GRE Writing Guide: How to Score 5+ on the Issue Essay
Everything you need to know about the GRE Analytical Writing section — all 6 instruction types, the official rubric, a proven score 6 structure with timing, a 30-example toolbox, 10 common mistakes, and annotated model essays at scores 4, 5, and 6.
Last updated: 2026 · 25 min read
Overview: GRE Analytical Writing
The GRE Analytical Writing section is always the first section of the test. It contains one task — Analyze an Issue — and you have 30 minutes to complete it. Your essay is scored on a scale of 0–6 in half-point increments. Two raters independently score your essay: one trained human rater and one automated scoring program (e-rater). If the two scores agree, that is your final score. If they differ by more than one point, a second human rater resolves the discrepancy.
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Number of tasks | 1 (Analyze an Issue) |
| Time limit | 30 minutes |
| Score scale | 0–6 in 0.5-point increments |
| Scoring | Human rater + e-rater (automated) |
| Recommended length | 4–6 paragraphs, ~450–600 words |
| Prompt pool | ~150 published prompts (available on ets.org) |
| Score reporting | Separate score reported alongside Verbal and Quant |
| Position in test | Always first; completed before the Verbal and Quant sections |
Many graduate programs have minimum Writing score requirements — typically 4.0. Business schools and programs in the humanities often weigh the Writing score more heavily than STEM programs, which typically prioritize Quant. Check your target programs' requirements before deciding how much preparation to invest.
All 6 Issue Task Instruction Types
Every Issue prompt comes with specific instructions that tell you how to respond. Reading them carefully is critical — responding to the wrong instructions will lower your score even if your essay is well-written. ETS uses exactly six instruction types, and they are listed below with the key differences, what each demands, and a sample opening approach.
"Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position."
What this instruction demands
- ·Take a clear position — strong agreement, strong disagreement, or qualified agreement
- ·Explain the reasoning behind your position with specific examples
- ·Consider circumstances where your position might not hold (the 'might or might not hold true' clause is often missed)
Sample opening approach
"While the statement contains an important kernel of truth, it overstates the case by ignoring [X]. A more defensible position acknowledges [nuance]..."
"Write a response in which you discuss which specific reasons explain your position on the issue. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position."
What this instruction demands
- ·Explicitly name and develop your reasons — do not just argue a general position
- ·You must address the most compelling counterarguments (mandatory, not optional)
- ·Each reason should be a labeled, discrete argument
Sample opening approach
"Three specific reasons explain my disagreement with this claim: first, [reason A]; second, [reason B]; and third, [reason C]. Each merits examination."
"Write a response in which you discuss the circumstances under which the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these circumstances shape your position."
What this instruction demands
- ·Do not simply agree or disagree — identify the conditions under which the claim holds
- ·Structure around 'when X is true, the claim holds; when Y is true, it does not'
- ·This instruction rewards nuanced, conditional thinking
Sample opening approach
"The validity of this recommendation depends critically on the context in which it is applied. In [circumstance A], the claim is well-supported; in [circumstance B], it fails to account for..."
"Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate whether the claim is accurate and explain how that evidence would help make an evaluation."
What this instruction demands
- ·Focus on what information would be needed to determine whether the claim is true — not on whether you agree with it
- ·Each paragraph can address a different type of evidence needed
- ·Explain not just what evidence is needed, but how it would confirm or challenge the claim
Sample opening approach
"Before accepting or rejecting this claim, one would need to evaluate at least three categories of evidence: [A], [B], and [C]. Without this information, no confident assessment is possible."
"Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the prompt."
What this instruction demands
- ·Propose one or more alternative explanations for the phenomenon described
- ·Each alternative should be plausible and clearly explained
- ·Show how the alternatives account for the same evidence as the proposed explanation
Sample opening approach
"While the proposed explanation is plausible, at least two alternative accounts deserve consideration. First, [alternative A] would explain the phenomenon by... Second, [alternative B]..."
"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."
What this instruction demands
- ·Evaluate the policy — argue for it, against it, or conditionally support it
- ·Mandatory: discuss possible consequences of implementing the policy
- ·Consider both intended and unintended consequences
Sample opening approach
"This policy, while addressing a genuine problem, carries consequences that undermine its stated goals. Specifically, implementing it would likely produce [consequence A] and [consequence B], effects that outweigh the anticipated benefits."
Official GRE Issue Essay Rubric (0–6)
ETS evaluates Issue essays on four dimensions simultaneously: clarity of the position, quality of reasoning, relevance and development of examples, and control of written English. The scores below summarize the official criteria.
- ·Presents a cogent, well-articulated analysis that thoughtfully explores the issue
- ·Develops a position with compelling reasons, persuasive examples, and incisive analysis
- ·Considers the complexity of the issue; counterarguments acknowledged and meaningfully addressed
- ·Demonstrates superior command of sentence structure, diction, and the conventions of written English
- ·May have very minor stylistic lapses that do not detract from the overall quality
- ·Presents a generally thoughtful, well-developed analysis of the issue
- ·Develops the position with relevant reasons and illustrative examples
- ·Considers the complexity of the issue; may have minor lapses in depth or clarity
- ·Demonstrates strong command of written English; minor errors do not impede communication
- ·Presents a competent analysis of the issue
- ·Develops the position with relevant reasons and examples but may lack depth or precision
- ·Some complexity acknowledged but not fully explored; counterargument may be superficial
- ·Generally clear; may have some errors that do not seriously impede communication
- ·Demonstrates some competence in analytical writing but is noticeably flawed
- ·Limited development of position; some relevant points but reasoning is vague or not well supported
- ·Complexity largely ignored; counterarguments absent or superficial
- ·Recurring writing errors may impede clarity in places
- ·Demonstrates limited analytical writing ability
- ·Position unclear or poorly developed; examples irrelevant or absent
- ·Does not engage meaningfully with the complexity of the issue
- ·Numerous errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics impede understanding
- ·Little or no evidence of analytical writing ability
- ·Provides little or no analysis; off-topic or incomprehensible
- ·Pervasive language errors make the response largely incomprehensible
Score 6 Essay Structure with Time Allocation
A clear, consistent structure lets you write efficiently under time pressure. The 5-paragraph structure below consistently produces essays in the score 4–5 range when executed well. Score 6 essays go beyond this structure by adding more nuance, sharper analysis, and more specific examples — but the structure is an excellent foundation. Total recommended time: 30 minutes.
Pre-Writing: Plan
2–3 min- 1.Read the issue statement AND the instructions carefully — identify which of the 6 instruction types you are facing.
- 2.Decide your position: agree, disagree, or qualified (qualified is often strongest for a Score 6).
- 3.Choose 2–3 specific examples from different domains (science, history, literature, business, politics).
- 4.Identify the strongest counterargument you will need to address.
- 5.Jot these as a quick outline — you do not need full sentences.
Paragraph 1: Introduction
3–4 min- 1.Opening sentence: acknowledge the issue's significance or complexity — do not simply restate the prompt.
- 2.Thesis statement: clearly state your position in direct, confident language (1–2 sentences).
- 3.Preview: briefly indicate the 2–3 main arguments you will develop.
Paragraph 2: First Supporting Argument + Specific Example
5–6 min- 1.Topic sentence: state your first reason clearly (1 sentence).
- 2.Explanation: develop the reasoning in 2–3 sentences — do not jump straight to the example.
- 3.Example: provide a specific, named, concrete example. Name a person, event, study, or institution.
- 4.Analysis: explain in 1–2 sentences exactly how this example supports your argument — do not assume it is self-evident.
Paragraph 3: Second Supporting Argument + Specific Example
5–6 min- 1.Topic sentence: introduce your second reason — use a transition that shows the logical relationship to Paragraph 2.
- 2.Follow the same Explanation → Example → Analysis structure as Paragraph 2.
- 3.Use an example from a different domain than Paragraph 2 to demonstrate breadth of knowledge.
Paragraph 4: Counterargument + Rebuttal
5 min- 1.Acknowledge the strongest objection to your position (1–2 sentences) — use concession language: 'Admittedly...' or 'It would be remiss to ignore...'
- 2.Explain why this objection does not undermine your thesis — 2–3 sentences. Options: (a) it applies only in exceptional cases; (b) it is outweighed by your supporting evidence; (c) your qualified thesis already accounts for it.
- 3.Reaffirm your position without simply repeating Paragraph 1.
Paragraph 5: Conclusion
3 min- 1.Restate your thesis in different language — do not copy your introduction verbatim.
- 2.Briefly synthesize why your supporting arguments are persuasive together.
- 3.Optional (Score 6 touch): add a one-sentence broader implication or qualification — this elevates the conclusion above a mere summary.
Examples Toolbox: 30 Ready-to-Use GRE Examples
The single most effective way to improve your AWA score is to build a bank of specific, well-understood examples before test day. The following 30 examples cover the most commonly tested GRE themes — science, technology, education, government, arts, and history. Each entry includes the domain, the example, the argument it supports, and the counter-argument it can support.
| Domain | Example | Supports the argument that... | Can also argue that... |
|---|---|---|---|
| Science | Darwin + Wallace (1858) | Peer competition accelerates individual discovery; community shapes scientific breakthroughs | Independent insight (Darwin's unpublished manuscript) is also essential |
| Science | Galileo and the Church | Institutional communities can suppress rather than foster innovation | Even iconoclasts build on the community's prior knowledge |
| Science | Marie Curie | Individual determination and unconventional thinking drive discovery in hostile environments | Collaborative institutions (the Sorbonne, the Radium Institute) also enabled her work |
| Science | The Human Genome Project | Large-scale collaboration produces breakthroughs impossible for individuals | Competition between public and private teams (Celera) also accelerated progress |
| Science | Ignaz Semmelweis (handwashing) | Institutions resist correct ideas when they threaten established practice | Evidence without community validation may go unused for decades |
| Technology | Apple vs. IBM (1980s) | Disruption comes from outsiders willing to reject the prevailing consensus | Companies that ignore community standards (open systems) eventually lose market position |
| Technology | The Internet (ARPANET) | Government investment and community collaboration produce foundational technologies | Decentralized, open communities (IETF) outperform centrally controlled alternatives |
| Technology | Open-source software (Linux) | Distributed, voluntary communities solve problems that proprietary firms cannot | Individual leadership (Torvalds) remains essential even within open communities |
| Technology | Kodak and digital photography | Institutions fail when they prioritize existing revenue over disruptive innovation | Innovation without adoption (Kodak invented the digital camera) has no social value |
| Business | Toyota Production System | Systematic, community-wide process improvement outperforms individual heroics | A visionary leader's philosophy (Ohno) is necessary to launch systemic change |
| History | The Manhattan Project | Crisis-driven collaboration produces historically unprecedented results | Centralized authority (Oppenheimer, Groves) is essential to coordinate complex communities |
| History | The Enlightenment | Intellectual communities (salons, correspondence networks) transform entire worldviews | Individual thinkers (Voltaire, Hume) drive the community rather than follow it |
| History | The Harlem Renaissance | Community identity and mutual reinforcement produce cultural flourishing | Individual artists (Hughes, Hurston) define the community rather than the reverse |
| History | Soviet command economy | Top-down central planning fails to process the distributed knowledge of a complex society | Large-scale industrial coordination sometimes outperforms markets in specific domains |
| Politics | FDR and the New Deal | Strong executive leadership can mobilize institutions to address systemic crises | Policy succeeds only when it builds broad coalitions and community buy-in |
| Education | The Prussian school model (19th c.) | Standardized education produces labor-force efficiency but suppresses individual creativity | Basic literacy and numeracy require structured, community-based instruction |
| Education | Montessori method | Student-led, curiosity-driven learning produces better long-term outcomes than rote instruction | Unstructured learning environments depend on skilled teachers and fail without community support |
| Education | University peer review | Community validation (peer review) is essential to the credibility of knowledge | Peer review can suppress heterodox ideas, slowing paradigm shifts |
| Arts | Picasso and Braque (Cubism) | The most transformative art breaks from community conventions rather than building on them | Picasso and Braque's collaboration shows that even revolutionary art emerges from dialogue |
| Arts | The Vienna Secession (Klimt) | Artists who break from institutions create enduring movements | New institutions (the Secession gallery) are required even for anti-institutional art |
| Arts | Shakespeare and the Globe Theatre | Institutional constraints (genre, audience expectation) shape and improve individual creativity | Individual genius (Shakespeare) transforms institutional forms beyond recognition |
| Arts | The French Impressionists | Marginalized communities create alternative validation structures when institutions reject them | The Salon des Refusés was a community response, not an individual one |
| Philosophy/Ethics | John Stuart Mill (free expression) | Diverse, competing ideas — even false ones — are essential to the health of a society's reasoning | Unregulated discourse without institutional checks produces misinformation at scale |
| Philosophy/Ethics | Rawls's veil of ignorance | Just institutions must be designed without knowing one's position in society | Abstract principles without community input produce impractical policies |
| Medicine | The opioid crisis | Market incentives in the absence of regulatory community oversight produce catastrophic harm | Regulatory capture shows that communities can also be corrupted by powerful interests |
| Medicine | Thalidomide (1950s–60s) | Insufficient community-level review (FDA's stricter standards in the US) prevented widespread harm | Individual regulatory judgment (Frances Kelsey) is sometimes more reliable than institutional consensus |
| Economics | The 2008 financial crisis | Institutional groupthink — overconfidence in community-accepted models — can be more dangerous than individual error | Individual actors (mortgage originators) are equally culpable for systemic failures |
| Economics | Silicon Valley entrepreneurship | Tight geographic communities create ecosystems that are greater than the sum of individual firms | Individual founders (Jobs, Bezos) make decisions that no community consensus would have approved |
| Environment | The Montreal Protocol (ozone) | International community cooperation can solve global commons problems that individual actors cannot | Scientific consensus (UNEP data) is the indispensable precondition for collective political action |
| Environment | Easter Island deforestation | Community-level failures of collective action can be catastrophic and irreversible | Individual short-term incentives systematically undermine community long-term interests |
Tip: Know 8–10 of these examples deeply rather than all 30 superficially. Depth of analysis — not breadth of allusion — is what scores points.
10 Common AWA Mistakes That Lower Your Score
Most essays that receive scores of 3 or below share predictable weaknesses. Avoiding these mistakes is as important as following the template above. Study each one carefully before your test.
✗ Mistake 1: Not taking a clear position
Hedging — writing 'there are valid points on both sides' without committing to a view — is the single most common fatal error. The GRE Issue task specifically requires you to argue a position. Attempting to agree with every aspect of the statement earns no credit for analytical thinking.
Fix:
State your position in the first paragraph: 'While there is merit to this view, it ultimately overstates the case. The evidence shows...' Then defend that position consistently throughout.
✗ Mistake 2: Misreading the instruction type
Each of the 6 instruction types demands a different response strategy. 'Circumstances under which the claim is true' requires conditional analysis — not agreement or disagreement. 'Evidence needed' requires identifying what data would confirm or deny the claim — not arguing a position.
Fix:
Underline the instruction in the test interface. Read it twice. Identify which of the 6 types it is before you begin outlining.
✗ Mistake 3: Vague or hypothetical examples
Examples like 'many companies have found that...' or 'studies show...' without naming anything specific do not demonstrate actual knowledge. Raters cannot verify vague claims and they signal that you are bluffing.
Fix:
Use named, specific examples: 'The success of the Apollo program demonstrates...' or 'The failure of the Soviet command economy illustrates...' Specificity signals intellectual rigor.
✗ Mistake 4: Ignoring the counterargument
A score 4 essay states a position and supports it. A score 5–6 essay does this and also acknowledges and refutes the strongest objection. Raters are specifically trained to look for evidence that you understand the complexity of the issue.
Fix:
Dedicate a full paragraph (Paragraph 4 in the template) to the strongest case against your position, then explain why it does not defeat your argument.
✗ Mistake 5: Restating the prompt instead of analyzing it
Many test takers spend the first paragraph summarizing or paraphrasing the issue statement. This wastes time and earns no analytical credit.
Fix:
Acknowledge the issue briefly in a framing sentence, then immediately take your position and begin developing your argument.
✗ Mistake 6: Writing too little
Extremely short essays — under 300 words — cannot demonstrate the analytical development required for scores above 3. The GRE is a 30-minute task; raters expect evidence that you used the time.
Fix:
Aim for 450–600 words. If you finish early, expand your examples with more specific detail — name dates, cite consequences, explain mechanisms — rather than adding new points.
✗ Mistake 7: Introducing examples without analysis
A common pattern in Score 4 essays: strong examples introduced and then abandoned. The example proves nothing by itself — it only supports your argument if you explicitly explain the connection.
Fix:
After every example, add one sentence: 'This illustrates [X] because...' or 'The significance of this case lies in...' That sentence is often the difference between a 4 and a 5.
✗ Mistake 8: Overcomplicating vocabulary to impress
Using rare words incorrectly or awkwardly is worse than using clear, direct language. Raters evaluate precision and fluency, not vocabulary rareness.
Fix:
Use academic vocabulary confidently, but only words you know well. Clarity and precision outperform conspicuous vocabulary display.
✗ Mistake 9: Repeating the same example across paragraphs
Using the same historical event or company as the basis for every body paragraph signals a lack of knowledge and reduces the persuasive force of your argument.
Fix:
Prepare examples from at least three different domains before test day. This ensures you can draw on diverse material regardless of the prompt.
✗ Mistake 10: Sloppy conclusion that simply copies the introduction
A conclusion that restates the introduction word for word wastes space and suggests that you ran out of ideas. Raters notice this, and it does not add analytical value.
Fix:
Restate the thesis in genuinely different language and add a forward-looking sentence about the broader implications of your argument. Even one new insight elevates the conclusion.
Strong Transitions and Academic Phrases
Using varied, precise transitions signals sophistication and helps raters follow your argument. Avoid overusing "furthermore" and "in addition" — vary your connectives based on the logical relationship between ideas.
Introducing your position
- "While one might initially be inclined to accept this claim..."
- "The statement, though superficially compelling, ultimately..."
- "A careful examination of the evidence suggests that..."
- "This assertion merits scrutiny, for the available evidence indicates..."
- "The claim captures an important truth but overstates the case by..."
Introducing supporting arguments
- "One compelling illustration of this principle is..."
- "This claim finds strong support in the history of..."
- "The example of [X] is instructive here:"
- "Consider the well-documented case of..."
- "The historical record suggests that..."
Conceding the counterargument
- "Admittedly, there is a case to be made for the opposing view..."
- "It would be remiss to ignore the fact that..."
- "Proponents of the opposing position might reasonably argue that..."
- "One could object that this analysis overlooks..."
- "To be sure, there are cases in which..."
Refuting the counterargument
- "This objection, while not without merit, does not undermine the broader argument because..."
- "Even granting this concession, the evidence nonetheless suggests..."
- "This counterexample is more the exception than the rule..."
- "Such cases, however instructive, do not challenge the general principle that..."
- "The force of this objection depends on assumptions that do not hold in most cases..."
Adding nuance (Score 6 language)
- "The relationship is more complex than the statement implies..."
- "It would be overly simplistic to conclude that..."
- "The context in which this claim is applied matters considerably..."
- "A more accurate formulation of this principle would be..."
- "The claim is defensible only under the qualification that..."
Concluding
- "In light of the evidence presented above..."
- "Taken together, these considerations suggest that..."
- "The weight of evidence thus supports the conclusion that..."
- "Ultimately, the claim is defensible only when qualified by..."
- "What emerges from this analysis is not a simple endorsement but a more nuanced view..."
Model Essays: Scores 4, 5, and 6 on the Same Prompt
The following three responses address the same Issue prompt at three different score levels. Each response is annotated to explain what earns or costs points. Studying all three together is one of the most effective ways to internalize what separates score levels.
"In any field of endeavor, the most significant achievements are made not by individuals working in isolation, but by those embedded in a community of peers who challenge and inspire them."
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Introduction
The history of significant achievement is populated by two seemingly contradictory types of figures: those who thrived because of their intellectual communities — Darwin, shaped by the competitive pressure of Wallace's parallel work — and those who prevailed precisely by defying theirs — Galileo, whose heliocentrism the Church sought to suppress. This tension reveals not a contradiction but a more nuanced truth: the most significant achievements typically require both immersion in a community and the willingness to diverge from it at crucial junctures. The statement is right that isolation rarely suffices, but wrong that community is always the primary driver.
✓ Score 6: Opens with two specific named examples that immediately establish complexity. Thesis is qualified and precise. Previews the nuanced position without being formulaic.
Body Paragraph 1
The claim's strongest support comes from fields where knowledge is cumulative and iterative. Darwin's development of natural selection illustrates this well. His theory was catalyzed not in isolation but through sustained intellectual exchange: correspondence with Asa Gray and Charles Lyell refined his arguments, and Alfred Russel Wallace's independent formulation compelled Darwin to publish before he felt ready. Without this community of engaged peers, evolutionary theory might have remained a manuscript in a drawer. A parallel case is the Vienna Circle of the early twentieth century, whose structured debates produced logical positivism — a movement that reshaped analytic philosophy for a generation. In both instances, the friction and stimulus of a peer community were not incidental to the achievement; they were constitutive of it.
✓ Score 6: Two named examples developed with specific detail. Analysis explicitly states how the examples support the argument (final two sentences). Word 'constitutive' signals advanced diction used correctly.
Body Paragraph 2
Yet the most transformative achievements in many fields are associated not with community consensus but with deliberate departure from it. Galileo's heliocentric model was not refined by a supportive peer community — it was condemned by one. Picasso and Braque developed Cubism by dismantling the conventions of the Beaux-Arts tradition, a deliberate act of rejection. More recently, the initial developers of personal computing at Xerox PARC saw their work dismissed by institutional leadership as commercially irrelevant — only when their ideas migrated to Apple and elsewhere did community recognition follow. In each case, the most transformative contribution required the individual to resist, not depend on, the prevailing community judgment.
✓ Score 6: Three examples from three different domains (science, art, technology). Each is specific and named. The analysis identifies a precise pattern across all three.
Counterargument + Rebuttal
Proponents of the original statement might respond that even these iconoclasts were embedded in communities before breaking from them — Galileo was shaped by Aristotelian scholarship; Picasso by academic training. This is true, but it supports only a weaker version of the claim: that community provides a necessary foundation, not a sufficient engine. Moreover, this observation does not account for the many cases where community membership actively delayed or suppressed achievement. The institutional community of academic medicine dismissed Ignaz Semmelweis's germ theory for decades, not because the evidence was weak but because the idea was socially disruptive. Community, in this case, was the obstacle rather than the catalyst.
✓ Score 6: States the counterargument fairly and specifically. Rebuts it by distinguishing 'foundation' from 'engine.' Introduces a fourth example (Semmelweis) to reinforce the rebuttal — this is the hallmark of a Score 6: additional evidence in the rebuttal paragraph.
Conclusion
The statement captures an important pattern but overgeneralizes by treating community as a prerequisite rather than a variable. The available evidence suggests that community is neither uniformly beneficial nor harmful to significant achievement — its role depends on whether the breakthrough requires iteration and accumulation (where community accelerates progress) or paradigm rupture (where community often resists it). A more defensible formulation would hold that significant achievement requires knowing which mode one is operating in, and having the judgment to engage with or depart from one's community accordingly.
✓ Score 6: Conclusion introduces a genuinely new analytical distinction (iteration/accumulation vs. paradigm rupture) rather than just summarizing. This forward-looking insight is the hallmark of a Score 6 conclusion.
Introduction
The history of scientific and artistic achievement is replete with examples of individuals who thrived within intellectual communities — and equally replete with celebrated figures who made their most significant contributions precisely because they broke with prevailing conventions. While the claim that community is essential to significant achievement captures an important truth, it overstates the case by leaving insufficient room for the indispensable role of independent thought. The most defensible position is that meaningful achievement typically requires both immersion in a community and the willingness to diverge from it at crucial moments.
✓ Score 5: Clear thesis with qualification. Signals complexity. Slightly less specific than Score 6 (no named examples in the introduction).
Body Paragraph 1
The collaborative origin of many landmark achievements supports the claim at the heart of the statement. Darwin's development of evolutionary theory, for example, was profoundly shaped by his correspondence with botanist Asa Gray, geologist Charles Lyell, and the competitive pressure introduced by Alfred Russel Wallace's simultaneous formulation of natural selection. Without this community of scientific peers, Darwin might never have published at all. Similarly, the Vienna Circle of the early twentieth century — a community of philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists — generated logical positivism, a movement that reshaped analytic philosophy for decades.
✓ Score 5: Two specific historical examples from different domains. Analysis present but slightly less explicit than Score 6 — the connection to the argument is implied rather than directly stated in a final analysis sentence.
Body Paragraph 2 + Counterargument
And yet the most transformative figures in many fields are precisely those who rejected the assumptions of their communities. Galileo's heliocentrism was not refined by a supportive peer community — it was suppressed by one. Picasso and Braque developed Cubism by deliberately dismantling the conventions of the Beaux-Arts tradition from which they came. In these cases, the community provided a foundation to be transcended rather than a collaborative scaffold to build upon. Proponents of the original statement might respond that even these iconoclasts were shaped by their communities before breaking from them. This is true, but it only strengthens the qualified version of the argument: community is necessary but not sufficient. The final achievement often requires a decisive act of individual departure.
✓ Score 5: Counterargument introduced and addressed within the same paragraph — efficient. Analysis is good but the rebuttal is less developed than Score 6 (no additional example in the rebuttal).
Conclusion
The statement identifies a genuine and important pattern in the history of achievement, but its absolute phrasing — "not by individuals working in isolation" — overstates the case by underestimating the role of independent judgment. A more accurate formulation would acknowledge that significant achievement typically requires both engagement with and willingness to diverge from a community of peers.
✓ Score 5: Good conclusion — restates thesis in different language, references the original claim precisely. Missing the forward-looking insight that would push this to a Score 6.
Introduction
I partially agree with this statement. While working with a community of peers can certainly help individuals achieve great things, some of the greatest achievers in history have worked largely on their own. The truth lies somewhere in the middle — both community and individual effort are important for significant achievement.
~ Score 4: Position is stated but vague. "The truth lies somewhere in the middle" is a weak thesis — it signals that the essay may not take a clear stand. No preview of specific arguments.
Body Paragraphs
On one hand, many of history's greatest scientific discoveries were made through collaboration. Darwin, for example, was influenced by other scientists and his correspondence with peers helped him refine his theory of natural selection. This shows that community can be valuable for developing important ideas. On the other hand, some individuals have made major achievements largely on their own terms. Einstein developed his theory of relativity while working in a patent office, somewhat removed from the mainstream physics community. Artists like Van Gogh were not recognized by their contemporaries at all, yet produced work that became iconic.
~ Score 4: Good examples (Darwin, Einstein, Van Gogh) but analysis is thin. Darwin example lacks specific detail (no mention of Wallace or Gray by name). Einstein example is partly inaccurate (he was in contact with the physics community). Van Gogh example is introduced but not analyzed. No counterargument paragraph.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the statement is partially true but oversimplified. Some people do need a community to achieve great things, while others are more effective working independently. The best approach depends on the individual and the nature of the work being done.
~ Score 4: Conclusion is competent but generic. No engagement with the complexity of the issue. The essay never developed a persuasive argument — it presented evidence on both sides without committing to a position or providing genuine analysis.
GRE Writing Statistics
Source: ETS GRE Score Data. Figures are approximate.
Common Issue Task Prompt Themes
Reviewing the ETS prompt pool reveals recurring thematic clusters. Building specific examples and arguments for each cluster before your test date is an efficient preparation strategy. The themes below account for roughly 85% of all published Issue prompts.
Technology & Society
AI, automation, social media, surveillance, privacy, digital communication
Consider consequences, unintended effects, and distribution of benefits
Education & Learning
Standardized testing, critical thinking vs. memorization, the role of universities, vocational training
Distinction between practical and theoretical education recurs frequently
Government & Politics
Individual freedom vs. public good, regulation, democracy, civic responsibility
Mill's harm principle and Rawlsian justice are useful frameworks
Arts & Creativity
Function of art, tradition vs. innovation, censorship, artistic freedom, the artist's responsibility to society
The tension between artistic integrity and commercial/institutional pressure is a recurring sub-theme
Science & Progress
Scientific ethics, specialization, the limits of empiricism, technology and human values, the role of uncertainty
The relationship between scientific knowledge and public policy appears often
Leadership & Success
Qualities of effective leaders, individual vs. collaborative achievement, risk-taking, failure as a teacher
Community vs. individual achievement — the theme of the model essays above — falls here
Ready to practice?
Our GRE practice exams include scored Issue essay prompts with model response outlines. Take a full GRE practice test to experience the complete test under timed conditions.
Ready to practice your writing skills?
Free · No sign-up required