I would arguer once more that facts never change and although the misunderstanding to them is inevitable，we should not defer ourselves from the pursuit to fully comprehending them.
