GMAT作文满分的备考之路

　　下面GMAT为大家整理了GMAT作文满分的备考之路，供考生们参考，以下是详细内容。

　　我的GMAT一战定在921，上海腾飞大厦。虽已过去一周，个中酸甜苦辣仍历历在目。正式考试从AWA作文部分起就一直精神恍惚，心跳加速，双手发抖，曾经在TOEFL作文上砍瓜切菜的我在打G的作文时双手完全不听使唤。后来在破釜沉舟的心理暗示下总算平定下来，顺利过渡到Math部分。昨天顺利收到Official Report，上面赫然写着AWA：6.0，我那颗扑腾的心啊，总算是安定了下来。此文主要针对AWA写作，关于Math和Verbal部分我不想班门弄斧，以免贻笑大方，尽管Math是满分，但实际只准备了3周，就不误导各位了。我的AWA写作是9月15日开始准备的，总共才5天半时间，之前压根不知G的作文考察神马东东，依稀了解到有逻辑纠错型作文，我便汗颜。因为我的逻辑狂差，怕自己连文章的逻辑谬误也看不透，于是5天半的准备期里AA训练了3/4。我想说，GMAT作文不需要像TOEFL作文那样倾力而为准备，但是一定要用好复习时间中的每一个小时，保证每天都有收获。第一天要熟悉写作机经题库，最好把每个题都看一遍，看看过来人如何组织思路，如何展开，如何举例。不贪多，求质量!另外就是出色的模板了。模板对于AA写作尤为重要，但对于AI写作，各位G友自己看着办吧，可以自己去找点模板，反正我觉得在AI中模板是次要的，关键是观点和论据，如果各位看官有TOEFL的写作背景，那么恭喜你，GMAT AI部分的准备会容易得多。言归正传，看完NN的思路、范文和模板后自己可以开始训练了。记得用标准键盘，一开始不限时，天马行空胡吹乱侃一通，然后对照牛人的作品找差距，自己修改。我第一篇AA写作用了1小时10分钟，因为我积累少，思路不正，有些逻辑谬误看不出来，导致半天熬不出几句话。这时千万不要泄气，不妨看看《孙远AWA宝典》，绝对受益匪浅。还有，别忘了我们有OG12，这是市面上最权威的官方指南，研究透里面范文的行文和思路绝对能事半功倍!

　　此外，每个人的弱点并不相同，有的人害怕AA部分，比如像我这种逻辑很麻木的人，而不少人也许害怕AI部分，这时，你就要储备和积累了。AI就谨记几条定律：1、尽量写多，这样论点可以充分展开和论述;2、多分段。3、举例子，摆事实，讲道理。例子真的很重要，你不需要苦逼地绕啊绕，一味说理，说理的同时举些例子，能让文章有血有肉，又能充字数，一举两得啊。例子尽量举实例，如果现编当然也可以，不过你在编人物、组织名称时最好来个破折号，同位语说明一下这个家伙是神马玩意儿，这样又能充字数，又能欺骗E-rater，何乐不为?!3、如果你有良好的写作功底那就多写复杂句，多来几个从句套从句，这是非常符合E-rater的口味的。当然这是有风险的，如果没有系统地训练过，那就回归原始的简单句吧，保证前提是---少出错，尔后---写出彩。4、建议多用高级词汇，不要只会significant，of great importance了，学着用vital，critical，consequential;不要只会用firstly，secondly了，学着用Most conspicuously，the second point worth talking is that不要等到写作时囊中空空，这是最苦逼的，写作是第一部分，倘若G考试没开好头，那么会严重影响后面的发挥。

　　我在考场上自感灰常杯具，因为耳边只听得大牛们哒哒哒的键盘声，而自己刚好抽了两个没练过的考题，这一坨坨汗啊后来肿么办?写呗，既来之，则安之，反正我是酱油党，大不了一个月后再战嘛。这一暗示，让我顿时思如泉涌，然后就一泻千里吧。苦闷的是自己构思耗了不少时间，打字速度也不快，后面狂飙不止，但估计也没写够500字，可见，作文字数并非决定因素，但是一定要有清晰的行文和逻辑。但还是那句话，尽量写多吧。引用名人名言或许是一个不错的选择。我的AI就以Franklin Roosevelt的名句结尾，可惜的是我背上的话完全因为紧张而一片空白，我就自己编了个从句套从句，大概意思反正是写出来了。所以，G友们不要害怕记名言，如果真心记不住，那就大致把精华记下来吧。反正E-rater又不会去查证!

　　AA自创：

　　原题：The following appeared in an Avia Airlines departmental memorandum:

　　On average, 9 out of every 1,000 passengers who traveled on Avia Airlines last year filed a complaint about our baggage-handling procedures. This means that although some 1 percent of our passengers were unhappy with those procedures, the overwhelming majority were quite satisfied with them; thus it would appear that a review of the procedures is not important to our goal of maintaining or increasing the number of Avias passengers.

　　提供观点：

　　1去年是这样今年呢以后呢?

　　2很有可能是乘客对服务不满意却没时间正式申诉

　　3和别的航空公司比较如何seriousness trivialize

　　1， 没有complaint不代表没有不满。

　　2， 没有跟其他公司对比，同时并不知道总数。

　　In the given memorandum, the argument maintains a view that a review of procedures is not important to the goal of the travel company to maintain or increase the number of passengers. To support this idea, the author of the argument points out that only 9 out of every 1,000 passengers who traveled on AA last year were dissatisfied with the baggage-handling procedures. The reasoning process is convincing at first glance, with close examination, however, we can easily find out three logical flaws. Id like to uncover how groundless this allegation is in the following paragraphs.

　　Obviously, the argument commits a logical fallacy called either-or thinking. The argument above assumes that there are only two possible results open to us----dissatisfied passengers who complained about the baggage-handling procedures and satisfied passengers who did not file a complaint. But there is no room for a middle ground. It is premature to conclude that those who didnt file the complaint were indeed the satisfied customers without any further investigation. What if these individuals had no time to file a complaint or they were unwilling to express their dissatisfaction? If the author cannot provide the relative compelling evidences to prove that the customers who did not file a complaint are indeed pleased with the AAs procedures, the argument is weak and unpersuasive.

　　The second point worth talking is that the sample raised in the allegation is insufficient. First of all, the author does not quote the total number of the passengers last year. For instance, if there was a total number of 1500 passengers who traveled on AA last year, the 1000 passengers in the sample are definitely sufficient. But what if there are over 200,000 passengers who took AA last year? The data in the survey are so limited that they are not representative of the entire passengers under consideration. Furthermore, the author of the argument fails to provide affirmative justification that the passengers in the sample are chose at random. Perhaps these biased passengers were well chosen by the board of the AA in order to demonstrate the excellent baggage-handling service to the general public. In the absence of compelling information to justify how these passengers are chose, it is arbitrary to say that a review of the procedures is unimportant.

　　Finally, the argument assumed without justification that background conditions have remained the same at different times. As is the case presented in the argument, only a small fraction of the passengers were unsatisfied with the luggage-handling procedures last year. This means an overwhelming majority of the passengers were pleased with the procedure service. Nevertheless, the author of the argument does not necessarily prove that this phenomenon will inevitably happen in the near future. It is an unwarranted assumption for the simple reason that things rarely remain constant over extended periods of time.

　　In a nutshell, the argument omits several key factors; it is not sound or persuasive. If it involves the items discussed above rather than simply illustrate several numbers in a survey, the argument would have been more thorough and compelling.

　　以上就是GMAT作文满分的备考之路的详细内容，考生可针对文中介绍的方法进行有针对性的备考。更多资讯、资料尽在GMAT。最后，GMAT预祝大家在GMAT考试中取得好成绩!