GMAT作文字数有哪些要求呢，我们可以从经验中总结GMAT作文多少比较合适，一起来看。
我们分析一下官方钦定满分的范文。观察不难发现其最明显的优点在于：
1、字数高达599words, 充分体现了字数为王的判分倾向。
2、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 ofimproving 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.
除此之外我们还知道，GMAT作文评分有两部分独立的评分系统组成。
1 电脑评分。电脑评分会对包括文章结构和语言应用的超过50个标准进行评分，其中有主旨分析，思路结构和句法
2 大学教师评分，以补充电脑评分的不足。
一下是它的评分标准。
一、六分(OUTSTANDING)：对事件的复杂性的分析清楚有力;熟练驾驭有效写作的要素。
A)在就某事件展开分析和阐述自己观点时摆出有洞察力的原因和/或有说服力的事例。
B)结构清晰。
C)对于语言(包括用词和句法多样性)有很好的掌握。
D)文章完全符合标准书面英语规范(包括语法、用法和拼写规则)，但可能会有小错误。
二、五分(STRONG)：对事件的复杂性有充分的分析;很好地掌握了有效写作的要素。
A)阐述观点时能运用恰当有力的理由/或事例。
B)结构较清晰。
C)对于语言(包括用词和句法多样性)有良好的掌握。
D)较好的掌握标准书面英语规范(包括语法、用法和拼写规则)，但可能会有小错误。
三、四分(ADEQUATE)：对事件的复杂性有一定的分析;对写作的要素有一定的掌握。
A)阐述观点时能举出与事件相关的理由/或事例。
B)结构基本合理。
C)对于语言(包括用词和句法)有一定的掌握，但句法缺乏多样性。
D)对于标准书面英语的规范有一定掌握，但有一些错误
四、三分(LIMITED)：对事件的复杂性有一定的分析;对写作的要素有一定的掌握，但有明显缺陷，一般具备下列特征中的一项或几项：
A)观点模糊或不充分。
B)结构松散。
C)不善于举出与议题相关的理由或事例。
D)语言不准确且/或句子缺乏多样性。
E)在语法、用法或拼写上偶有错误或常有小错误。
五、二分(SERIOUSLY FLAWED)：在分析性写作技巧上表现出严重缺陷，一般具备下列特征中的一项或几项：
A)观点不明确或未能充分展开。
B)毫无结构可言。
C)缺乏相关的理由或事例。
D)在语言运用或句子结构上经常出现严重错误。
E)在语法、用法或拼写上错误很多，影响文章表达。
六、一分(FUNDAMENTALLY DEFICIENT)：在分析性写作技巧上有根本缺陷，一般具备下列特征中的一项或几项：
A)无法完整地叙述问题。
B)在语言和句子结构上不断有严重错误。
C)在语法、用法或拼写上有大量错误，严重影响文章表达。
七、零分：跑题、非英语写作、重抄原题等。
八、 NR：白卷。
以上通过对GMAT官方钦点满分作文分析我们知道GMAT作文字数为600字比较合适，这个字数的作文在满足其评分标准后得满分的几率最大。