Annotated GRE essay example:
develop an argument and address an objection

A library policy to examine

Upsilar practice topic: “City libraries should publish brief explanations whenever they permanently remove books from their collections.” Workshop instruction: “Discuss whether you support this policy, considering its possible consequences and the conditions that would affect your judgment.”

This teaching prompt was created for practice; it is not an official ETS prompt. It asks about the consequences of a policy. Both versions support proportionate transparency; the second should better explain why and under what conditions. The examples are hypothetical and include no invented statistics.

First version: ideas that still need development

Libraries are public institutions, so readers should know why books disappear from their collections. Publishing explanations would help people trust librarians and would make the removal process more transparent. I support the proposed policy, although it should not become too complicated.

One reason for publishing explanations is that readers may care about books that librarians consider unimportant. If a book has not been borrowed recently, it could still be useful to somebody. For example, a resident might want to read a local history book. If the library removes it, the resident would be disappointed. An explanation would show why this happened and could help the library make better decisions later.

Another reason is that explanations would discourage bad decisions. When people have to justify what they do, they think more carefully. A librarian who wants to remove a controversial book might reconsider if the public can see the reason. Therefore, the policy could protect the diversity of the collection and give readers more confidence in the institution.

On the other hand, libraries have limited money and staff. Writing explanations takes time, and librarians already have many responsibilities. Some books are simply too damaged to keep, while others are replaced by new editions. These cases do not require a long discussion. The library could use short explanations instead of long reports, which would reduce the problem.

In conclusion, libraries should explain their decisions because they serve the public. Transparency can improve trust and encourage careful choices. The policy would be useful as long as the explanations are brief and librarians still have time to help readers.

Why this version remains limited

The position is clear, and the essay includes an objection. But several connections are merely asserted: explaining a removal afterward does not immediately make the book available; “discourage bad decisions” does not say which decisions become open to challenge. The example of a disappointed resident adds emotion without showing how publication would improve the process.

The response to the cost objection is also vague. “Short explanations” echoes the prompt without distinguishing a damaged book, a duplicate, and a controversial work. The next revision makes that distinction and turns transparency into an observable process.

Improved version: distinguish cases and address the objection

A library’s decision to remove a book can reflect ordinary maintenance, a change in public needs, or pressure to exclude an uncomfortable viewpoint. Readers cannot distinguish these possibilities merely by looking at an empty space on a shelf. I therefore support publishing reasons for permanent removals, provided that the detail required is proportionate to the significance of the decision.

The strongest benefit is not that every reader will agree with every removal. It is that a stated reason can be examined. Imagine a library retiring a collection of local oral histories because its borrowing figures are low. A short public notice would allow a historical association to explain that researchers consult the collection in the building rather than borrowing it. The notice would expose a limitation in the evidence used to make the decision. Even if the removal had already occurred, that information could guide the recovery of the material or prevent similar mistakes. Transparency would thus improve the feedback available to the institution, rather than merely advertise its commitment to openness.

Publishing reasons would also create a record against which future decisions could be compared. If damaged books are normally replaced but a politically controversial title is removed without replacement, readers could ask why the treatment differs. This does not mean that every controversial book must remain indefinitely. It means that the library should defend its decision through criteria it is willing to apply consistently. A public record makes that consistency easier to assess.

The administrative objection is substantial. A requirement to write an individual essay about every torn duplicate could divert staff from helping readers. A workable policy should therefore distinguish routine maintenance from consequential choices. A monthly list with standard reasons could cover damaged copies and superseded editions. Removing a unique local collection or ending access to a disputed work would warrant a short, specific explanation and a contact route for relevant information. Such a system would not eliminate the cost of accountability, but it would concentrate that cost where readers have most to gain.

The policy also needs a clear limit: explanations should concern the collection, not disclose an identifiable person’s borrowing history. With that safeguard and a proportionate reporting system, public reasons can improve the quality of decisions without turning routine shelf maintenance into a prolonged public hearing. The goal is informed accountability, not unanimous approval of every choice.

What each revision adds

The second essay does not claim to prove an empirical effect of transparency; it develops a mechanism in a hypothetical case. This distinction allows for a precise example without inventing a study. The addition about privacy sets a limit on the proposed policy.

Revise a paragraph without making it much longer

Choose a paragraph from the first version. Identify its conclusion and ask, “Why would this produce that effect?” Add a mechanism, then a condition that limits it. Next, remove a sentence that repeats the thesis without supporting it. This can make a revision more precise without making it endlessly longer.

For your own essay, keep an initial version, a revised version, and three notes explaining your changes. Use the comparison table to review your reasoning; it does not replace ETS criteria or an official evaluation. Continue practicing your writing pace and language quality with new prompts.