【简介】感谢网友“雕龙文库”参与投稿，这里小编给大家分享一些，方便大家学习。
新gre作文写作考察考生完成题目过程中是否能够融合批判性思维和分析写作能力，以下是gre考试写作部分issue的优秀写作实例，通过这些优秀范文或是习作，考生可以借鉴里面的短语、句子或思路，给自己的写作找一些思路和灵感。
题目：
Truly innovative ideas do not arise from groups of people, but from individuals.When groups try to be creative, the members force each other to compromise and, as a result, creative ideas tend to be weakened and made more conventional. Most original ideas arise from individuals working alone.
真正有创意的想法并非来自于群体而是来自于个人。当群体试图创新的时候，它的成员之间会被迫相互妥协，结果就是新想法趋于弱化而更接近于传统。大部分新想法都是来自于独立工作的个人。
正文：
I agree with the speaker on that truly innovative ideas arise from individuals.Nevertheless, it is unfair to claim unilaterally that the groups tend to weaken creative ideas without thinking of their positive effects on the ideas; it is equally important for groups to examine, modify, or even reject the ideas.
First of all, truly innovative ideas are destined to arise from individuals in that inter-personal thinking process is so far impossible. This is to say, when we sit still and have a cluster of phenomena, theories, statistics and so forth of a certain issue in our mind, we are thinking it over yet with no assistance at all. After all it is impossible for one to intrude into others mind. Following this principle, innovative ideas spark off during the process of meditation, and they are the produced by ones own effort. It is equally possible, however, for people to be inspired by each other, yet this is by no means assistance in thinking. Clues, hints, inspirations are to remind people of things ignored or taken for granted, but have nothing to do with the process of thinking, that is, to sort out the whole vision and draw conclusion. In one word, innovative ideas arise from meditation, which is solely limited within one body, one brain. Therefore innovative ideas are always the product of individuals work.
Nevertheless, it does not suggest that innovative ideas then have nothing to do with group work, and actually it is just the opposite. When a novel thought is brought up, it is of great importance to fully evaluate its validity, feasibility, and consequences if carried out. This point need no further illustration if we think of a father who resolutely stops his 6-year-old son from playing matches. The kid might have intended to try something new, driven by an innovative idea, yet the whole house might have caught fire also since the boy is incapable of dealing with accidents. This is the same case in academic fields. In a chemistry lab for example, a novel route design of synthesizing a new compound is never carried out without further evaluation. Practical conditions such as equipments, reagents, and economic efficiency, namely yield per cost, are always taken into consideration and sometimes restrict the application of those ideas.
This is to say, innovation is usually good but not always practicable. This claim is fully demonstrated in the political field. Governors of all levels must take holistic views of the situation and make balanced decision in order to avoid mistakes; innovative ideas alone cannot justify their practicability and goodwill to others. For instance, when we look back, the development of plastic industry has resulted in great loss in the global ecosystem. Thus we see the disastrous consequences of carrying out such innovative yet premature ideas.
Hence, it is necessary for the groups to assess, remedy, and conclude the value and use of innovative ideas. All innovative ideas should be brought to discussions. With the clash of skeptical attitude of others to the advocating behavior of the thinker, fallacies made in a haste can be easily found and eliminated, which rectifies, sometimes supplements the idea. I dont agree with the speaker on his/her judgment of group work as compromising, weakening and conventionalizing innovation. Group work promotes those justified and useful innovative ideas and rejects those invalid, sometimes dangerous ones, as we see the case between father and son, in a chemistry lab, in all nations around the world. Only after the group censorship can the innovative ideas be carried out and benefit people, and this is the time when its innovativeness is fully appreciated.
In conclusion, I concede that most original ideas arise from individuals, yet I believe the group effort on these ideas should never be downplayed. It is the group that judge,reject or develop these ideas; this process is equally important with the innovative thinking.
新gre作文写作考察考生完成题目过程中是否能够融合批判性思维和分析写作能力，以下是gre考试写作部分issue的优秀写作实例，通过这些优秀范文或是习作，考生可以借鉴里面的短语、句子或思路，给自己的写作找一些思路和灵感。
题目：
Truly innovative ideas do not arise from groups of people, but from individuals.When groups try to be creative, the members force each other to compromise and, as a result, creative ideas tend to be weakened and made more conventional. Most original ideas arise from individuals working alone.
真正有创意的想法并非来自于群体而是来自于个人。当群体试图创新的时候，它的成员之间会被迫相互妥协，结果就是新想法趋于弱化而更接近于传统。大部分新想法都是来自于独立工作的个人。
正文：
I agree with the speaker on that truly innovative ideas arise from individuals.Nevertheless, it is unfair to claim unilaterally that the groups tend to weaken creative ideas without thinking of their positive effects on the ideas; it is equally important for groups to examine, modify, or even reject the ideas.
First of all, truly innovative ideas are destined to arise from individuals in that inter-personal thinking process is so far impossible. This is to say, when we sit still and have a cluster of phenomena, theories, statistics and so forth of a certain issue in our mind, we are thinking it over yet with no assistance at all. After all it is impossible for one to intrude into others mind. Following this principle, innovative ideas spark off during the process of meditation, and they are the produced by ones own effort. It is equally possible, however, for people to be inspired by each other, yet this is by no means assistance in thinking. Clues, hints, inspirations are to remind people of things ignored or taken for granted, but have nothing to do with the process of thinking, that is, to sort out the whole vision and draw conclusion. In one word, innovative ideas arise from meditation, which is solely limited within one body, one brain. Therefore innovative ideas are always the product of individuals work.
Nevertheless, it does not suggest that innovative ideas then have nothing to do with group work, and actually it is just the opposite. When a novel thought is brought up, it is of great importance to fully evaluate its validity, feasibility, and consequences if carried out. This point need no further illustration if we think of a father who resolutely stops his 6-year-old son from playing matches. The kid might have intended to try something new, driven by an innovative idea, yet the whole house might have caught fire also since the boy is incapable of dealing with accidents. This is the same case in academic fields. In a chemistry lab for example, a novel route design of synthesizing a new compound is never carried out without further evaluation. Practical conditions such as equipments, reagents, and economic efficiency, namely yield per cost, are always taken into consideration and sometimes restrict the application of those ideas.
This is to say, innovation is usually good but not always practicable. This claim is fully demonstrated in the political field. Governors of all levels must take holistic views of the situation and make balanced decision in order to avoid mistakes; innovative ideas alone cannot justify their practicability and goodwill to others. For instance, when we look back, the development of plastic industry has resulted in great loss in the global ecosystem. Thus we see the disastrous consequences of carrying out such innovative yet premature ideas.
Hence, it is necessary for the groups to assess, remedy, and conclude the value and use of innovative ideas. All innovative ideas should be brought to discussions. With the clash of skeptical attitude of others to the advocating behavior of the thinker, fallacies made in a haste can be easily found and eliminated, which rectifies, sometimes supplements the idea. I dont agree with the speaker on his/her judgment of group work as compromising, weakening and conventionalizing innovation. Group work promotes those justified and useful innovative ideas and rejects those invalid, sometimes dangerous ones, as we see the case between father and son, in a chemistry lab, in all nations around the world. Only after the group censorship can the innovative ideas be carried out and benefit people, and this is the time when its innovativeness is fully appreciated.
In conclusion, I concede that most original ideas arise from individuals, yet I believe the group effort on these ideas should never be downplayed. It is the group that judge,reject or develop these ideas; this process is equally important with the innovative thinking.
