内容部分－ 玉珠

内容重不重要？ 废话， 你以为e-rater真的那么好骗？ 还是不要拿自己的银子开玩笑了。

1. 句式多变－ 长短句结合。 为了表示写作水平， 很多人都喜欢用长句子。 我的看法是， 3个长句子（复杂句）后面， 请你用个短句子， 简单句什么的。 让看作文的老师歇口气吧。 这叫有张有驰。

2. 句式多变－ 不要用一种句型。 特别是每段的首句。 太明显了，典型的枯燥。

3. 用词－ 不用模糊词。

举个例子吧， 名词动词形容词中都有模糊词。

名词如： something. 什么叫something? 几乎任何东东都可以用它来指代。 看作文的人有什么感觉？ 这人语言贫乏嘛。 根本不会用具体精确的词表述。

动词如： make, do, take. 查查字典吧。 看看这三个词，有N多意思。 当然，take advantage of 之类的词组不算。 因为词组的意思总是非常精确的。

形容词： good. 什么是好？ 好老师可以是: responsible, 也可以是experienced. 好子女可能是filial 也可能是agreeable....... 好的意思太多了。 所以也是不精确的词。

4. 用词－不用重复词。 超过三次以上，务必注意！

举个例子，比如说名人， 表达很多， a famous person, a well-known person, an eminent person, a VIP, the noteable, social elite, superstar, star, the big names, celebrity. 太多了。 你干吗要抱住一个famous 不放呀。

但是这里要提醒大家注意， 很多词的shades of meaning 的不一样的。 用前请查字典。 乱用不如不用！

5. 用词－用法正确。

最近看作文的时候发现，更多CDer 开始用比较sophisticated 的词。 这本来是一个好事。 不过看到大家的用法乱七八糟， 实在头疼。 据我估计， 大多数词是用词霸上面查来的。 那个词霸， 如果你就这样用， 请你还是把它卸载了吧。 一定要查字典。 最好是longman. 尤其是动词！

举个例子吧： 比如说这样一个句子。 水果富含维生素，肉类富含蛋白质。

Fruits are rich in Vitamins. And proteins abound in various meats. 大家注意，同样是富含， be rich in 跟abound 的句式是完全不一样的！

最后如果你能做到以上几点，6.0，想说拒绝不容易！

7.23日考试，作文5.5。。

我复习的时间不长，一个月。其中大部分在与VERBAL纠缠，到头来，最让我费心的却是我最大的绊脚石。好了伤心的话不说，还是来谈谈我在短时间内复习作文的经验。可能非常简单，而且没有什么参考价值。每个人的情况不同，一定要按照自己的情况来。最重要的是，我觉得很多人在考试前都想在作文这一块做完美的准备，但是这对我不适合。直到上考场前最后一刻，我对黄金80题里任何一题都没形成一个最终的提纲，我在心里列的提纲很庞杂，到了考场上才能在时间的压力下做最后一轮筛选。

先谈谈我对AWA的感觉：

ISSUE：我觉得写GMAT AWA ISSUE要走题是比较难的，除非你写的东西太离谱。只要在题目的范围内，无论是论证，还是反驳，大家大可发挥自己的能力。有人觉得没东西写，我想那是没有放松自己的想象力。模板只是骨架，有了它你的文章不会倒，但不能代表就是一个人了，血和肉都取决于考试的人。如果嫌文章写不长，你大可以学学美国佬们翻来覆去讲一件事情的作风，但是这些“废话”的句型最好有所变化。

ARGUMENT：ARGUMENT的模式性最强，七宗罪是一个好东西，看懂了它基本上在判断上不会出问题。

我的英语基础算是中等偏上一些。4、6级都轻松拿了优，托福考的也很轻松，尽管成绩不是非常好。平时，我比较喜欢阅读（考试阅读除外^_^），但不太喜欢写作，所以每次考英语之前总有茶壶煮饺子，想得到，写不出的感觉。为了克服这种困难，我在短时间内做了一些工作。

1。看作文题。

我只看了黄金80题的题目。把其中的类型在心里总结了一下，然后理一理自己的思路。里面有些题目是可以相互启发的。我比较懒，一般不会轻易动笔，而且光看这个时候即使动笔也写不出东西。

2。范文。

我看了黄金题的范文，觉得大部分的思维和例证都比较美国化，不过有不少东西还是有参考价值的。看到好的论点、修辞和结构就多想一下，可以把他当作被选提纲中的一部分。

3。模板

我把几个模板（就是本版頂置的几个）看了一遍，把他们的相似处找出，不同处加以总结，加一些自己的话形成一个自己的模板。这个不难。本来我也不像这么费事，但是大家都说可能会雷同，所以，我还是这么做了。

这几个不是步骤，不是顺着做一遍就可以的，时间允许反复多来几遍。我想我下次考的时候会这么做的。

考前，我想，不写一篇，可能不行。于是动笔写了一篇ISSUE。直到上考场，我的PACE都没有练好，手忙脚乱的，两篇作文，时间都是刚刚够用，根本没事件检查。所以，单词最好一遍拼对，否则就玩完了。

鉴于很多网友提出对于作文复习感觉到无从下手，我总结了一下自己的经验，列出一个大致的步骤，请大家酌情采用，有不当之处请谅解和指正

作文复习一般需要1-2个月，我就用了两个月。我不太同意某些前辈所说的一个星期就能搞定作文的观点，因为他们的成绩也是建立在一定的英语基础之上的。而大部分网友的写作能力是不太强的，特别是驾驭复杂的长难句的能力。因此，如果你认为你的基础不是太好，那么请你一定要多花一些时间在作文上。

首先要熟悉提纲，如果时间充足，那么尽量看过每一道题，思考一下如何展开，并且举出恰当的例子；如果时间紧迫，那至少要做到非常熟悉黄金80题，能够一看到题就知道如何写。有的朋友总是觉得写不出提纲，而其实孙远的宝典就是一个很有用的东西。他的提纲基本上是很好的，但是偶尔也会出现一些比较荒唐的理由，如果你自己有想法，那就尽量用自己的；另外，他也提供了一复杂句子的范本，个人认为提纲的句式非常漂亮，值得学习。

提纲写到一定数量以后，你觉得自己可以写出一篇完整的文章了，那么就开始动手写你的处女作吧。记住，这个时候，一定不要在乎时间，哪怕用两个小时，不管语言怎样，逻辑是否严密，只要你能写完了，就是好的。你可以花几天时间每天只写issue或argument，做到尽快熟悉文章的套路和结构，比较熟练以后坚持每天写一两篇，同时慢慢压缩时间。当然写提纲是不能断的。

当你刚开始写了几篇作文的时候，一定会发现用的词始终是那么几个，句式也很简单。这时候你就要开始注重同意词汇的学习，我认为金山词霸就是一个很有效的办法，日复一日的积累一定能够使你的文章变得更加丰富多彩。再谈谈句式的问题，这同样需要积累，有时间可以看一些原文，就近一些的gmat阅读就很好，仔细分析一下句子结构，尝试着也写一些这样的句子，坚持下去一定能够提高。

很多人苦于没有话说，没有例子，我就是这样的人，平时不太会讲理，而且脑子又转得不快，所以想提纲和例子的时候简直是绞尽脑汁。要解决这个问题，现在去大量阅读书报杂志显然是来不及了，你可以充分利用身边的资源，多多向身边的人求教，两个脑袋肯定比一个管用的多。

最后谈一下我的几个小建议：

1。平时写作文先在记事本里，写完了贴到word里面检查拼写和语法错误。我认为这是非常重要的，因为即使判卷的人给了你5分，而机器给了你6分，你也可以得到5。5

2。考前10天每天各写一篇，顺序不定，这样考试的时候不会有什么不习惯

3。开始掐时间的时候推荐使用小安编的摸考软件，写起来就比较有紧迫感

暂时只能想起这么多，考过有半年了，直到现在才写这篇心得，觉得实在有愧于CD上那些曾经给过我帮助的人。

说实话，写作文对于我来说极其痛苦，甚至超过了复习GMAT，它曾经令我一次又一次地抓狂，郁闷到想找人打假。每次看作文之前，我都会盯着孙远宝典上面的一句话“在你拿到6分之后，别往了一把火烧掉这本让你死去活来的宝典”。现在我拿到了6分，一个我几乎无法相信的实事，但是我依然好好保存着这本宝典，因为它让我一直记得，通过坚持不懈的努力，原本平庸的我也可以把一件事情做的完美。我也相信，只要大家真心的付出汗水，也一样可以拿到AWA的高分！

AI-109

Should the employees have full access to their own personal files, such as certain confidential materials? The problem seems to arouse controversy between different opinion groups. Whereas some may advocate that employees should be granted such free access to their own personal documents, other may strongly oppose that giving the employees full access to their personal files will bring about a possibility that the people supplying that information would not be likely to express their opinions candidly. Recognizing that a more proper solution to the question can only be achieved by incorporating all relevant aspects, I would like to advocate that employee should at least have the right to see their own personal document of the performance rating.

Firstly, I believe that when personal files, such as performance rating are kept away from the employees, these documents mean no more than waste paper to the employees. Giving the employees free access to their files of performance rating will give the employees a deeper understanding on works, their performance and themselves. Inconfident employees will realize they are actually not as incompetent as they thought, while complacent employees will be aware that they are still lacking in some aspects.

Secondly, performance reports can be used an efficient incentive to encourage the employees to make progress in their jobs. The employees’ salaries, their opportunities of promotions and raises can be established on the performance rating system. By giving the employees free access to their performance reviews, employers make it clear on which aspects the employers can make improvements.

Thirdly, granting employees free access to their performance rating will guard against the possibility of prejudice and unfairness from the side of the information-suppliers who make the performance rating. Seeing such files can clear out the employees' doubt that the reports on performance rating are personally-biased to the detriment of them. In my opinion, this realization of being treated fairly itself will boost the employees' interests in their jobs and help them to build up their confidence.

Some of my dissenters may contend that giving the employees access to their personal documents will exert an ill influence on the credibility of the information itself. Admittedly, it may be the case. However, since there is no need to keep the names of informants on the documents, the negative effects can be easily avoided.

In final analysis, because of the above-mentioned reasons, which probably interweave into an organic whole and become more compelling, we are safely arrived at the conclusion that the employees should at least have full access to their personal files such as performance rating.

AA- new 1

In this argument, the author makes a conclusion that the city should plant artificial flowers instead of real flowers in big decorative pot on Main Street. The author's line of reasoning is established on his assumption that by planting plastic flowers, the city can save money. To support such an assumption, the author cites three supportive examples: last year, the city contracted with Flower Power to plant a variety of flowers and to water them each, yet by midsummer many of the plants were wilted; although the initial cost for plastic flowers is twice as much as real plants, the city can save money after two years; finally, public reaction will definitely support the proposal. At the first glance, the argument seems to be somewhat convincing. However, a close and deep reflection reveals how groundless and problematic it is. In the following paragraphs, I should elaborate the main flaws in the argument.

In the first place, the author fails to explore the real underlying reasons for the death of the plants and flowers. Instead, he makes a gratuitous assumption that more frequent watering is needed. However, the author fails to substantiate his point. In no case can the mere fact that the flowers are wilted help to build up such an assumption flawlessly. It is possible that many of the plants were wilted because they required drier soils for survival and thriving. Unless the author can build up a causal correlation between the survival of the plants and more needed watering, the assumption remains questionable and open to discussion.

In the second place, the author mentions that planting plastic flowers means the saving of money in the long run. However, the credibility of such an assertion has yet to be established, especially since the author ignores to point out that most of the plastic plants will last for more than two years. One obvious rebuttal to the author's reasoning is that investigations show that a majority of plastic plants, if planted on the Main Street, can only last for at most two years without the protection from direct sunshine. In such a case, the author's assertion that planting plastic plants will save money is of dubious validity.

In the third place, the author believes that the public will certainly support his position, as over 1200 Gazette readers said that the city wastes money and should find ways to reduce spending. Yet, such a survey result is neither representative nor reliable. Actually, it is rather misleading, since the author lacks direct evidence to buoy his assumption that the viewpoint of the 1200 Gazette can largely reflects the opinion of the majority of the residents. Besides, even if most of the residents do favor for a reduced spending, they may not necessarily consider the author's suggestion a proper way of reduction in expenditure. Therefore, the author makes a hasty conclusion that the public will support his position for sure.

To sum up, because it is plagued with the above-stated fallacies, the argument is flawed. To buttress his argument, the author should provide more direct evidence indicating that planting plastic plants will be more money-saving than planting real flowers. Moreover, the feasibility of planting and maintaining the plastic plants should also be taken into consideration. Additionally, a more related and reliable survey showing the real support for the author's recommendation will also cement the author's position.