首先，我非常感谢GTER论坛。虽然只是万年潜水，可是每次看到GT上的孩纸们都那么努力，让我都自愧弗如。3 ^3 w2 x- h/ e7 s- Y8 H[b]其次，每个人都有每个人的经验。然而无论经验如何，杀鸡都是一个痛苦的过程。哪怕是自认为蒙事儿大神的我也不得不痛苦，异常痛苦。[b], v, |- I( H, b; {! G[b]$ [1 F/ }8 e' @* L+ `) ^9 s好了，先报一下基本情况。[b]' P c( t# u; `9 I8 q1 `" D, D! h: `2009年某211大学医学本科毕业。GPA3.3/4# @, b: ~" i: E, ^; P( P1 z[b]2009年11月北美第一次iBT，102.复习7天。主要复习资料：高分120系列。8 W" b; e I% |[b]2011年2月国内第二次iBT，105.主要复习资料：无。裸考。[b]$ I4 @1 I) o* e+ r8 i7 T! y2011年6月国内第一次G，V460+Q760.主要复习资料：新东方大黄本。基本裸考。。。[b]6 X2 Z% K( d$ a2 n5 Z* A+ w8 }2011年8月国内第二次G，按照今天电脑上给出来的毛成绩，V650-750，Q750-800.主要复习资料：红宝书，要你命3000，作文七宗罪，新东方大黄本，杨鹏长难句，杨鹏17天搞定GRE单词，钱永强数学。。。自打有了IPAD，特别是买了GOODREADER这个APP，就泛看啊。。。[b], O S {8 Q$ J. c& / ]8 g5 P+ z2 I! j' {[b]-----------------------补充----------------------------$ ]- [' n: z! @, ?) [[b]作文部分ISSUE没有准备任何模板，瞎写的，就我那个作文能力估计也就是个4顶头了。。。0 G5 N2 ]0 b3 L- t[b]不过ARGUMENT这次写的还蛮爽爹～模板放在后面了。我按照尚友昨天微博转发的那个啥10小时准备AWA那个方法做的。- m9 N, d, M/ g2 k/ h2 Z[b]----------------------再补充---------------------------/ A4 p/ O& z5 ]9 d1 D[b]其实你说我这叫经验么？我都不知道。我只是知道，我身边有很多人，我也相信在这个论坛上也有很多人，我们都毕业蛮久了，我们都有些迷茫，我们都想再努力一次，我们都还渴望着曾经埋头苦读的激情。[b]' w/ P: O0 F4 o' k[b]& F h( f# Y: z无论因为什么原因走上这条路，我知道的是，至少我了解到的事实是，最后坚持下来的人，都成功了。没有坚持下来的，都没有。; E) K) z" ]+ g[b][b]: K) l! I4 v" {! o+ T当然，成功对于每个人都有自己的定义。/ J/ Q- B/ w6 d; n0 u* a7 v* E[b]3 A- o, u, _+ C* 5 }0 X[b]对于我，这次考试，只是给了我废墟一般的内心世界一点肯定。[b]3 o" V6 g3 [! _3 B, U$ Q[b]$ f9 r: e! c1 x4 m不知道会不会有人看呢？/ K, N! V# a# c0 m7 H: ~[b]----------------------更新推荐书籍+模板---------------------------2 B, I& R! a0 f# i8 P1 z[b][b]1.要你命3000，学名《GRE核心词汇考法精析》[b]7 o! S+ ]% j: H5 B G8 a6 }# H[/b]如果基础[b]词汇[/b]量本身蛮好的，时间又不足的话，看这本书还是很快的。; j; m! } C) [9 B/ p, r9 s; [b]另外，同学们可以用[b]微博[/b]上面那个“[b]GRE机器人[/b]”作为抽检的工具。[b]1 d, K1 K {# G3 q1 l" `[b]2.新东方大黄本[/b][b]% l: H+ w" I1 f4 A' T大黄本分为很多个部分，这个大家都知道。作文一直是我最弱的地方，虽然这次小T同学给我突击了很久（有2天呢！！！），不过估计也就是个4的水平。。。所以没有经验可以share。$ V5 U8 ?5 m$ x3 s[b]其它的部分按照最后做模考题的正确率来讲，[b]填空[/b]题部分，[b]类比[/b]部分（其实现在变了题型我觉得还是老样子的类比，更简单了而已），都可以认真做大黄本，从头做到尾也不会花很多时间。另外，做大黄本对于复习单词，特别是巩固单词有很好的作用。[b]" u( `( ^! C4 c1 {3 @大黄本的[b]数学[/b]部分大概做几篇就可以了，我觉得如果是理工科学生需要恢复感觉，蛮好在考前做个3篇，足以。因为就我考的2次GRE而言，数学都挺简单的。练习审题是关键。别看老美考的公式不难，但是出题方向诡谲，搞不好就掉沟里了。' H/ l* B7 % D; M% x. x2 ?0 _: s[b][b]阅读[/b]部分现在新题型出了，按照老的方法练习其实也没问题，无非就是用各种方式考察一个人的理解能力而已。不过这里我用到一本书觉得很好，推荐给大家。见下：[b]5 q; e2 $ R% h9 O( n6 V4 m8 U$ B+ q[b]3.杨鹏长难句+陈向东GRE/GMAT/LSAT逻辑[/b]' B5 f" b( ~# M. [6 V# F$ b[b]长难句这本书的作用对于我来说很诡异的。老老实实从头到尾把GRE部分看了一遍，把所有难度大于4的句子，也就是难度在4+到5+的句子都背下来之后，再看长篇阅读（行数在35-40的段子），就见山不是山，见水不是水了。而且有些困难的文章，可以同学之间互相交流。如果你能把另一个人讲明白了，你肯定对于这篇文章就明白了。如果再有任何关于题目的问题，那么可能是考虑角度的原因。! ]7 u1 w8 J% y" n# |/ [b]说到考虑角度，昨天看[b]管卫东[/b]老师的微博，上面说中国学生就是不肯放弃自己的阅读习惯。这点我深有感悟。很多时候是习惯阻碍了我们对于问题的快速渗透和理解。[b]陈向东[/b]的这本逻辑书对于我来说，虽然只是看了前几十页，但是却是醍醐灌顶。他的方法让我很容易分析出自己的逻辑弱点。所有的问题最后归结起来都是逻辑的问题。因为我们分析问题思考问题的逻辑线条出了knot，所以才会有错题，有执迷不悔永远都错的题。[b]9 |! ~6 T J7 z+ `+ B) n- Q M[b]4.作文七宗罪[/b]0 r# F+ a2 B! g9 K [. 9 X[b]这是[b]CD[/b]上[b]GMAT[/b]的一个[b]ARGUMENT[/b]大法。其实就是有个NB的前人把A能用到的逻辑错误归结出来了。我看得版本是按照“[b]因/果/证[/b]”去把七宗罪分为三类。然后结合前些天尚友微博上转的一个“[b]十小时备考AWA[/b]”来做了一套自己的模板。[b]( g3 V7 C. Y" ?实际考试的时候按照GMAT前人经验，我先把自己的模板用最快的速度敲上去，然后才开始审题，然后把题目中的逻辑错误挑出来几个为我所用，套进已经准备好的七宗罪模板中。哇啦，可以说这是我写过的最漂亮的一篇A呢！啊哈哈哈哈得意的笑啊～[b]4 L j/ }7 {# d6 }& H1 N* x) J z! Y7 H! Z[b]本人的模板（木有知识产权，随便转随便用）：[b]) I, S5 T/ ]0 c/ g6 I" jAWA：[b]; @! ]# y( q- E3 B- z! y( w5 F4 BIn the above passage the author made a conclusion that... His assumption was substantiated on the ground that A... He further improves his analysis by B... , and provides that C... At first glance, his logic seems coherent and plausible. Nonetheless, after careful investigation, we can see undermining fallacies controverting his explanation. (51+30)[b]1 u7 y5 u; T+ ?4 [6 ^ ! q0 h+ i" h. q( ^[b]First of all,# z s" i8 `. p2 G1 _ C[b][b]: I$ B8 W# H' kSecondly,' `; w$ ; ]: Q[b][b]* H6 d/ P: b) i1 i6 @) G/ m+ |In the end,! B9 |* f" ~/ D[b][b]: ^; X0 n( R# O0 s4 c4 RIn conclusion, these reasonable doubts cast the author's hypothesis into unwarranted position. Supply additional information on..., weigh alternative explanation to..., if the author shall, and establish tenable causal relationship between * and *, he will lead us to a more convincing explanation. (42+30)' X2 D) H4 V( P9 j[b]3 q( i# b/ L: C5 S[b][b]6 {: U6 n0 t' e0 ~6 `. r0 b. G* {- ]) x' b[b]七宗罪（我是按照因果证顺序排列的）：, _/ L2 [2 j( R[b][b]因：[/b]( A- o5 H* k) q' _. ?[b][b]; l5 I+ m$ m2 a0 W8 l* K[b]Survey is doubtful:[/b]( T: r* a4 |- S- |: k[b]- V; S. j- _: c[b]Crucial details is missing about the number of people surveyed, as well as the number of people responded, therefore it is impossible to analyse the validity of this conclusion made above. To be specific, if there were ** people asked and only ** of them gave a response, the conclusion that...would be highly suspect and jeopardized.[b]* P% J6 C! e" X' m% u6 I& U6 p# t" c$ F[b][b]5 v7 @4 K$ j5 D9 n$ N- g2 k[b]Gratuitous assumptions:[/b][b]& y$ c/ f& x) h4 3 h[b]7 S9 v' c. Y' Y6 t7 [The author cursorily draw his conclusion from gratuitous assumptions that... Nonetheless, there is no incontrovertible evidence in the text leading to this end. In fact, it is verisimilar for another explanation that... Hence the argument is made unwarranted, ruling no such possibility. 8 {" v/ d0 r1 A+ @' Y) d, R[b]. F) D/ e! G8 l6 j; [8 _[b]$ O% & q4 a7 G/ A6 @( D[b]The author partially grounded his conclusion on the assumption that B is all that necessary for A , implying that there is no applicable alternatives[b]8 J' Y( d% i7 Y1 i7 [) [2 ato achieve A except B. Nevertheless,8 C8 t4 U8 ]6 X; c[b]he provides no countenance that sustains this conclusion. Though B contributes well to A, we can see alternative elements may function as well.[b]5 E# J& W0 l3 c( c' |4 n1 L9 o2 b9 G7 O! r) T+ m" H6 A7 ?6 ]. r7 m$ t[b]5 |' L6 $ N- [8 e( r1 K) d[b]We can tell from common sense that there are a lot of factors , to name a few for example, such as *,*, would function as well as, maybe even better than *, to achieve A.[b] U! a" d2 f' ~& } c$ [[b]% R2 y& a w4 v* D. A; O[b]! R) W; d+ R$ A. l[b]Insufficient sample:[/b][b]1 M* G2 N9 a, ~9 S+ s1 ]. d[b]0 d9 i+ }3 ^7 b% u) t' cThe example provided in the passage does not logically sufficient support the author's conclusion, unless it has been demonstrated as a general and typical sample of all A. On the contrary, * may represent a small part of A, hence it's impossible to predict A, as a whole, will yield such result as well. Given this, we can see the conclusion made from this evidence is surely unwarranted. [b]: m* P+ H8 `( K/ a% m[b]: u8 G8 q6 [9 n9 o' w# W |& w[b]& W ?6 W8 ?8 W$ m1 T: Q[b], l# ~$ X3 C% u# ], u- ]# h[b]. x! l+ u; o5 B/ h% E1 x$ O! l; F% w$ r6 ]3 i[b][b]& ]$ L; o V: v) g2 j7 ]' ][b]果：[/b]) x3 k2 |( N3 x[b]: l& A( |+ m0 r2 ?[b][b]Non-causal relationship:[/b]7 b2 ~- P- x6 N* b$ o$ C" i[b][b]2 R Z9 o; @/ y7 w, o( d( x1 Z4 sThe author suggests that, from the concurrence of A and B(the positive/negative correlation between A and B), B contributes for the occurrence of A, committing the fallacy of over-simplification of causal relationship. However, temporal relationship does function as sole factor for A, as there may well exist other contributors as *, * and *. Unless ruling out these possible alternatives, it is hard for the author to build a coherent conclusion that..8 m* L& ^" L% w) _+ " i[b][b]% q3 p5 h# I2 @+ Z8 c) E6 |3 z% [b]3 N8 `8 T, |2 P5 d. b3 _) D- m[b]Either-or choice (dilemma):[/b]8 F3 r% K0 Z+ C; M. _- b[b][b], t( j5 |& p; LA and B were reasoned as dilemma choices in the passage and no compromise was offered. However we can see no exclusive reasons for this assumption. Based on universal experience, there must exist an alternative, possible from the mixture of both A and B, will function as well to yield the result. As long as other choices like this are not excluded, it will be utterly difficult for the author to sell his idea to anyone.8 [8 _ m, |! e8 ][b][b]* U5 x$ J2 K) n; Q7 d% c+ h) ` P$ e9 V6 q9 G/ D[b][b]证：[/b]$ S+ h: s4 {8 b+ `3 N- Z8 d3 D! R[b][b]( g( s2 h# v% D! Z" F7 y[b] x$ o& q n0 N" f7 U+ l2 ?[b]False analogy:[/b][b]( {& }: Y7 l; J4 t[b]. t8 D8 s0 v- A. kThe author mistakenly use A as an analogous to B in all parts, hence draw his fallacious conclusion, for the reason that A is made up of different aspects, and not every one of them is applicable to B. To list a few, * and * all contributes to A, yet not to B. It is clear that there are more of differences than that of similarities between A and B, thus no warranty for the analogy. + g& J& C g! F ]5 k$ m[b]* |$ o8 W( [) @/ _7 ^[b][b]& r+ i; n* ?- l" w0 A& u[b]All things are equal:[/b][b]# ]5 m- l1 q' {4 d% ~5 U' F* F3 ^' X* ]* E2 t[b]The author falsely assumed in the text that no background factors will change, the conditions will remain the same, no matter how different time and location would be. Unfortunately, we can see no sufficient evidence supporting this hypothesis. Existing conditions that took place * ago is untenable to represent a current that will remain unaffected in the future.