GRE作文2.5能申請(qǐng)美國(guó)院校嗎
很多美國(guó)研究生院校，對(duì)于GRE寫(xiě)作的考試分?jǐn)?shù)也有一定的要求。如果作文分?jǐn)?shù)太低，也會(huì)影響我們的申請(qǐng)。那么具體的GRE寫(xiě)作如果是2.5分，是否可以申請(qǐng)?jiān)盒Ｄ?下面小編為大家整理了詳細(xì)的內(nèi)容，供大家參考!
GRE作文2.5能申請(qǐng)美國(guó)院校嗎
一、GRE寫(xiě)作2.5美國(guó)研究生留學(xué)申請(qǐng)?jiān)趺礃?
GRE考試的語(yǔ)言(Verbal)和數(shù)學(xué)(Quantitative)部分的分?jǐn)?shù)區(qū)間為130分到170分，最終兩部分成績(jī)要匯總成為一個(gè)整數(shù)。GRE寫(xiě)作部分的分?jǐn)?shù)可以從最低的0分，到最高的6分，期間分?jǐn)?shù)會(huì)以0.5分為一個(gè)單位進(jìn)行變化。所以這里主要說(shuō)的作文分?jǐn)?shù)2.5。
其實(shí)總之了，有點(diǎn)太低了，3分還勉強(qiáng)可以過(guò).因?yàn)樯暾?qǐng)研究生主要是給教授打工,然后就有很多寫(xiě)作的task,所以一般都還會(huì)看看作文水平的.雖然GRE作文的確不算重點(diǎn),但是有一個(gè)過(guò)得去的分?jǐn)?shù)還是蠻必要的。
二、GRE寫(xiě)作分?jǐn)?shù)低如何申請(qǐng)美國(guó)研究生留學(xué)?
1、文書(shū)優(yōu)勢(shì)：不過(guò)如果你朋友有很牛的推薦信或者論文發(fā)表之類(lèi)的話(huà),GRE就是浮云了.
2、理科比文科好申請(qǐng)：不過(guò)要看你的專(zhuān)業(yè)是什么，如果是文科的話(huà)，可能影響會(huì)更大，如果是理工科，會(huì)稍小一點(diǎn)。不過(guò)把托福的作文考高一點(diǎn)，文書(shū)寫(xiě)得漂亮一點(diǎn)，也可以一定程度上彌補(bǔ)這個(gè)遺憾。
3、合理規(guī)劃，再次備戰(zhàn)GRE考試：對(duì)于美國(guó)本土的學(xué)生來(lái)說(shuō)，三到四個(gè)月的準(zhǔn)備時(shí)間足夠讓學(xué)生準(zhǔn)備GRE考試。但對(duì)于國(guó)際學(xué)生來(lái)說(shuō)，由于語(yǔ)言問(wèn)題，以及詞匯量的不足，學(xué)生最好能夠根據(jù)自己的英文水平適當(dāng)?shù)难娱L(zhǎng)自己的準(zhǔn)備時(shí)間。其他學(xué)生的準(zhǔn)備時(shí)間對(duì)學(xué)生來(lái)說(shuō)只有參考價(jià)值，畢竟不同的學(xué)生學(xué)習(xí)效率不同，所需學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)長(zhǎng)自然就不同。因此，要準(zhǔn)備GRE考試的同學(xué)們一定提早做好美國(guó)研究生申請(qǐng)時(shí)間表，適當(dāng)延長(zhǎng)自己的準(zhǔn)備時(shí)間。
GRE寫(xiě)作滿(mǎn)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 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寫(xiě)作滿(mǎn)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."
Since the residents are changing the original statement that complies with the conditions of what an undeveloped site is, it is their responsibility to make sure that certain restrictions are followed. According to the definition of undeveloped land, keeping the natural elements and avoiding the tearing down of this elements is an issue to consider even if it is a school built on the site.
Even though the residents originally wanted to keep the property undeveloped and unbuilt, the fact that they emphasize that this area will subtantially be devoted to athletic fields, strongly supports the idea of the residents using the land for similar activities than that of the public parkland, . Moreover, the fact that the residents mentioned the community as being one where children will be the main participants of this area is persuasive enough to make this argument a strong one.
Comments:
This response is seriously flawed. The first paragraph obliquely addresses the argument made in the topic, but stops short of logical analysis. The second paragraph agrees with the argument and supports its assumptions. In essence, the writer exhibits an uncritical acceptance of the argument.
Aside from a few minor errors, the writer has control over syntax, grammar, and the conventions of standard written English. This response, though, warrants a score of 2, because it offers no discernible analysis of the logic of the argument.
GRE寫(xiě)作滿(mǎn)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."
A school should serve all students living nearby so that they can commute in a short distance. That will provide the better basic-human-needs. It is questioned that whether it is appropriate to establish a school in the area without locating houses. On the other hand, wouldn't it be good if the land is left untouch?
These are the facts of argument that readers might have after reading the message. The information is too opinionate therefore develop many questions. The writing given in the first part does not support the rest.
Comments:
The first paragraph of this fundamentally deficient response is apparently attempting to summarize the issues and terms of the argument. The attempt, though, is almost completely obscured by errors and the disorganized presentation of ideas. Paragraph 2 offers only the assessment that "the information is too opinionate therefore develop many questions."
The response warrants a score of 1 because it exhibits three of the scoring guide characteristics for a 1:
-- provides little evidence of the ability to understand and analyze
the argument
-- has severe and persistent errors in language and sentence structure
-- contains a pervasive pattern of errors in grammar, usage, and
mechanics that results in incoherence
GRE作文2.5能申請(qǐng)美國(guó)院校嗎相關(guān)文章：
★ 想申請(qǐng)Top30,GRE作文成績(jī)到底多少分才夠
GRE作文2.5能申請(qǐng)美國(guó)院校嗎
下一篇：1天搞定GRE作文4分模板
