加拿大研究生考試GRE寫作有哪些邏輯錯誤

加拿大研究生考試如果想要GRE寫作取得4+的成績，我們的字數(shù)就要達到一定的標準---至少450詞。同時攻擊的細節(jié)要有一定的深度。很多同學在考場上會遇到“抓耳撓腮“湊字數(shù)的情況。

尤其是在Argument中，因為很多邏輯錯誤看似很簡單，但幾句話就寫完了，我們的字數(shù)和分數(shù)就被莫名其妙的”坑“掉了。

首當其沖的就是—可行性問題

可行性問題指的是對作者的建議進行攻擊–即使作者上面說的都對，他后續(xù)提的這個建議也不可行（沒有錢，也沒有能力做執(zhí)行這個建議）

看似很好說，很多同學都喜歡選擇這種感覺容易說清楚的邏輯錯誤進行攻擊。

但是正因為內(nèi)容簡單，很多同學不到100字就所有內(nèi)容都說完了。

這個時候，為了湊字數(shù)，同學就會在后面補充：“即使這么做了，也沒什么用處。”

這就出現(xiàn)了扣分點。

為什么要扣分呢？

這么做沒用的前提了我們已經(jīng)這么做了，代表作者的建議已經(jīng)實施，就不是可行性的問題了。

其次就是另一個邏輯錯誤—絕對化用詞

絕對化用詞這類邏輯錯誤指的是作者使用了“only/best/all/most”等語氣絕對的單詞。

我們的攻擊重點就是文中提及的這個點不是唯一的選擇、不是最好的處理方式等等，隨后列舉其他的選擇。

加拿大研究生考試GRE寫作有哪些邏輯錯誤

易扣分

但是受制于文本內(nèi)容，其他處理方式我們很有可能無法具體展開，從而導致我們字數(shù)和論述詳細程度都受到影響，進而影響了我們的最終得分。

因此，我們建議大家，在結尾句，即使我們可以輕松找出可行性問題和絕對化用詞，大家也不要著急去攻擊。

如何做呢？

我們一定要把文章中所有的邏輯錯誤都找出來，然后選擇內(nèi)容豐富，同時可以表述清楚的邏輯錯誤去攻擊。

GRE寫作容易丟分的點

論證錯誤

1)范圍方面：小范圍推大范圍、范圍誤用、錯誤的類比、過去和將來時間混淆等;

2)因果關系方面：因果關系簡單化、先后順序?qū)е乱蚬P系、同時發(fā)生判為因果關系、強加因果等;

3)必要性問題：非黑即白思想、片面性和單方性等。GRE寫作

GRE寫作的論證過程中，需要用嚴謹?shù)倪壿嬎季S推導出結論，如果邏輯存在以上論證錯誤，文章就是不嚴謹?shù)?，肯定要被扣分?/p>

缺乏論據(jù)

有足夠的論據(jù)支撐文章的觀點或結論，可以是文章很有說服力，而且有條理。但是如果文章缺乏足夠的論據(jù)，這樣的文章會很空洞，也是分數(shù)不高的一個原因。

邏輯混亂

使用表述不準確的詞匯，或者以偏概全的表述，甚至一些極端的表達觀點，都會導致文章的邏輯混亂。

例如某類事物其中的A,B,C有一些共同的特性，從而推導出該類事物都具備這類特性，這就是以偏概全的論證方法。

低級錯誤

1）語法出錯：有時候往往會忽略一些小錯誤，導致一些不必要的丟分。比如：主謂不一致，單復數(shù)，三單形式等等。

2）單詞拼寫錯誤：有時候很可能著急打字，有一些簡單單詞的拼寫錯誤導致丟分。

3）詞性誤用：“詞性誤用”常表現(xiàn)為：介詞當動詞用;形容詞當副詞用;名詞當動詞用等。比如：None can negative the importance of money.

分析：negative系形容詞，誤作動詞。

應該為：None can deny the importance of money.

以上就是作文中容易丟分的點、然后對比自己寫的文章，進行分析總結一下，如果文章中存在以上問題，可以吸取經(jīng)驗進行改正，避免這些丟分點。

最后附上一篇6分作文范文及文章分析，供各位參考。

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（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."

題目分析：

論據(jù)1：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

論據(jù)2：if no shopping centers or houses were built there,Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland

論據(jù)3：If the land becomes a school site,no shopping centers or houses can be built there,and substantial acreage（面積）would probably be devoted to athletic fields

論據(jù)4：a large majority of our children participate in sports

結論：Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland

分析：

從論據(jù)1，2到論據(jù)3的推理本身就可以質(zhì)疑，既然5年前決定了不開發(fā)，那么必須有充足的理由確定現(xiàn)在的情況發(fā)生了改變．否則，不能說現(xiàn)在就必須reconsider this issue

論據(jù)3的本身推理有錯誤，沒有證據(jù)表明學校建成了就no shopping centers or houses can be built there，剩余的能夠興建體育場的面積完全能夠保證建立起shopping centers and houses.相反，也許是學校內(nèi)的建成促進了購物和住房的發(fā)展（許多家庭為了孩子上學會在附近阻房子住，刺激兩者發(fā)展）同時，我們是否有足夠的經(jīng)費建立體育場也是一個疑問．

a large majority of our children participate in sports不能說明大家參加的運動都必須在田徑[運動]場上進行．也就是說田徑場不能適合所有孩子的需要，同樣，相對于park,school也不是適合所有市民的需要的．

正文：

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.（這種開頭可以說是非常詳細的復述了原文的內(nèi)容，并且可以通過黑體的短語看出作者復述的順序，寫了13７詞，這里還沒有進入正式的批駁，這是不是可以作為＂開頭就要開門見山點題＂這樣一個觀點的反例呢？）

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,（學生家長方面）a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community,（教師方面）or just a resident of Morganton.（中立方面）Regardless of who the author is,there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.（這個并列寫的非常的妙，大家一定能體會出來overlook和choose to ignore用在這里有怎么樣的含義）作者本段其實在質(zhì)疑原文作者的立場是否中立，如果不是中立的立場，而是利益涉及的一方，那么以后的論斷就很難說服別人．加拿大研究生考試

Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland.（首先就很明確的把build a school和a natural parkland完全分離開，使后面原文作者的說法完全被推翻，這可以說是一個核心的問題）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.（兩者的主要區(qū)別）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.

本段質(zhì)疑核心的問題！

Another point（自然的過度，沒有用first,secondly……）the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes(使．．．．．．合理化)the destruction of the park.What about children who don't play sports?（首先考慮到不是所有的children都會使用運動場）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.（park和運動場的第二個區(qū)別）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.（總結，重述，可以發(fā)現(xiàn)作者的總結沒有絲毫和前面重復的說法，雖然說的是一樣的意思！這一個總結段是總結全文的經(jīng)典?。?/p>

COMMENTARY

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.

（從這句評論我們可以明顯感知到評分的核心在后面的分析，關鍵不是如何開頭，關鍵是如何分析?。?/p>

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 essay demonstrates insightful analysis,cogent development,and mastery of writing.It clearly earns a 6.