The Analytical Writing Assessment (AWA) section of the GRE exam requires test takers to write essays in response to specific issue prompts. These prompts present an issue of general interest and require test takers to develop a position on the issue and support that position with reasons and examples from their reading, studies, experience, or observations. While there is no right or wrong answer in an issue essay, successful responses follow certain standards of clear reasoning and logical organization. This essay will explain the format and standards for a high-scoring GRE issue essay, provide examples of effective responses, and discuss common mistakes to avoid.
All GRE issue essays must follow a basic four-paragraph structure. The introduction paragraph should state your overall position on the issue in one sentence. This thesis statement lays out the main argument or viewpoint you will defend. The second, third, and fourth paragraphs should each present one reason or example supporting your position. These body paragraphs should have a topic sentence that relates back to your thesis, followed by explanations and examples that develop the supporting point. The conclusion should simply restate your position without introducing any new information.
Sticking to this standardized four-paragraph structure ensures your essay is coherent and organized in a way graders expect. Within each paragraph, vary your sentence structure and choose vivid, concrete language to clearly convey your ideas. Address counterarguments briefly but do not devote significant space to perspectives you do not support. Maintain a formal, objective tone without personal pronouns or casual language. Essays scoring highly also stay focused on the specific issue prompt and avoid broad generalizations.
For example, here is a high-scoring response to the prompt “Government agencies should require a national identity card for all citizens”:
A national identity card system offers administrative benefits but poses risks to civil liberties that outweigh those benefits. While identity cards could simplify interactions with government agencies, such a system may infringe on citizens’ reasonable expectations of privacy and freedom of movement.
Requiring all citizens to obtain and carry a government-issued identity card at all times could streamline processes like applying for licenses, welfare benefits, and travel documents. A standardized identification system may reduce forms of identity fraud like voting in others’ names or obtaining public services illegitimately. Citizens in a free, democratic society expect protection from unwarranted surveillance or scrutiny by the authorities. A centralized national identity database raises serious privacy and data security concerns in an era of increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks and identity theft.
Rather than dismissing civil liberties concerns as hypothetical fears, we must consider real examples of identity systems enabling government overreach. In totalitarian regimes like East Germany and Nazi Germany, internal passports and identity cards assisted mass state surveillance of private citizens. More recently, some national ID programs eroded individual privacy and facilitated ethnic profiling. A seemingly innocuous identity card requirement could normalize intrusive checks by authorities and undermine the expectation of anonymity in public spaces. Such mission creep should give pause to policymakers considering implementing a universal national identity system.
In the balance, the administrative benefits of a standardized identity card do not clearly outweigh the risks to privacy and freedom that such a system may normalize and enable over time. While protecting against forms of illegality, a national ID program could fail to respect reasonable individual expectations of anonymity and limit unwarranted monitoring by government authorities. Overall, this issue involves a complex weighing of policy goals, and reasonable people of good faith could disagree on this matter. The potential downsides associate with civil liberties and privacy indicate the more cautious approach is not implementing a mandatory national identity card system for all citizens at this time.
This response effectively addresses all components of a high-scoring GRE issue essay. The introduction presents a clear position that government identity cards pose risks to civil liberties that outweigh benefits. Each of the three body paragraphs then focuses on a different supporting point – the potential benefits, privacy/data security concerns, and examples where similar systems enabled overreach. Concrete examples like East Germany and ethnic profiling add substance. The conclusion restates the overall position without new information. Formal language and a balanced, objective tone are maintained throughout.
By contrast, low-scoring responses often suffer from vague or simplistic reasoning, weak support, or organizational flaws. Some common mistakes include failing to take a clear position, neglecting structure and coherence, relying too heavily on broad generalizations rather than specifics, introducing new ideas in the conclusion, adopting an unprofessional or conversational style, or avoiding counterarguments entirely rather than addressing them briefly. Essays may also lose focus by drifting well beyond the scope of the given issue prompt.
Mastering GRE issue essay writing takes practice analyzing prompts, outlining positions, and critiquing sample responses. Following the basic four-paragraph structure and standards of clear organization, logical reasoning, and objective tone will help achieve the highest scores. Understanding examples of effective, high-scoring responses can illuminate how to integrate strong support like facts, details, and discussion of opposing viewpoints. Avoiding common pitfalls like underdeveloped explanations, poor coherence, irrelevant digressions, and an informal approach should also improve GRE issue essays. With dedicated practice applying these principles, test takers can feel confident in their analytical writing abilities on test day.
Andrew Stroud