【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。
GMAT考试作文的结构怎么安排、开头关键句怎么写、怎样合理的安排文章内容相信许多考生已经熟记于心，但是考生经常不能确定GMAT作文字数到底多少最佳。到底多少字数最合适呢?这确实是GMAT写作时我们要关注的一个问题，合理的字数更能展示一个人良好的语言功底。以下通过一些标准和一篇范文来介绍GMAT写作字数相关的问题。
GMAT写作字数多少合适?下面是官方钦定满分的范文，其最明显的优点在于：
1、GMAT作文字数高达599words, 充分体现了字数为王的判分倾向。
2、GMAT考试时采取标准的五段制，首段、末端，中间三段，看上去很美。
3、没有陈词滥调、满篇废话的模板式语言。
下面是一篇官方给出满分的ARGUMENT范文，我们来一起赏析，看看它为何能scored six。
The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper:
Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money.
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
首段
This argument states that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer because by making the workplace safer then lower wages could be paid to employees. This conclusion is based on the premise that as the list of physical injury increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. However, there are several assumptions that may not necessarily apply to this argument. For example, the costs associated with making the workplace safe must outweigh the increased payroll expenses due to hazardous conditions. Also, one must look at the plausability of improving the work environment. And finally, because most companies agree that as the risk of injury increases so will wages doesnt necessarily mean that the all companies which have hazardous work environments agree.
中间段1
The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work environment. Clearly one could argue that if making the workplace safe would cost an exorbitant amount of money in comparison to leaving the workplace as is and paying slightly increased wages than it would not make sense to improve the work environment. For example, if making the workplace safe would cost $100 million versus additional payroll expenses of only $5,000 per year, it would make financial sense to simply pay the increased wages. No business or business owner with any sense would pay all that extra money just to save a couple dollars and improve employee health and relations. To consider this, a cost benefit analysis must be made. I also feel that although a cost benefit analysis should be the determining factor with regard to these decisions making financial sense, it may not be the determining factor with regard to making social, moral and ethical sense.
中间段2
This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial sense in analysing improving the work environment. This is not the case. Companies look at other considerations such as the negative social ramifications of high on-job injuries. For example, Toyota spends large amounts of money improving its environment because while its goal is to be profitable, it also prides itself on high employee morale and an almost perfectly safe work environment. However, Toyota finds that it can do both, as by improving employee health and employee relations they are guaranteed a more motivated staff, and hence a more efficient staff; this guarantees more money for the business as well as more safety for the employees.
中间段3
Finally one must understand that not all work environments can be made safer. For example, in the case of coal mining, a company only has limited ways of making the work environment safe. While companies may be able to ensure some safety precautions, they may not be able to provide all the safety measures necessary. In other words, a mining company has limited ability to control the air quality within a coal mine and therefore it cannot control the risk of employees getting blacklung. In other words, regardless of the intent of the company, some jobs are simply dangerous in nature.
末端
In conclusion, while at first it may seem to make financial sense to improve the safety of the work environment sometimes it truly does not make financial sense. Furthermore, financial sense may not be the only issue a company faces. Other types of analyses must be made such as the social ramifications of an unsafe work environment and the overall ability of a company to improve that environment . Before any decision is made, all this things must be considered, not simply the reduction of payroll expenses.
这篇GMAT作文采用的是考生熟知的段落结构，整篇文章看上去非常优美。字数安排的额也非常合理。GMAT考试虽对字数没有明确安排，但是考生要从自己的结构安排入手，让自己的GMAT写作看上去更加符合标准。希望大家多多参考并加以练习。
GMAT考试作文的结构怎么安排、开头关键句怎么写、怎样合理的安排文章内容相信许多考生已经熟记于心，但是考生经常不能确定GMAT作文字数到底多少最佳。到底多少字数最合适呢?这确实是GMAT写作时我们要关注的一个问题，合理的字数更能展示一个人良好的语言功底。以下通过一些标准和一篇范文来介绍GMAT写作字数相关的问题。
GMAT写作字数多少合适?下面是官方钦定满分的范文，其最明显的优点在于：
1、GMAT作文字数高达599words, 充分体现了字数为王的判分倾向。
2、GMAT考试时采取标准的五段制，首段、末端，中间三段，看上去很美。
3、没有陈词滥调、满篇废话的模板式语言。
下面是一篇官方给出满分的ARGUMENT范文，我们来一起赏析，看看它为何能scored six。
The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper:
Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money.
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
首段
This argument states that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer because by making the workplace safer then lower wages could be paid to employees. This conclusion is based on the premise that as the list of physical injury increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. However, there are several assumptions that may not necessarily apply to this argument. For example, the costs associated with making the workplace safe must outweigh the increased payroll expenses due to hazardous conditions. Also, one must look at the plausability of improving the work environment. And finally, because most companies agree that as the risk of injury increases so will wages doesnt necessarily mean that the all companies which have hazardous work environments agree.
中间段1
The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work environment. Clearly one could argue that if making the workplace safe would cost an exorbitant amount of money in comparison to leaving the workplace as is and paying slightly increased wages than it would not make sense to improve the work environment. For example, if making the workplace safe would cost $100 million versus additional payroll expenses of only $5,000 per year, it would make financial sense to simply pay the increased wages. No business or business owner with any sense would pay all that extra money just to save a couple dollars and improve employee health and relations. To consider this, a cost benefit analysis must be made. I also feel that although a cost benefit analysis should be the determining factor with regard to these decisions making financial sense, it may not be the determining factor with regard to making social, moral and ethical sense.
中间段2
This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial sense in analysing improving the work environment. This is not the case. Companies look at other considerations such as the negative social ramifications of high on-job injuries. For example, Toyota spends large amounts of money improving its environment because while its goal is to be profitable, it also prides itself on high employee morale and an almost perfectly safe work environment. However, Toyota finds that it can do both, as by improving employee health and employee relations they are guaranteed a more motivated staff, and hence a more efficient staff; this guarantees more money for the business as well as more safety for the employees.
中间段3
Finally one must understand that not all work environments can be made safer. For example, in the case of coal mining, a company only has limited ways of making the work environment safe. While companies may be able to ensure some safety precautions, they may not be able to provide all the safety measures necessary. In other words, a mining company has limited ability to control the air quality within a coal mine and therefore it cannot control the risk of employees getting blacklung. In other words, regardless of the intent of the company, some jobs are simply dangerous in nature.
末端
In conclusion, while at first it may seem to make financial sense to improve the safety of the work environment sometimes it truly does not make financial sense. Furthermore, financial sense may not be the only issue a company faces. Other types of analyses must be made such as the social ramifications of an unsafe work environment and the overall ability of a company to improve that environment . Before any decision is made, all this things must be considered, not simply the reduction of payroll expenses.
这篇GMAT作文采用的是考生熟知的段落结构，整篇文章看上去非常优美。字数安排的额也非常合理。GMAT考试虽对字数没有明确安排，但是考生要从自己的结构安排入手，让自己的GMAT写作看上去更加符合标准。希望大家多多参考并加以练习。
