gmat写作简单，但写出一篇能够得高分的文章可就不容易了!毕竟，想要获得gmat写作高分，不是简单的掌握了一点词汇和句式就可以。那么，gmat写作如何修炼才能拿高分呢?下面大家就随小编一起去看看有哪些高分修炼方法吧!
一、文体要求高大上
写作中考生的风格与众不同会给考官眼前一亮的感觉，从而获得较高的分数，所以在gmat作文上，我们要考虑是否充分使用了长短句，是否充分使用了简单句，复杂句和复合句等多种句型，在词汇的使用上是否出现大量重复，是否使用了很多的同义词。而且文章中的句子是否通顺和容易理解。
二、句子语法不要出现基本错误
gmat写作最基本的要求就是没有语法错误。这些错误包含没有拼错的词汇，没有乱用并列关系，主谓一致和指代正确，连词使用正确，标点符号的使用和修饰语的位置问题。
三、中心主旨有吸引力
中心主旨表达的要有特色，对于范文的内容可以适当借鉴，但绝对要避免照抄的做法。如果你的文章遣词造句都是很有个人特色的写法，那么势必会给考官留下比较深刻的印象。并且论证的时候例子一定要有说服力 ，许多考生觉得那些名人故事太过高大上，远离生活不够贴切，所以更喜欢以自己或朋友身上发生的事情来举例，而此类例子最大的问题就是往往缺乏客观性和说服力，那时因为由于第一人称的局限导致所叙述事件难免“鸡毛蒜皮”。所以在中心主旨表达方面要注意文章观点是否新颖、有吸引力并切题;你是否使用了恰当典型的例子;文章是否从正反两面进行了论述，还是只进行了片面的论述;你是否对题目的主要矛盾进行了反驳，还是只反驳了次要矛盾;文章论述是否严谨合理，符合论述主题。
四、整体结构要严谨完美
对于整体结构方面，想要给考官一气呵成的感觉，要注意文章开头结尾是否齐整;文章段落间的过渡是否流畅自然;是否使用了足够的承接词汇和短语，诸如for example, first, further等;每个段落的中心内容是否清晰明确;文章各段落内容是否围绕主题合理展开。
最后，送给gmat写作复习生们一篇范文，大家可以借此“消化”下上述内容：
The author assumes that since organizations engaged in color-film processing were able to increase efficiency and cut-down costs over a period of 25 years; same must be true of Olympic Foods, which is about to celebrate its 25th anniversary. The arguments is based on questionable assumptions and weak analogies and appears to be a result of a hasty generalization.
The main problem with the author’s reasoning is the weak analogy he develops between the two “processing” industries. One fails to see any logical connection between the two and the author makes no effort to show the connection either. The two industries are too dissimilar to be compared. For example: frozen food industry faces problem of storage, transportation, contamination etc; no similar problems are observed in the film-processing industry. Even the markets for the two differ widely. The argument could have been strong if the author could show the missing connection or if he had compared the frozen-food industry with a similar industry.
Also the author fails to recognize that it’s not the number of years of experience that matters; what actually matters is what is learnt over all those years.
An industry may mature over a couple of years, yet another may remain stagnant even after 25 years. The color-film industry people may have tremendous learnings that may have contributed to the cost-reduction; but the report shows no evidence of Olympic Foods doing the same.
Another point that the author misses completely is that there may be factors other than just the expertise and experience gained over the mentioned period. For example: developments in technology may have resulted in the cost-reduction for the color-film processing industry. The author could have strengthened his stand by showing that it’s merely the increased efficiency that has brought costs down. He could have also chosen to highlight similar developments in the food-processing industry too.
To sum, the author’s conclusion doesn’t appear to be convincing at all. The author could have made it a bit persuasive by presenting the evidence mentioned above. Without these, the argument is weak and fails to impress the reader.