400-820-0859篇6：GMAT是什么意思
GMAT和托福的区别：
一、主办单位不同
托福是由美国教育测验服务社（ETS）举办的；GMAT是美国经企管理专业研究生入学考试委员会委托新泽西州普林斯顿的.美国考试中心（ETS）主办的。
二、考试目的不同
托福是用来检测非母语国家考生英语水平的考试；GMAT则是用来评估考生是否适合商业、经济和管理等专业研究生阶段学习的考试。
三、适用对象不同
托福更多的适用于去英语国家留学的考生；GMAT多适合于赴美留学生。
篇7：GMAT写作方法及参考
II.具体框架Justification：根据分观点的关系有如下分类
一、【第一种】并列性列举：大多数人这么写
如果要这么写的要求是：越往后的分观点：越不能虚，要往实了写
因为方向一样的情况下，选择的`分观点多了，就可能越往后面越没话，进而就偏虚，这样的坏处是：可能导致前后分观点存在包含关系，但是我开头的 1st，2nd表达的含义是它们是并列的，这样就产生了logical conflict!不好。
Eg：是否同意出国好?
1st ：出国学到一些国际化的知识
2nd： 出国可以积累人脉
3rd： 出国可以长见识错!
或：把出国可以长见识放在开始也不可以!因为一来就虚了，后面的学知识积累社会经验等等都可以视为包含于它的，就错了!
二、【第二种】 递进式
层层展开注意一个合理order：比如刚才那个不能说反了
Eg：Clearly, government has a responsibility to support the arts. However, if that support is going to produce anything of value, government must place no restrictions on the art that is produced.
篇8：GMAT作文评分标准
GMAT作文评分标准
Analysis of an Issu一. 六分（outstanding）：对事件的复杂性的分析清楚有力；熟练驾驭有效写作的要素。
a)在就某事件展开分析和阐述自己观点时摆出有洞察力的原因和/或有说服力的事例。
b) 结构清晰。
c) 对于语言（包括用词和句法多样性）有很好的掌握。
d) 文章完全符合标准书面英语规范（包括语法、用法和拼写规则），但可能会有小错误。
二. 五分（strong）：对事件的复杂性有充分的分析；很好地掌握了有效写作的要素。
a) 阐述观点时能运用恰当有力的理由/或事例。
b) 结构较清晰。
c) 对于语言（包括用词和句法多样性）有良好的掌握。
d) 较好的掌握标准书面英语规范（包括语法、用法和拼写规则），但可能会有小错误。
三. 四分（adequate）：对事件的复杂性有一定的分析；对写作的'要素有一定的掌握。
a) 阐述观点时能举出与事件相关的理由/或事例。
b) 结构基本合理。
c) 对于语言（包括用词和句法）有一定的掌握，但句法缺乏多样性。
d) 对于标准书面英语的规范有一定掌握，但有一些错误。
四. 三分（limited）：对事件的复杂性有一定的分析；对写作的要素有一定的掌握，但有明显缺陷，一般具备下列特征中的一项或几项：
a) 观点模糊或不充分。
b) 结构松散。
c) 不善于举出与议题相关的理由或事例。
d) 语言不准确且/或句子缺乏多样性。
e) 在语法、用法或拼写上偶有错误或常有小错误。
五. 二分（seriously flawed）：在分析性写作技巧上表现出严重缺陷，一般具备下列特征中的一项或几项：
a) 观点不明确或未能充分展开。
b) 毫无结构可言。
c) 缺乏相关的理由或事例。
d) 在语言运用或句子结构上经常出现严重错误。
e) 在语法、用法或拼写上错误很多，影响文章表达。
六. 一分（fundamentally deficient）：在分析性写作技巧上有根本缺陷，一般具备下列特征中的一项或几项：
a) 无法完整地叙述问题。
b) 在语言和句子结构上不断有严重错误。
c) 在语法、用法或拼写上有大量错误，严重影响文章表达。
七. 零分：跑题、非英语写作、重抄原题等。
八. NR：白卷。
篇9：GMAT考试参考作文
GMAT考试写作参考例文
Employees should keep their private lives and personal activities as separate as possible from the workplace.
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
Should employees leave their personal lives entirely behind them when they enter the workplace, as the speaker suggests here? While I agree that employees should not allow their personal lives to interfere with their jobs, the speaker fails to consider that integrating personal life with work can foster a workplace ambiance that helps everyone do a better job, thereby promoting success for the organization.
Engaging coworkers in occasional conversation about personal interests and activities can help build collegiality among coworkers that adds to their sense of common purpose on the job. Managers would be well advised to participate in and perhaps even plan the sharing of personal informationas a leadership tool as well as a morale booster. An employee feels valued when the boss takes time to ask about the employees family or recent vacation. The employee, in turn, is likely to be more loyal to and cooperative with the boss. Company-sponsored social eventspicnics, parties, excursions, and so forthalso help to produce greater cohesiveness in an organization, by providing opportunities for employees to bond with one another in ways that translate into better working relationships.
篇10：GMAT作文考试
The following appeared in a proposal from the development office at Platonic University.
Because Platonic University has had difficulty in meeting its expenses over the past three years, we need to find new ways to increase revenues. We should consider following the example of Greene University, which recently renamed itself after a donor who gave it $100 million. If Platonic University were to advertise to its alumni and other wealthy people that it will rename either individual buildings or the entire university itself after the donors who give the most money, the amount of donations would undoubtedly increase.
Discuss how well reasoned . etc.
In this argument an analogy is drawn between Platonic University and Greene University. The author argues that to solve its economic problems, Platonic University should follow the example of Greene University, which was recently named after a wealthy donor, and offer to rename individual buildings or the university itself in exchange for donations. The author believes that since this tactic worked for Greene it would undoubtedly work for Platonic, and thus provide the much-needed revenue. This argument is questionable for several reasons.
In the first place, the argument rests upon the assumption that a revenue-producing strategy that works for one university will work for another as well. However, Greene and Platonic may not be sufficiently similar to warrant this assumption. For example, a small, rural university is less likely to have alumni who could afford to make significant donations than a large, urban university. Lacking specific information about the makeup of the universities, and their alumni, it is impossible to assess the likelihood that the strategy employed by Greene will work for
