GRE Word Roots Guide 2026

The anarchy (without rule) in the region created an anomalous (without norm) political vacuum.

Her antipathy (against-feeling) toward authority was antithetical (against the thesis) to institutional life.

The contrarian (against the mainstream) scholar contravened (went against) the consensus.

Critics decried (cried down) and derided (laughed down) the proposal as pure demagoguery.

The disinterested (apart from interest) judge noted the discordant (hearts apart) testimony.

The malevolent (wishing badly) official was charged with malfeasance (bad deed).

The misanthrope (human-hater) harbored a long-standing misapprehension (wrong understanding) of social motives.

His nonchalant (not hot) response and noncommittal answers left the committee nonplussed (at a loss).

The unequivocal (not equivocal) evidence revealed an unprecedented (without precedent) fraud.

The irascible (easily angered) editor found even impeccable (without fault) manuscripts wanting.

The magnanimous (great-spirited) magnate gave with a magnificence that impressed all observers.

The laboratory served as a microcosm (small world) of the larger research institution.

Critics argued the revision did not diminish (make smaller) the text's power but rendered it more potent.

The multifarious (many-varied) evidence pointed to a multiplicity of contributing factors.

The narrator's omniscient (all-knowing) perspective gave the novel its characteristic irony.

The speaker's panegyric (all-praising speech) elevated the deceased to the pantheon (all-gods hall).

The polymath (many-learner) produced a polymorphous (many-formed) body of interdisciplinary work.

The unilateral (one-sided) decision underscored the unique authority of the executive branch.

The antecedent (going before) conditions antedated (came before) the antebellum (before the war) era.

An anachronistic (against time) use of language in a historical novel signals careless scholarship.

The neophyte (newly planted) scholar coined a neologism (new word) that quickly entered the field's lexicon.

The posthumous (after death) publication was greeted with the critical approbation posterity had withheld in his lifetime.

The precocious (early-ripened) student showed a premonition (before-warning) of future success.

The protagonist (first combatant) tested the prototype (first type) in the opening phase.

The retrograde (moving backward) policy was viewed as retrogressive (going back) by reformers.

The misanthrope (human-hater) found anthropocentric (human-centered) philosophy self-serving.

The demagogue (people-leader) exploited the endemic (among the people) resentment of the populous (many-peopled) district.

The sociopath (society-disease) was fundamentally asocial despite a surface sociability.

The indigenous (born within) population's progeny (offspring) preserved the ingenious (in-born talent) traditions.

A cognizant (knowing) clinician will always seek a differential diagnosis (distinguishing knowledge) before prognosis.

The eulogy (good-word) was notable for its eloquent (fully-spoken) logic and precise analogies.

The demented (de-minded) antagonist offered no cogent comment on his irrational decisions.

Psychosomatic (mind-body) symptoms complicate any purely mechanistic diagnosis.

The prescient (pre-knowing) researcher's conscientious (with full knowing) study anticipated subsequent findings.

Sophistry (cleverness without wisdom) masquerades as sophisticated (wisdom-laden) argument.

The querulous (constantly asking) investigator's inquisitive nature made the exquisite conclusion possible.

The magnanimous (great-spirited) mediator, her equanimity (equal spirit) intact, dissolved the animosity (hostile spirit) in the room.

The benevolent (well-wishing) benefactor endowed programs that proved beneficent (doing good) for generations.

The cordial (heart-full) accord (heart-to-heart agreement) resolved years of discord (hearts apart).

The perfidious (through/breaking faith) agent's lack of fidelity (faithfulness) destroyed the fiduciary relationship.

Gratuitous (given freely but unwanted) praise from an ingrate (un-thankful person) satisfies no one.

Empathy (feeling with) counters the apathy (without feeling) that makes sociopathic behavior possible.

The bibliophile (book-lover) and philologist (word-lover) shared a philosophy (love of wisdom) of careful reading.

The xenophobia (fear of strangers) in the electorate reflected a broader agoraphobia (fear of open spaces — metaphorical) about globalization.

The receptive audience was captivated (seized) by the speaker's ability to intercept and disrupt their preconceptions.

The preamble (walking before) outlined the ambulatory (walking) route of the argument.

The evidence induced (led into) the conclusion that poor leadership was conducive (leading to) failure.

Scholars conferred (carried together) to infer (carry into) meaning from sparse evidence.

The argument digressed (stepped away) into tangential points, regressing (stepping back) from the main thesis.

The emissary (sent out) was permitted (sent through) to transmit (send across) the terms.

The commotion (moved together) in the chamber was promoted (moved forward) by the remote (moved back) possibility of compromise.

Her deportment (carrying oneself) and portfolio (carrying-folder) impressed the committee.

The inadvertent (not turned-toward) disclosure subverted (turned under) months of careful preparation.

When the committee would not accede (yield to), the faction threatened to secede (go apart).

The researcher's fortitude (inner strength) in the face of repeated rejections eventually fortified (strengthened) the field.

The omnipotent (all-powerful) potentate (one with power) wielded impotent (without power) opposition.

The valiant (full of worth) effort to prevail (be strong throughout) ultimately proved unavailing (not worth the effort).

The virtuoso (one of excellence) displayed the virtuous (excellence-having) mastery of a true master.

The convivial (living-together) atmosphere and the speaker's vivacious (full of life) energy revived (re-lived) the audience's interest.

The corroborative (strength-adding) evidence made the case more robust (oak-strong) than any single finding could.

The edict (said out) carried a malediction (evil-saying) against any who would contravene it.

The eloquent (fully spoken) interlocutor (speaking between) avoided the circumlocution (speaking around) that plagued lesser orators.

The law prescribed (wrote before) certain remedies and proscribed (wrote against) others within circumscribed (written around) limits.

The vociferous (bearing the voice loudly) advocate (calling toward) invoked (called upon) precedent to equivocate (equal-voice) no longer.

The eponymous (named for) founder's ignominious (without good name) failure left the institution nameless — a misnomer (wrong name) in every sense.

The audacious (bold/daring) speaker filled the auditorium with an auditory experience unlike any before.

The incarnate (in flesh) evil of the regime's carnage was beyond ideological abstraction.

The corpus (body of work) incorporated (brought into the body) both corporeal (bodily) and abstract concerns.

The incredulous (not believing) panel discredited (removed belief) the witness despite impressive credentials (things to be believed).

The judge's equanimity (equal spirit) and commitment to equitable (equal) outcomes restored equilibrium (equal balance).

The affluent (flowing toward) district attracted an influx (flowing in) of superfluously (over-flowing) credentialed applicants.

Cohesion (sticking together) among team members was inherent (sticking in) to the organization's culture.

The witness was adjured (sworn by law) not to perjure (swear falsely) himself within the court's jurisdiction.

The luminary (light-bearer) elucidate (made light) what had been an opaque argument in pellucid (fully clear) prose.

The moribund (about to die) institution was mortified (made dead) by its failure to adapt.

What seemed immutable (unchangeable) proved susceptible to transmutation (changing across) under new conditions.

The sentient (feeling) observer could not consent (feel with) to policies predicated on insensate (without feeling) indifference.

A circumspect (looking around) and perspicacious (seeing through) analysis revealed the specious (good-looking but false) reasoning.

The tenacious (holding on firmly) researcher sustained (held up) an untenable (not hold-able) position for years.

The veracious (truth-having) account's verisimilitude (likeness to truth) gave it the veracity (truth-quality) of lived experience.