GRE写作部分将重点考察考生有针对性地对具体考题做出反应的能力，而非要求考生堆砌泛泛的文字。具体说来，这些重点关注的能力包括：1、 清楚有效地阐明复杂观点；2、 用贴切的事理和事例支撑观点；3、考察/验证他人论点及其相关论证；4、支撑一个有针对性的连贯的讨论；5、控制标准书面英语的各个要素。写作部分将联合考察逻辑推理和分析写作两种技能，并且将加大力度引进那些需要考生做出有针对性的回应的考题，降低考生依赖事前准备（如背诵）的材料的可能性。
Although in the short term being less-than-truthful with the public might serve a political
leader's interest in preserving power, would-be political leaders who lack requisite integrity
ultimately forfeit their leadership. Consider Richard Nixon, whose leadership seemed born not
of ideology but of personal ambition, which bred contempt of the very people who sanctioned
his leadership in the first place; the ultimate result was his forfeiture of that leadership. In
contrast, Ronald Reagan was a highly effective leader largely because he honestly, and deeply,
believed in the core principles that he espoused and advocated during his presidency--and his
constituency sensed that genuineness and responded favorably to it. Moreover, certain types
of sociopolitical leadership inherently require the utmost integrity and honesty. Consider
notable figures such as Gandhi and King, both of whom were eminently effective in leading
others to practice the high ethical and moral standards which they themselves advocated. The
reason for this is simple: A high standard for one's own personal integrity is a prerequisite for
effective moral leadership.
To sum up, I concede that the game of politics calls for a certain measure of posturing and
disingenuousness. Yet, at the end of the game, without a countervailing measure of integrity,
political game-playing will serve to diminish a political leader's effectiveness perhaps to the
point where the politician forfeits the game.
Issue 76
"What is called human nature is really a reflection of the human condition: if all people had a
reasonable share of territory and resources, such products of 'human nature' as war and crime
would become extremely rare."
84
Are products of human nature such as war and crime actually products of the human
condition--specifically, lack of resources and territory? The speaker daims so. I strongly
disagree, however. Whether we look at science and history, or simply look around us in our
daily lives, we see ample evidence that human aggression is the product of our nature as
humans--and not of our circumstances.
First of all, the claim runs contrary to my personal observation about individual
behavior--especially when it comes to males. One need look no further than the local
school-ground or kindergarten playroom to see the roots of crime and war. Every school-yard
has its bully who delights in tormenting meeker school mates; and in every kindergarten
classroom there is at least one miscreant whose habit is to snatch away the favorite toys of
classmates--purely for the enjoyment of having seized property from another. And these
behaviors are clearly not for want of resources or territory. Thus the only reasonable
explanation is that they are products of human nature--not of the human condition.
Secondly, the daim flies in face of what scientists have learned about genetically determined
human traits. Many human traits--not just physical ones but psychological ones as well are
predetermined at birth. And to a great extent we have inherited our genetic predisposition from
our non-human ancestors. One might argue that lower animal species engage in warlike
behavior for the main reason that they must do so to protect their territory, their dan, or for food
not because of their nature. Yet, this point begs the question; for we humans have been
genetically programmed, through the evolutionary process, to behave in similar ways. In other
words, doing so is simply our nature.
感谢您阅读《GRE作文范文大全（59） 》一文，出国留学网(liuxue86.com)编辑部希望本文能帮助到您。