新GREIssue 官方范文整理（test 3）

　　The following sample issue response received a score of 3:
　　How do new knowledge came into being? Sometimes it stemed from exsiting knowledge. Sometimes it was born all out of sudden. Both ways seem work well. As I see through this question, I believe that what plays a key role in creating new ideas is a passionate interest.
　　Throughout history, a myriad of examples help prove the importance of interest. Edison, the greatest inventors in the world, possessed a sharp interest ever since his childhood. In his eyes, every common things were full of mysteries. It was his unique interest which helped him look into the machanism of things around therefore new iders came into his mind and, changed into conceret machines facilitating our lives. Another famous example is that of Newton. A riped apple from a tree fell onto his head one afternoon. For ordinary people, this kind of trivial instance would slip off their mind at once. However, Newton lost hisself in thought of the relation between objects. Finally he found gravitation and opened up a new era of physics.
　　On the other hand, without interest, the opportunity of great discoveries will pass by. Most people are experiencing ordinary lives everyday. Why don’t they come up with great ideas? Because interest is a state of skeptism, a state in which we do not stop to disclose the truth beneath a surface of commonplaces. Interest means the ability to explore the internal corelations. Therefore, with a passiontae interest, those commonplace things are no longer commonplace, and new ideas are created.
　　From what have been discussed above, we can see that interest serves as force to propell the exploration of unknowns, to perfect the structure of human knowledge, and to move towards the ultimate truth.
　　Comments on sample essay receiving score of 3:
　　This limited response demonstrates some competence in its analysis and in conveying meaning but is obviously flawed.
　　The response agrees with the prompt by arguing that a passionate interest allows people to see beyond the commonplace and create new ideas (paragraphs 1 and 3). However, the response is limited in presenting and developing this position.
　　In paragraph 2 the response offers two relevant but underdeveloped examples to illustrate the importance of interest in generating ideas.
　　The Edison example is not persuasive because its development is limited to generalities (“common things were full of mysteries...which helped him look into the machanism of things...therefore new iders came into his mind and, changed into conceret machines”). The response does not provide specific examples of the common “things” that interested Edison nor does it discuss any of Edison’s particular ideas. Thus, it does little to advance the response’s position. The Newton example is not penalized for historical inaccuracy. However, like the previous example, it is overly general and underdeveloped.
　　The response also contains an accumulation of language errors (in usage, word choice, and sentence structure) that often result in a lack of clarity. For instance, the rhetorical device used in paragraph 1 contains frequent errors that render it ineffective. The imprecise language use in the Newton example is particularly unsettling: “Newton lost hisself in thought of the relation between objects. Finally he found gravitation and opened up a new era of physics.” While these errors do not generally interfere with meaning, they constitute a lack of language control that precludes a score of 4.