1.GMAT作文写多少字合适在prep的作文界面，一行平均有18-20个单词，为简化计算，按每行20个单词来计算 。注意，在这里，无论是完整的一行，还是只有几个单词的一行，都记为单独的一行，用来简化计算 。凡是一行，都按20个单词来计算 。这样，我们可以得出：三行的段落60个单词，四行的段落80个单词，五行的段落100个单词，以此类推 。通常我们会写会写4-5个段落，建议每段不要少于3行，也不要要多于6行 。有了这些数据，一眼扫下来，基本自己写了多少字就很清楚了 。
GMAT作文字数要求
GMAT考试官方对GMAT作文的字数并没有明确地要求 。但即使如此，考生也不要以为字数多就能分数高，因为这样的做法可能会适得其反 。即使AWA写作没有规定明确的字数，但是据统计，大多数的高分作文字数还是集中在400+到550左右 。考生只要能够对找出的逻辑错误给出全面深刻的反驳即可，没必要无话找话 。但前提是考生一定要对题干中的逻辑错误理解到位，并尽可能的把里面所有的逻辑错误全部找出来 。
GMAT作文写作的目的是为了将你的观点清晰的表达出来，并指出题干中论证的不足之处 。所以在练习的时候，考生要注意段落之间的衔接，不要让它被孤立，否则会为你的写作减分 。论述时保证每段在80字左右即可，用两到三句话把论点表达清楚即可，不要显得冗长 。
2.GMAT作文字数多少字合适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 doesn't 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 (i.e., coal mine). Before any decision is made, all this things must be considered, not simply the reduction of payroll expenses. 1、字数高达599words，充 。