gmat寫(xiě)作簡(jiǎn)單，但寫(xiě)出一篇能夠得高分的文章可就不容易了!畢竟，想要獲得gmat寫(xiě)作高分，不是簡(jiǎn)單的掌握了一點(diǎn)詞匯和句式就可以。那么，gmat寫(xiě)作如何修煉才能拿高分呢?下面大家就隨小編一起去看看有哪些高分修煉方法吧!
一、文體要求高大上
寫(xiě)作中考生的風(fēng)格與眾不同會(huì)給考官眼前一亮的感覺(jué)，從而獲得較高的分?jǐn)?shù)，所以在gmat作文上，我們要考慮是否充分使用了長(zhǎng)短句，是否充分使用了簡(jiǎn)單句，復(fù)雜句和復(fù)合句等多種句型，在詞匯的使用上是否出現(xiàn)大量重復(fù)，是否使用了很多的同義詞。而且文章中的句子是否通順和容易理解。
二、句子語(yǔ)法不要出現(xiàn)基本錯(cuò)誤
gmat寫(xiě)作最基本的要求就是沒(méi)有語(yǔ)法錯(cuò)誤。這些錯(cuò)誤包含沒(méi)有拼錯(cuò)的詞匯，沒(méi)有亂用并列關(guān)系，主謂一致和指代正確，連詞使用正確，標(biāo)點(diǎn)符號(hào)的使用和修飾語(yǔ)的位置問(wèn)題。
三、中心主旨有吸引力
中心主旨表達(dá)的要有特色，對(duì)于范文的內(nèi)容可以適當(dāng)借鑒，但絕對(duì)要避免照抄的做法。如果你的文章遣詞造句都是很有個(gè)人特色的寫(xiě)法，那么勢(shì)必會(huì)給考官留下比較深刻的印象。并且論證的時(shí)候例子一定要有說(shuō)服力 ，許多考生覺(jué)得那些名人故事太過(guò)高大上，遠(yuǎn)離生活不夠貼切，所以更喜歡以自己或朋友身上發(fā)生的事情來(lái)舉例，而此類(lèi)例子最大的問(wèn)題就是往往缺乏客觀性和說(shuō)服力，那時(shí)因?yàn)橛捎诘谝蝗朔Q(chēng)的局限導(dǎo)致所敘述事件難免“雞毛蒜皮”。所以在中心主旨表達(dá)方面要注意文章觀點(diǎn)是否新穎、有吸引力并切題;你是否使用了恰當(dāng)?shù)湫偷睦?文章是否從正反兩面進(jìn)行了論述，還是只進(jìn)行了片面的論述;你是否對(duì)題目的主要矛盾進(jìn)行了反駁，還是只反駁了次要矛盾;文章論述是否嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)合理，符合論述主題。
四、整體結(jié)構(gòu)要嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)完美
對(duì)于整體結(jié)構(gòu)方面，想要給考官一氣呵成的感覺(jué)，要注意文章開(kāi)頭結(jié)尾是否齊整;文章段落間的過(guò)渡是否流暢自然;是否使用了足夠的承接詞匯和短語(yǔ)，諸如for example, first, further等;每個(gè)段落的中心內(nèi)容是否清晰明確;文章各段落內(nèi)容是否圍繞主題合理展開(kāi)。
最后，送給gmat寫(xiě)作復(fù)習(xí)生們一篇范文，大家可以借此“消化”下上述內(nèi)容：
The author assumes that since organizations engaged in color-film processing were able to increase efficiency and cut-down costs over a period of 25 years; same must be true of Olympic Foods, which is about to celebrate its 25th anniversary. The arguments is based on questionable assumptions and weak analogies and appears to be a result of a hasty generalization.
The main problem with the author’s reasoning is the weak analogy he develops between the two “processing” industries. One fails to see any logical connection between the two and the author makes no effort to show the connection either. The two industries are too dissimilar to be compared. For example: frozen food industry faces problem of storage, transportation, contamination etc; no similar problems are observed in the film-processing industry. Even the markets for the two differ widely. The argument could have been strong if the author could show the missing connection or if he had compared the frozen-food industry with a similar industry.
Also the author fails to recognize that it’s not the number of years of experience that matters; what actually matters is what is learnt over all those years.
An industry may mature over a couple of years, yet another may remain stagnant even after 25 years. The color-film industry people may have tremendous learnings that may have contributed to the cost-reduction; but the report shows no evidence of Olympic Foods doing the same.
Another point that the author misses completely is that there may be factors other than just the expertise and experience gained over the mentioned period. For example: developments in technology may have resulted in the cost-reduction for the color-film processing industry. The author could have strengthened his stand by showing that it’s merely the increased efficiency that has brought costs down. He could have also chosen to highlight similar developments in the food-processing industry too.
To sum, the author’s conclusion doesn’t appear to be convincing at all. The author could have made it a bit persuasive by presenting the evidence mentioned above. Without these, the argument is weak and fails to impress the reader.