从8月1日开始起，旧GRE将扫进历史的垃圾堆，新的GRE将以马拉松考试的形式（一天考三门那么长时间，这到底是想闹怎样，诶。。。）展现在大陆考生面前。。。当然我以前辛辛苦苦写的那么多关于AW的东西也有部分内容要更新了；无奈的是本人的精力早已大不如前，一直想做的百科全书整理也从来没做过，就更不用说什么更新了。想来想去，决定就写一篇关于新AW官方要求的解读，对官网里那一坨坨不知甚解的英文做一下剖析，这样也就足够了吧。。。毕竟好歹也分析了那么长时间的作文，经验还是有一点得，希望下面的文字能够对以后的考生起到一些作用，我也就心满意足了。
在开始正文前插一句，在议事厅里看到Dincy在那里说：“要是新AW没有机经的话就好了。”恩，就凭借ETS的这幅尿性，要是不出现机经就奇了怪了；放心吧，机井肯定会有得，临时抱佛脚的同学们有福了，因为给你们出题目的机构是以其super懒惰而著称于世得，那种把过去在别的国家考过的题目原封不动放到另一个地方考的，也就 ETS能干得出来了。。。
好了，那么我们先看一下新AW和旧AW的区别吧，最大的地方其实也就是在两个地方上：一个是issue的时间由原来的45分钟压到30分钟，另外就是题库基本全换，以前的机井之类的全成为浮云飘飘。。。题库这不是啥大问题，我看了几道题目，感觉出题的那几个老头子没啥变动，出题风格还是和以前差不了多少，所以等大概半年之后各种各样的范文也就能马上出来了吧；issue的时间是个大问题，毕竟本来从难度来说 issue就比argument要大，结果时间现在还被压缩成一样。也许这是考虑到三门考试要在一天时间考，过长的考试时间也许会对学生心理造成压力，但是把本来就时间紧迫的issue还压缩掉1/3，要是ETS的领导站在我面前我非要糊他熊脸不可。。。
但这也没办法了，所以为了应付新的 issue，文字量肯定也要往下压；以前的话两个作文最适合的文字量是issue500 argument400，现在issue能够写到450就谢天谢地了，搞不好还要再少点才有可能；而相应得issue的文章结构也要产生一点变化，以前的 5段要减肥，甚至有时候就只能写4段了，就像ETS里的那个5分范文一样。
说到范文我们就看一下吧，是否issue的文章要求也和以前有所变化；为此我还特意在百度文库上下了旧的AW官方范文做了一下对比（无良的上传者下个破玩意儿还要付积分。。。），先放旧GRE的6分和5分范文：
"In our time, specialists of all kinds are highly overrated. We need more generalists — people who can provide broad perspectives."
SAMPLE-1 (score:6)
In this era of rapid social and technological change leading to increasing life complexity and psychological displacement, both positive and negative effects among persons in Western society call for a balance in which there are both specialists and generalists.
Specialists are necessary in order to allow society as a whole to properly and usefully assimilate the masses of new information and knowledge that have come out of research and have been widely disseminated through mass global media. As the head of Pharmacology at my university once said (and I paraphrase):"I can only research what I do because there are so many who have come before me to whom I can turn for basic knowledge. It is only because of each of the narrowly focussed individuals at each step that a full and true understanding of the complexities of life can be had. Each person can only hold enough knowledge to add one small rung to the ladder, but together we can climb to the moon." This illustrates the point that our societies level of knowledge and technology is at a stage in which there simply must be specialists in order for our society to take advantage of the information available to us.
Simply put, without specialists, our society would find itself bogged down in the Sargasso sea of information overload. While it was fine for early physicists to learn and understand the few laws and ideas that existed during their times, now, no one individual can possibly digest and assimilate all of the knowledge in any given area.
On the other hand, Over specialization means narrow focii in which people can lose the larger picture.No one can hope to understand the human body by only inspecting one’s own toe-nails. What we learn from a narrow focus may be internally logically coherent but may be irrelevant or fallacious within the framework of a broader perspective. Further, if we inspect only our toe-nails, we may conclude that the whole body is hard and white. Useful conclusions and thus perhaps useful inventions must come by sharing among specialists. Simply throwing out various discovieries means we have a pile of useless discoveries, it is only when one can make with them a mosaic that we can see that they may form a picture.
Not only may over-specialization be dangerous in terms of the truth, purity and cohesion of knowledge, but it can also serve to drown moral or universall issues. Generalists and only generalists can see a broad enough picture to realize and introduce to the world the problems of the environment. With specialization, each person focusses on their research and their goals. Thus, industrialization, expansion, and new technologies are driven ahead. Meanwhile no individual can see the wholisitc view of our global existence in which true advancement may mean stifling individual specialists for the greater good of all.
Finally, over-specialization in a people’s daily lives and jobs has meant personal and psychological compartmentalization. People are forced into pigeon holes early in life (at least by university) and must conciously attempt to consume external forms of stimuli and information in order not to be lost in their small and isolated universe. Not only does this make for narrowly focussed and generally pooprly-educated individuals, but it guarantees a sense of loss of community, often followed by a feeling of psychological displacement and personal dissatisfaction.
Without generalists, society becomes inward-looking and eventually inefficient. Without a society that recongnizes the impotance of braod-mindedness and fora for sharing generalities, individuals become isolated. Thus, while our form of society necessitates specialists, generalists are equally important. Specialists drive us forward in a series of thrusts while generalists make sure we are still on the jousting field and know what the stakes are.
COMMENTARY
This is an outstanding response — insightful, well reasoned, and highly effective in its use of language. The introductory paragraph announces the writer’s position on the issue and provides the context within which the writer will develop that position: "In this era of rapid social and technological change leading to increasing life complexity and psychological displacement"
The argument itself has two parts. The first part presents a compelling case for specialization, primarily in the field of medicine. The second part presents an equally compelling, well-organized case against overspecialization based on three main reasons:
– logical (narrowly trained specialists often fail to understand the whole)
– moral (usually generalists understand what is needed for "the greater good")
– personal (specializing/pigeonholing too early can be psychologically damaging)
The argument’s careful line of reasoning is further strengthened by the skillful use of expert testimony (quotation from a prominent medical researcher) and vivid metaphor (to inspect only one’s toenails is to ignore the whole body).
It is not only the reasoning that distinguishes this essay. The language is precise and often figurative ("bogged down in a Sargasso sea of information overload," "a pile of useless discoveries," and "specialists drive us forward in a series of thrusts, while generalists make sure we are still on the jousting field"). The reader is constantly guided through the argument by transitional phrases and ideas that help organize the essay and move the argument forward. This is an exceptionally fine response to the topic.
SAMPLE-2 (score 5)
Specialists are not overrated today. More generalists may be needed, but not to overshadow the specialists. Generalists can provide a great deal of information on many topics of interest with a broad range of ideas. People who look at the overall view of things can help with some of the large problems our society faces today. But specialists are necessary to gain a better understanding of more in depth methods to solve problems or fixing things.
One good example of why specialists are not overrated is in the medical field. Doctors are necessary for people to live healthy lives. When a person is sick, he may go to a general practitioner to find out the cause of his problems. Usually, this kind of "generalized" doctor can help most ailments with simple and effective treatments. Sometimes, though, a sickness may go beyond a family doctor’s knowledge or the prescribed treatments don’t work the way they should. When a sickness progresses or becomes diagnosed as a disease that requires more care than a family doctor can provide, he may be referred to a specialist. For instance, a person with constant breathing problems that require hospitalization may be suggested to visit an asthma specialist. Since a family doctor has a great deal of knowledge of medicine, he can decide when his methods are not effective and the patient needs to see someone who knows more about the specific problem; someone who knows how it begins, progresses, and specified treatments. This is an excellent example of how a generalied person may not be equipped enough to handle something as well as a specialized one can.
Another example of a specialist who is needed instead of a generalist involves teaching. In grammar school, children learn all the basic principles of reading, writing, and arithematic. But as children get older and progress in school, they gain a better understanding of the language and mathematical processes. As the years in school increase, they need to learn more and more specifics and details about various subjects. They start out by learning basic math concepts such as addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication. A few years later, they are ready to begin algebraic concepts, geometry, and calculus. They are also ready to learn more advanced vocabulary, the principles of how all life is composed and how it functions. One teacher or professor can not provide as much in depth discussion on all of these topics as well as one who has learned the specifics and studied mainly to know everything that is currently known about one of these subjects. Generalized teachers are required to begin molding students at a very early age so they can get ready for the future ahead of them in gaining more facts about the basic subjects and finding out new facts on the old ones.
These are only two examples of why specialists are not highly overrated and more generalists are not necessary to the point of overshadowing them. Generalists are needed to give the public a broad understanding of some things. But , specialists are important to help maintain the status, health, and safety of our society. Specialists are very necessary.
COMMENTARY
The essay presents a well-developed analysis of the complexities of the issue by discussing the need for both the generalist and the specialist.
This writer’s argument is rooted in two extended examples, both well chosen and effective. The first (paragraph 2) begins with a discussion of the necessity for medical generalists (the general practitioner) as well as specialists and moves into an example within the example (breathing problems and the need for an asthma specialist). This extension from the general to the specific characterizes the example in the next paragraph as well. There, the discussion centers on education from elementary to high school, from basic arithmetic to calculus.
Smoothness of development is aided by the use of good transitions: "but," "usually," and "for instance," among others. The essay ends by revisiting the writer’s thesis.
While the writer handles both language and syntax well, some bothersome problems keep this otherwise well-argued response out of the 6 category. The problems vary from the lack of a pronoun referent ("When a sickness progresses or becomes diagnosed, he may be referred to a specialist") to an error in parallel structure ("how it begins, progresses and specified treatments"), to loose syntax and imprecise language ("Generalized teachers are required to begin molding students at a very early age so they can get ready for the future ahead of them in gaining more facts about the basic subjects")
然后是新的GRE issue官方范文：
As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
Essay Response — Score 6
The statement linking technology negatively with free thinking plays on recent human experience over the past century. Surely there has been no time in history where the lived lives of people have changed more dramatically. A quick reflection on a typical day reveals how technology has revolutionized the world. Most people commute to work in an automobile that runs on an internal combustion engine. During the workday, chances are high that the employee will interact with a computer that processes information on silicon bridges that are .09 microns wide. Upon leaving home, family members will be reached through wireless networks that utilize satellites orbiting the earth. Each of these common occurrences could have been inconceivable at the turn of the 19th century.
The statement attempts to bridge these dramatic changes to a reduction in the ability for humans to think for themselves. The assumption is that an increased reliance on technology negates the need for people to think creatively to solve previous quandaries. Looking back at the introduction, one could argue that without a car, computer, or mobile phone, the hypothetical worker would need to find alternate methods of transport, information processing and communication. Technology short circuits this thinking by making the problems obsolete.
However, this reliance on technology does not necessarily preclude the creativity that marks the human species. The prior examples reveal that technology allows for convenience. The car, computer and phone all release additional time for people to live more efficiently. This efficiency does not preclude the need for humans to think for themselves. In fact, technology frees humanity to not only tackle new problems, but may itself create new issues that did not exist without technology. For example, the proliferation of automobiles has introduced a need for fuel conservation on a global scale. With increasing energy demands from emerging markets, global warming becomes a concern inconceivable to the horse-and-buggy generation. Likewise dependence on oil has created nation-states that are not dependent on taxation, allowing ruling parties to oppress minority groups such as women. Solutions to these complex problems require the unfettered imaginations of maverick scientists and politicians.
In contrast to the statement, we can even see how technology frees the human imagination. Consider how the digital revolution and the advent of the internet has allowed for an unprecedented exchange of ideas. WebMD, a popular internet portal for medical information, permits patients to self research symptoms for a more informed doctor visit. This exercise opens pathways of thinking that were previously closed off to the medical layman. With increased interdisciplinary interactions, inspiration can arrive from the most surprising corners. Jeffrey Sachs, one of the architects of the UN Millenium Development Goals, based his ideas on emergency care triage techniques. The unlikely marriage of economics and medicine has healed tense, hyperinflation environments from South America to Eastern Europe.
This last example provides the most hope in how technology actually provides hope to the future of humanity. By increasing our reliance on technology, impossible goals can now be achieved. Consider how the late 20th century witnessed the complete elimination of smallpox. This disease had ravaged the human race since prehistorical days, and yet with the technology of vaccines, free thinking humans dared to imagine a world free of smallpox. Using technology, battle plans were drawn out, and smallpox was systematically targeted and eradicated.
Technology will always mark the human experience, from the discovery of fire to the implementation of nanotechnology. Given the history of the human race, there will be no limit to the number of problems, both new and old, for us to tackle. There is no need to retreat to a Luddite attitude to new things, but rather embrace a hopeful posture to the possibilities that technology provides for new avenues of human imagination.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 6
The author of this essay stakes out a clear and insightful position on the issue and follows the specific instructions by presenting reasons to support that position. The essay cogently argues that technology does not decrease our ability to think for ourselves, but merely provides "additional time for people to live more efficiently." In fact, the problems that have developed alongside the growth of technology (pollution, political unrest in oil-producing nations) actually call for more creative thinking, not less.
In further examples, the essay shows how technology allows for the linking of ideas that may never have been connected in the past (like medicine and economic models), pushing people to think in new ways. Examples are persuasive and fully developed; reasoning is logically sound and well supported.
Ideas in the essay are connected logically, with effective transitions used both between paragraphs ("However" or "In contrast to the statement") and within paragraphs. Sentence structure is varied and complex and the essay clearly demonstrates facility with the "conventions of standard written English (i.e., grammar, usage and mechanics)," with only minor errors appearing. Thus, this essay meets all the requirements for receiving a top score, a 6.
Essay Response — Score 5
Surely many of us have expressed the following sentiment, or some variation on it, during our daily commutes to work: "People are getting so stupid these days!" Surrounded as we are by striding and strident automatons with cell phones glued to their ears, PDA’s gripped in their palms, and omniscient, omnipresent CNN gleaming in their eyeballs, it’s tempting to believe that technology has isolated and infantilized us, essentally transforming us into dependent, conformist morons best equipped to sideswip one another in our SUV’s.
Furthermore, hanging around with the younger, pre-commute generation, whom tech-savviness seems to have rendered lethal, is even less reassuring. With "Teen People" style trends shooting through the air from tiger-striped PDA to zebra-striped PDA, and with the latest starlet gossip zipping from juicy Blackberry to teeny, turbo-charged cell phone, technology seems to support young people’s worst tendencies to follow the crowd. Indeed, they have seemingly evolved into intergalactic conformity police. After all, today’s tech-aided teens are, courtesy of authentic, hands-on video games, literally trained to kill; courtesy of chat and instant text messaging, they have their own language; they even have tiny cameras to efficiently photodocument your fashion blunders! Is this adolescence, or paparazzi terrorist training camp?
With all this evidence, it’s easy to believe that tech trends and the incorporation of technological wizardry into our everyday lives have served mostly to enforce conformity, promote dependence, heighten comsumerism and materialism, and generally create a culture that values self-absorption and personal entitlement over cooperation and collaboration. However, I argue that we are merely in the inchoate stages of learning to live with technology while still loving one another. After all, even given the examples provided earlier in this essay, it seems clear that technology hasn’t impaired our thinking and problem-solving capacities. Certainly it has incapacitated our behavior and manners; certainly our values have taken a severe blow. However, we are inarguably more efficient in our badness these days. We’re effective worker bees of ineffectiveness!
If T\technology has so increased our senses of self-efficacy that we can become veritable agents of the awful, virtual CEO’s of selfishness, certainly it can be beneficial. Harnessed correctly, technology can improve our ability to think and act for ourselves. The first challenge is to figure out how to provide technology users with some direly-needed direction.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 5
The language of this essay clearly illustrates both its strengths and weaknesses. The flowery and sometimes uncannily keen descriptions are often used to powerful effect, but at other times this descriptive language results in errors in syntax. See, for example, the problems of parallelism in the second-to-last sentence of paragraph 2 ("After all, today’s tech-aided teens …").
There is consistent evidence of facility with syntax and complex vocabulary ("Surrounded as we are by striding and strident automatons with cell phones glued to their ears, PDA’s gripped in their palms, and omniscient, omnipresent CNN gleaming in their eyeballs, it’s tempting to believe…"). However, such lucid prose is often countered by an over-reliance on abstractions and tangential reasoning. For example, what does the fact that video games "literally train [teens] to kill" have to do with the use or deterioration of thinking abilities?
Because this essay takes a complex approach to the issue (arguing, in effect, that technology neither enhances nor reduces our ability to think for ourselves, but can do one or the other, depending on the user) and because the author makes use of "appropriate vocabulary and sentence variety," a score of 5 is appropriate.
好吧，上面这几坨东西又臭又长得看着真让人碍眼，没心思看得就请直接无视掉吧。。。恩，对于这新旧各两篇文章，比较奇怪的一点是两者的字数基本差不多。。。（旧得6分是670左右，新的则是620字）；不清楚ETS为何要放出这样一篇作文出来，毕竟这等于在说明：就算时间少了写得字数也基本不变哦~这点可以说是变相得把issue又提高了一个难度，所以我也在这里说明第一点，那就是新GRE不能再像以前那样自以为字越多分数就越高了，以前也许还有同学有余力凑出600甚至700多字，但新考生在准备issue的时候最重要一点就是保证如何能够在30分钟内凑够450字的内容，毕竟无论你写得有多好，但如果因为时间来不及而没写完，这篇作文基本也就是凶多吉少了。。。而且我个人也不觉得如果你真最后凑出600字后分数就一定高，除非你是native speaker，不然这600字基本就是靠凑套句凑出来的东西，关于这方面的东西后面还有论述，恩。。。
然后第二点，不知道是因为规定时间减少的原因，新GRE的两篇作文，第一眼看感觉就好像脑袋被砍掉了一样，旧GRE里那个每篇文章总是会出现得那个鸡肋开头根本就没出现，这大概是对于我来说最让人惊讶的部分了吧；看一下那个6分范文，这篇文章的结构基本是这样得：总体为让步样式，第一段第一句话说了他以为题目是想说明什么意思，这就成为其开头了；然后省略说明他的看法，第二句话就阐述了他的第一个分论点，并在第一段的剩余部分进行了举例说明，其作用就是一个引子；然后在第二段开始转折，分析题目为什么会得出那个结论，接下来在第三段，对题目进行驳斥表明其第二个分论点，第四段进一步加强自己的观点并亮出第三个分论点，第五段show例子，第六段做结尾。这个6分范文的结构和我们以前看到的范文如此之不一样，以至于我一开始很难相信这会得满分，还以为是哪里搞错了。。。这个奇怪的结构在5分范文里又基本一致得出现了，除了文字描述上有所欠缺外，其他基本一致；这就不得不让人觉得，也许搞不好，这种架构就是我们以后GRE issue的标准架构之一了。。。
这个架构的和旧GRE作文的最大不同就是，开头压缩成一句总结标题的话，不再标明自己的看法，并和其第一个分论点合并成一个段落。这种架构的好处是显而易见得：没有了开头那个几十个字，我们也就能够间接的节省了5分钟左右的写作时间，这对于现在的issue作文来讲是相当宝贵的时间了；而我个人也建议大家在准备新GRE作文的时候使用这种格式；既然能被ETS所承认，那自然是不用白不用呗~
第三点我们看一下文字使用上的不同。相对于旧GRE的范文，新GRE作文的文字描述更让人有种天马行空的感觉，甚至让人有种意识流的样子。如果说旧GRE的范文文字使用比较八股机械化，使用套句很多的话，那么新GRE范文更有种散文的感觉，里面用的短语基本上很难原封不动套到别的作文上去。可以看出ETS在文字上的要求也有变化，从后面的comment上也能够看出来，以前是对这种严格按照议论文格式的样式表示出肯定的姿态，而现在则是更倾向于“只要能够让文章说服力变强，怎么说都成” 这种态度；特别是那个5分范文，都写成这幅鬼样子了还能够给这个分数，让我有点“小”跌眼镜。。。。嘛，也许是因为北美范文之类的东西泛滥，使得考官每年批的作文样式都渐渐变得僵化雷同，套句泛滥，让他们有点受不了了吧。所以相应的对于新考生来讲，以前的那种靠背短语来凑字数的方法也许只会起到反效果（当然背还是要背一点得。。。），这是这个范文所暗示出来的警告；我们看一下5分那个范文，后面的comment说里面的用词奇怪，有一些地方甚至词汇都 misuse了（虽然我真没觉得有怎么misuse了。。。）；这样的范文，都可以成为5分，就说明了如果你大胆的使用词汇，那么只要别太出格，就算出现什么小问题，也肯定比使用套句的分数要高！这也就意味着我们以后的准备方法也要有很大的变化，我那个百科全书里那个如何提高文采的内容也要相应作废了，诶。。。
至于应该如何提高这方面的文采？这个我还需要思考一下，现在先不做说明，恩。。。总而言之就是，老思路已经不行了，所以这次新GRE的难度是变相提高了，希望大家多多注意。
顺便帖一下官方提供的破题思路，太傻上还没有人摘，我看了一眼觉得还是挺靠谱得（对应的就是范文的那个题目）；本来想提一下重点，结果发现里面全都是重点，提哪个都不对。。。没办法了，大家就先慢慢领会吧，里面有N多内容我在百科全书里已经反复提到了，在此不再重复：
Strategies for This Topic
In this task, you are asked to discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement. Thus, responses may range from strong agreement or strong disagreement to qualified agreement or qualified disagreement. You are also instructed to explain your reasoning and consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true. A successful response need not include comment on all or any one of the points listed below and may well discuss other reasons or examples not mentioned here in support of the position taken.
Although this topic is accessible to respondents of all levels of ability, for any response to receive a top score, it is particularly important that you remain focused on the task and provide clearly relevant examples and/or reasons to support the point of view you are expressing. Lower level responses may be long and full of examples of modern technology, but those examples may not be clearly related to a particular position. For example, a respondent who strongly disagrees with the statement may choose to use computer technology as proof that thinking ability is not deteriorating. However, the mere existence of computer technology does not adequately prove this point; e.g., perhaps the ease of computer use inhibits our thinking ability. To receive a higher level score, the respondent should explain in what ways computer technology may call for or require thinking ability.
This topic could elicit a wide variety of approaches, especially considering the different possible interpretations of the phrase "the ability of humans to think for themselves." Although most respondents may take it to mean problem solving, others could interpret it as emotional and social intelligence; i.e., the ability to communicate/connect with others. With any approach, it is possible to discuss examples such as calculators, word processing tools such as spell/grammar check, tax preparation software, Internet research and a variety of other common household and business technologies.
You may agree with the topic and argue that:
- reliance on technology leads to dependency; we come to rely on problem-solving technologies to such a degree that when they fail we are in worse shape than if we didn’t have them
- everyday technologies such as calculators and cash registers have decreased our ability to perform simple calculations, a "use it or lose it" approach to thinking ability
Or you may take issue with the topic and argue that technology facilitates and improves our thinking skills, arguing that:
- developing, implementing and using technology requires problem solving
- technology frees us from mundane problem solving (e.g., calculations) and allows us to engage in more complex thinking
- technology provides access to information otherwise unavailable
- technology connects people at a distance and allows them to share ideas
- technology is dependent on the human ability to think and make choices (every implementation of and advance in technology is driven by human intelligence and decision making)
On the other hand, you could decide to explore the middle ground in the debate and point out that while technology may diminish some mental skill sets, it enables other (perhaps more important) types of thinking to thrive. Such a response might distinguish between complex problem solving and simple "data maintenance" (i.e., performing calculations and organizing information).
Other approaches could involve taking a historical, philosophical or sociological stance or, with equal effectiveness, using personal experience to illustrate a position. One could argue that the value or detriment of relying on technology is determined by the individual (or society) using it or that only those who develop technology (i.e., technical specialists) are maintaining their problem-solving skills, while the rest of us are losing them.
Again, it is important for you to avoid overly general examples or lists of examples without expansion. It is also essential to do more than paraphrase the prompt. Please keep in mind that what counts is the ability to clearly express a particular point of view in relation to the issue and specific task instructions and to support that position with relevant reasons and/or examples.
至于Argument，我发现里面貌似没有和旧的GRE有啥大区别，所以该怎么地还是就怎么地吧，恩。。。
PS：写完后发现这个标题得改一下。。。算了。。。。官方要求我基本已经融汇贯通到前面说的那些话里了，就不再专门提了，恩
PSS：前面在新旧作文的字数上估计有错，抱歉，内容已经相应更新了
)：