面对gmat写作，考生的第一步肯定是读题。只有读懂题目才能够找准下手的方向，从而获得gmat写作高分。下面是小编为大家整理收集的关于gmat写作题目的相关解读，希望对大家有所帮助。
1、认真读题干，准确找出逻辑错误
审题是gmat写作考试的重要环节，也是gmat写作高分的基础!所以，建议考生在拿到题目时首先要做的就是审题干并全部找出题干中存在的逻辑错误，具体操作方法如下：
(1)注意题干中表述不清的词句
在gmat写作的题目中，经常会见到如“more” “some”之类的模糊用词。这些词无法表达出具体的数字，作为论据明显说服力不足，如果题干中围绕这些数据进行了论述并且得出了结论，那显然这个结论存在问题。
(2)留意极端词汇和观点
一般来说论述类文章应该是客观的，有理有据的。如果gmat作文素材中出现极端词汇，考生要多加留意，极端观点和结论在gmat作文中鲜少有正确的时候，往往也是最主要的攻击点。在gmat写作题目的结论出现如“must” “undoubtedly”之类的用词，一定要对所得结论进行充分的思考和论证。
2、提取有效信息，全力论证
一般来说，原文可能出现六七个逻辑错误，而考生只需要从中挑出3-4个最主要的进行有力的攻击就可以了。考生的文章能不能获得gmat写作高分，最主要的就是看你能否抓住主要逻辑错误。有考生担心不把全部的逻辑错误罗列出来会影响得分，其实不然，只要把主要的错误都指出来并进行充分论证，同样可以拿到6分。相反，如果只是把逻辑漏洞全部罗列出来而没有进行有力的反驳，反而不能获得满意的分数。
为帮助各位更好地了解，下面小编准备了一道真题，当然还有与之相对的范文，来看看!
原题：
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.
范文：
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.