Analyze an Issue: Building a Nuanced, Well-Supported Position in 30 Minutes
The Analyze an Issue task gives you 30 minutes to write a persuasive essay on a brief statement about society, education, technology, or public policy. It tests whether you can take a position, reason from evidence, and address complexity-not whether you reach a particular conclusion. GRE Analytical Writing is scored holistically on a 0–6 scale in half-point increments, so the quality of your thinking and control of prose matter more than a formula.
Read the instruction, not just the prompt
Each Issue prompt is followed by a specific instruction, such as discussing the extent to which you agree or disagree, the circumstances in which a recommendation would be advantageous, or the consequences of adopting a claim. These instructions vary across the pool; answering the wrong one caps your score because you have not done the assigned task. Underline the verb and the scope words-'extent', 'specific circumstances', 'consequences'-and make your thesis answer that exact question.
Build a position with visible complexity
High-scoring responses do not simply agree or disagree; they define the claim's scope. Identify the key qualifier-'only', 'primary', 'must', 'most important'-and test it. Concede the strongest opposing point, then explain why your position still holds. Organize reasons as paragraphs, each with a claim, explanation, and a concrete example from history, science, current events, or lived experience. Avoid invented statistics.
Worked example
Prompt: 'Governments should fund the arts only when all other public needs have been met.' Instruction: discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree, considering ways the statement might or might not hold true.
Reasoning: the word 'only' makes arts funding residual. Taken literally, it would almost never apply, because public needs are never fully satisfied. Concede that emergency needs-pandemic hospital capacity, fire response-should outrank museums. Then argue that a blanket residual rule is poor policy: arts funding supports tourism, education, and community cohesion, and modest baseline funding is not zero-sum with health or safety. Address the counterargument that arts subsidies can favor elite institutions; the remedy is accountability, not elimination. Thesis: urgent needs should take precedence, but 'only when' is too absolute; governments should maintain a modest, accountable baseline.
Traps that cost marks
- Ignoring the instruction line and writing a generic agree/disagree essay.
- A false dichotomy: 'I completely agree' followed by no acknowledgment of exceptions.
- Vague examples ('studies show') or invented facts instead of explainable cases.
- Listing examples without explaining how they support the claim.
- No counterargument, so the position looks unexamined.