[GRE] 聊聊GRE的AWA(Let's talk about GRE Analytical Writing Assessment.)

雖然洗刷理工人文筆不佳的汙名失敗，

但是還是有點東西可以跟大家分享。

可能像我的老師說的，

老美不喜歡我們寫文章的風格。

但是GRE的考題都能政治正確的理解非裔美籍、菲裔美籍和拉丁裔美籍的作家，

甚麼時候才能這樣理解其他亞裔的寫法？

只是這麼一說好像更顯現自己寫作不夠好的短板了。

我知道有些人在想Issue和Argument的論點會花比較多時間，

所以就把我自己整理的東西貢獻出來，

或許有人可以從這裡找到一些靈感。

這是我整理的Issue和Argument的Word版本，

已經建立好目錄了。

使用應該算是方便。

然後送上一篇我親自寫的Sample Writing of Issue，

如有轉載請註明出處。

38. It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

While someone may claim that we define ourselves primarily through our identification with social groups, they neglect other factors. As the presumptions supporting this claim are untenable, the author shows an incapability to reason persuasively.

Irrefutably, it is undeniable that our society can be divided into numerous different groups. Almost everyone can identify with at least one social group. Take music for example. Some people love classical music like Beethoven’s masterpieces, while others enjoy listening to country music. Fans of classical music may view themselves as erudite and urbane people, so willing and loving that they are inclined to volunteer their time to help the needed. In contrast, lovers of country music might regard themselves as people more glad to embrace pastoral lives, managing to stay away from the tempt of big cities. The music we choose to identify with helps us define ourselves.

However, identification with social groups is not the only factor that affects our self-definition. In fact/effect, opposition against certain social groups is key to constructing our definitions that we build over ourselves. Take the American Civil War for instance. The leader of the Union, Abraham Lincoln, and the pacesetter of the Confederate States of America, Robert E. Lee, were not merely admired by their own advocates and soldiers but also belittled by the adversaries of the other side. The Union soldiers, fighting against slavery and involuntary servitude, which were espoused by the opposite army, viewed/regarded themselves as a regiment of justice to right the other’s wrong. On the other side of the battle, the advocates/champions of General Lee condemned the Yankees for arrogantly ruining the southern tradition, so the southerners regarded themselves as fighters who preserved culture and propriety. As two sides of the same coin, they found values and the definitions of their lives in conflict with opposite social group.

In addition to the above two factors, people with discriminatory viewpoints impose distorted definitions on others and force them to accept these labels. These forces could derive from people’s personal interests and distort others’ lives, self-esteem and self-definitions. Before the American Civil War, the now African American was treated without humanitarianism, consisting of the major labor force in the cotton fields. The society exerted a force on them to do house chores and some laborious works. The entire society viewed them ruthlessly with preconceptions, prejudice and discriminations. Certainly, these African American would try to fight against the fates pitted on them, but some of them were compelled to inure the definitions that the society gave to them. 

To sum up, the author fails to deduce a conclusion based on a firm footing. Overlooking the points that self-definition is an amalgam of many heterogeneous factors, the author presumptuously claims that identification with social groups provides the source for self-definitions. As a result, with the instances and elaborations mentioned above, I contend that identifications with societal groups admittedly contribute to the defining of oneself, but it is reckless to consider this factor primary.