GRE Analyze an Issue

Societies advance most rapidly when their citizens are encouraged to question established institutions rather than to defer to them. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

A strong thesis would advance:

I largely agree that institutional questioning drives rapid advancement, but only when that questioning is paired with the institutional capacity to absorb and act on legitimate critique; pure deference produces stagnation, but unchanneled skepticism produces dysfunction rather than progress.

How a 6-scoring response would develop it:

1. Paragraph 2: Reason one — institutional questioning surfaces hidden failures, illustrated by the (invented) 1987 reforms at the fictional Banco Meridional after junior auditors challenged risk-rating norms
2. Paragraph 3: Reason two — historical periods of mandated deference (Tokugawa-era guild restrictions on technical innovation) correlate with slowed technological diffusion compared to questioning-friendly contemporaries
3. Paragraph 4: Counterargument — questioning without functional institutions produces revolutionary chaos rather than advancement; concede this, then show that the qualification ('institutional capacity to absorb critique') already accounts for it
4. Paragraph 5: Synthesis — the claim is right about the causal arrow but incomplete about the conditions; advancement requires both the questioning and the channels

Where mid-scoring responses go wrong:

Mid-scoring responses on this prompt typically refuse to commit ('questioning is good but so is tradition'), or pile up vague examples about 'scientists who challenged the status quo' without naming specific mechanisms, or strawman the counterargument by suggesting only authoritarians defend deference. The fix is a qualified thesis that names the precise condition (institutional absorptive capacity) and a counterargument paragraph that genuinely concedes the chaos risk before showing the qualification handles it.

Universities should require every undergraduate to complete coursework in fields outside the student's chosen major, even when this requirement extends time to graduation. Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.

A strong thesis would advance:

Universities should require meaningful breadth coursework, but should design it to add at most one semester to graduation rather than treating extension as a costless side effect; the cognitive benefits of cross-disciplinary exposure are real, but the financial consequences of extended enrollment fall disproportionately on lower-income students and can erase the very benefits the policy seeks to confer.

How a 6-scoring response would develop it:

1. Paragraph 2: Consequence one — breadth requirements demonstrably improve transfer learning and adaptive thinking, citing the (invented) longitudinal study by Reyes and Okafor (2019) tracking graduates of distribution-heavy versus distribution-light programs
2. Paragraph 3: Consequence two — extended time-to-graduation imposes compounding costs (tuition, forgone wages, debt interest) that fall hardest on first-generation and lower-income students
3. Paragraph 4: Counterargument — some argue any time extension is justified by lifelong intellectual gains; concede the gains are real, but show the equity consequence undermines the policy's own goals when poorer students drop out before completion
4. Paragraph 5: Synthesis — the policy's wisdom depends entirely on its design; require breadth, but engineer it to fit within existing credit structures

Where mid-scoring responses go wrong:

Weaker responses ignore the prompt's explicit instruction to consider consequences and instead produce a generic 'liberal arts are good' essay. Others list consequences without using them to shape the position, treating the directive as decorative. The strongest responses let the consequences actually determine the qualification — here, the equity consequence is what forces the 'one semester maximum' condition in the thesis.

The most effective political leaders are those who modify their positions in response to public opinion. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.

A strong thesis would advance:

I disagree with the claim as stated: the most effective leaders distinguish between public opinion that reflects new information and public opinion that reflects momentary passion, modifying positions in response to the former while resisting the latter — pure responsiveness produces drift, and pure resistance produces irrelevance.

How a 6-scoring response would develop it:

1. Paragraph 2: Circumstance where modification is advantageous — when public opinion shifts because new evidence has emerged, as in the (invented) case of Mayor Halvorsen of Trondheim revising transit policy after ridership data contradicted her initial projections
2. Paragraph 3: Circumstance where modification is disadvantageous — when public opinion reflects panic-driven sentiment, as during fictional Senator Aluko's refusal to support deportation legislation after a single high-profile incident
3. Paragraph 4: Counterargument — democratic theory holds that responsiveness IS the legitimacy criterion for leaders; concede the legitimacy point, but show that representative (not delegate) models of democracy explicitly carve out room for leaders to resist passion
4. Paragraph 5: Synthesis — effectiveness requires the discernment between information-driven and passion-driven opinion shifts; the claim collapses this distinction

Where mid-scoring responses go wrong:

Many test-takers fail this prompt by treating it as a referendum on whether leaders should listen to voters, producing either a populist celebration or an elitist dismissal. The prompt's directive demands specific circumstances on both sides, and essays that supply only one side or that supply circumstances without explaining how they shape the position will be capped at a 4. The discriminating move is the information-versus-passion distinction, which lets you commit to a position while genuinely engaging both circumstances the directive requires.