面對gmat寫作，考生的第一步肯定是讀題。只有讀懂題目才能夠找準下手的方向，從而獲得gmat寫作高分。下面是小編為大家整理收集的關於gmat寫作題目的相關解讀，希望對大家有所幫助。
1、認真讀題幹，準確找出邏輯錯誤
審題是gmat寫作考試的重要環節，也是gmat寫作高分的基礎!所以，建議考生在拿到題目時首先要做的就是審題幹並全部找出題幹中存在的邏輯錯誤，具體操作方法如下：
(1)注意題幹中表述不清的詞句
在gmat寫作的題目中，經常會見到如“more” “some”之類的模糊用詞。這些詞無法表達出具體的數字，作為論據明顯說服力不足，如果題幹中圍繞這些資料進行了論述並且得出了結論，那顯然這個結論存在問題。
(2)留意極端詞彙和觀點
一般來說論述類文章應該是客觀的，有理有據的。如果gmat作文素材中出現極端詞彙，考生要多加留意，極端觀點和結論在gmat作文中鮮少有正確的時候，往往也是最主要的攻擊點。在gmat寫作題目的結論出現如“must” “undoubtedly”之類的用詞，一定要對所得結論進行充分的思考和論證。
2、提取有效資訊，全力論證
一般來說，原文可能出現六七個邏輯錯誤，而考生只需要從中挑出3-4個最主要的進行有力的攻擊就可以了。考生的文章能不能獲得gmat寫作高分，最主要的就是看你能否抓住主要邏輯錯誤。有考生擔心不把全部的邏輯錯誤羅列出來會影響得分，其實不然，只要把主要的錯誤都指出來並進行充分論證，同樣可以拿到6分。相反，如果只是把邏輯漏洞全部羅列出來而沒有進行有力的反駁，反而不能獲得滿意的分數。
為幫助各位更好地瞭解，下面小編準備了一道真題，當然還有與之相對的範文，來看看!
原題：
The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen foods:
Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.
範文：
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.