Read both parts: the topic and the task
The current GRE writing section consists of one Analyze an Issue task. ETS publishes several prompt types; they do not all ask for the same discussion. Addressing only the topic therefore leaves part of the task unfinished. An objection, a consequence, and an evaluation of a reason are not interchangeable labels for a “counterargument” paragraph.
Before looking for an example, restate your task in one sentence. “I need to evaluate a policy by examining its effects,” or “I need to judge a claim and its justification separately.” This sentence guides your plan and serves as a final check. The three tasks below are Upsilar practice; their instructions are instructional paraphrases, not official prompts. The situations and examples are hypothetical.
Version A: where does the claim hold?
Practice topic: “Research teams benefit from keeping records of unsuccessful approaches accessible to new members.” Workshop instruction: “Explain your degree of agreement. Examine circumstances that support your position and circumstances that limit it.”
Possible position: keeping documented failures helps new team members when the conditions and causes are understandable; a simple list of prohibitions may instead discourage a relevant new approach.
| Section | Idea | What the example should show |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction | Distinguish keeping a record from prohibiting another attempt | A useful record conveys conditions, not just a verdict. |
| Body paragraph 1 | Avoid repeating an explained failure | A protocol that failed at a specific temperature prevents further expense under the same conditions. |
| Body paragraph 2 | Reconsider when the context changes | A record without context may cause a new member to reject a method that a new tool could make viable. |
| Conclusion | Support explanatory records that can be revised | The value of the archive depends on its context and use. |
Version B: should you accept both statements?
Practice topic: “Research teams should preserve records of failed approaches because a failed approach can never become useful.” Workshop instruction: “Evaluate both the recommendation and the reason offered for it.”
You can support the recommendation while rejecting its reason. The word never turns a past observation into a claim of future impossibility. Your plan must make this distinction visible, or readers may think you accepted or rejected both as a whole.
Possible plan: first explain how a record of failure helps others understand the conditions already tested; then show how a failed method may become productive with new data or a more precise instrument; conclude that keeping records is useful precisely because it enables informed reevaluation. The same technology example plays a different role: in A, it showed the risk of using a record as a prohibition; here, it refutes B’s absolute justification.
Version C: anticipate the consequences of a decision
Practice topic: “Every research team should require a short failure report before closing a project.” Workshop instruction: “Assess this policy by discussing its likely consequences and the conditions under which you would support it.”
A policy requires you to consider implementation. Who writes the report, who reads it, what does it cost, and what sensitive information might it include? A strong objection could be the extra workload for a small project. You could support a proportionate format: a short structured note for a local trial and more analysis for an expensive project.
Possible plan: the expected benefit of retaining knowledge over time; the undesirable effect of a rigid requirement that turns every negative result into someone’s fault; conditions for acceptance, distinguishing technical learning from individual evaluation. You are no longer discussing only whether archives are useful; you are evaluating how the requirement changes team behavior.
The pitfall
The pitfall to avoid
Applying a “pros, cons, conclusion” structure without checking the task is a mistake. Two equally long sections may completely miss the evaluation of the stated reason, the second viewpoint, or practical consequences.
Test each paragraph before drafting
For each section, state a claim, give an example, and explain how the example supports your thesis. Without that link, you may have an interesting anecdote but no argument. Prefer a clearly labeled hypothetical example to an invented historical statistic. Be precise about the mechanism you are explaining.
Set aside a few minutes for this check during timed practice, then adjust the time to your own pace. Your full essay should remain fully written and coherent; the table in this article is a planning tool, not text to copy. The annotated essay example that follows shows how to turn an idea and an objection into paragraphs.
Key takeaways
- The specific task determines the structure.
- Evaluate a claim and its reason separately.
- Each example should support a specific step in the argument.