The analytical writing section of the GRE exam requires test takers to write two essays – one analysis of an issue and one analysis of an argument. These essays are scored separately on a 0-6 point scale for a total of 2-12 points on the GRE. Students are judged on their critical thinking, analytical writing skills, organization, and ability to support their ideas. Below are some GRE writing essay examples to help illustrate what high-scoring responses may look like.
Issue Essay Example:
Claim: Governments should place fewer restrictions on scientific research and experimentation.
Opening paragraph (331 words): This issue elicits reasonable perspectives on both sides. On one hand, unfettered scientific research could yield monumental discoveries and technological advances that improve quality of life. Some scientific experiments may pose risks to human health, safety, or ethics if not properly regulated. A balanced approach is needed that allows research to progress while mitigating potential harms.
Body paragraph 1 (435 words): Those arguing for fewer restrictions claim that scientific progress often occurs through trial and error. Major advances like vaccines, antibiotics, and inventions like the internet emerged from experiments that may not have occurred under today’s regulatory climate. Restrictions can stall or even permanently halt lines of promising inquiry. Also, researchers are trained and committed to responsible practices. With proper oversight and safety procedures, many perceived “risks” may be negligible or manageable. Overall, the potential benefits of certain research outweigh risks if conducted carefully and for the right purposes.
Body paragraph 2 (412 words): Completely unregulated research could normalize practices like dangerous human testing without consent. Recent history shows some science conducted in the name of progress had devastating human costs, like the Tuskegee syphilis study. Also, new technologies pose unknown risks like genetically modified organisms potentially disrupting ecosystems. While researchers’ intentions are to help society, the potential for unintended harms means some oversight is reasonable. Regulations aim to ensure research subjects’ dignity and safety are preserved, and any risks posed to public health and environment are minimized. A balance of advocacy and regulation is most likely to yield ethical progress.
Conclusion (300 words): Both perspectives on this issue have merits. Unrestricted scientific progress could generate momentous benefits, but some regulation is sensible to protect basic ethical standards and public welfare. The debate involves weighing discoveries against dignified and safe treatment of all affected. An ideal policy would apply reasonable safety reviews and oversight, while still allowing promising areas of research with proper procedures and democratic discussion of goals and methods. With open and thoughtful discussion of perspectives, a balanced policy can be achieved to maximize science’s benefits and minimize its risks.
Argument Essay Example:
Claim: The following argument is flawed. College students should not be required to live on campus for their first two years of enrollment.
Opening paragraph (280 words): On the surface, this argument presents a stance that college freshmen and sophomores living on campus brings certain advantages. Closer examination reveals logical gaps, questionable evidence, and assertions that do not withstand scrutiny. Namely, the argument overlooks student preferences and circumstances, makes unsupported claims about campus involvement, and presents an incomplete picture of costs that undermines the conclusion. A more reasonable policy would consider all factors, rather than mandate campus living.
First body paragraph (458 words): The argument assumes all students prefer and will benefit from on-campus living, but this disregards individual choices and situations. Some students have family responsibilities or financial circumstances like off-campus jobs that an on-campus requirement could handicap. The argument also presents no data showing campus living guarantees student involvement through activities. In reality, involvement depends more on each student’s interests and initiative than mere physical location. While on-campus events may be convenient, off-campus students can still join clubs and organizations with effort. Forcing campus living against some students’ will or circumstances does not ensure involvement and discounts student autonomy.
Second body paragraph (426 words): Moreover, the argument narrowly frames costs as only tuition and room/board, yet overlooks additional living expenses like meals, transportation, and supplies that accumulate over multiple years. When factoring total costs to students and families, campus living may not prove cheaper in all situations. Part-time or commuter students especially may save money living at home. Universities also benefit financially from high residential occupancy rates, so there is self-interest behind campus living mandates beyond student well-being alone. A blanket requirement discounts alternatives that may work better for certain demographics.
Conclusion (299 words): While campus life offers opportunities, requiring such living disregards legitimate student preferences and circumstances. Involvement depends more on individual initiative than residence alone. The argument also presents an incomplete picture of costs and overlooks university financial motives, weakening the conclusion. A reasonable policy would treat students as individuals, allow consideration of costs and responsibilities, and give choice rather than impose mandates against some students’ interests. If campus living truly benefits freshmen and sophomores as claimed, universities could still encourage the option without an across-the-board requirement. Overall, the argument does not justify removing student choice in where to live.
Andrew Stroud