GRE - Info NOT Content - Analytical writing: Analyze an issue Flashcards
This is information about what to expect, how the section is scored, etc. I want to be familiar with this information, but not spend too much time on it.
During the Analyze an Issue task: It is important that you address the central issue according to the specific instructions. Each task is accompanied by one of the six following sets of instructions:
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.
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.
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 and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
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.
The GRE readers scoring your response are not looking for a “right” answer. What are they evaluating?
the readers are evaluating the skill with which you address the specific instructions and articulate and develop an argument to support your evaluation of the issue.
What is the context for writing, purpose, and audience during the Issue task?
The Issue task is an exercise in critical thinking and persuasive writing. The purpose of this task is to determine how well you can develop a compelling argument supporting your own evaluation of an issue and effectively communicate that argument in writing to an academic audience.
What is the scoring guide for the Analyze and Issue task?
Score 6
In addressing the specific task directions, a 6 response presents a cogent, well-articulated analysis of the issue and conveys meaning skillfully.
A typical response in this category:
articulates a clear and insightful position on the issue in accordance with the assigned task
develops the position fully with compelling reasons and/or persuasive examples
sustains a well-focused, well-organized analysis, connecting ideas logically
conveys ideas fluently and precisely, using effective vocabulary and sentence variety
demonstrates superior facility with the conventions of standard written English (i.e., grammar, usage and mechanics), but may have minor errors
Score 5
In addressing the specific task directions, a 5 response presents a generally thoughtful, well-developed analysis of the issue and conveys meaning clearly.
A typical response in this category:
presents a clear and well-considered position on the issue in accordance with the assigned task
develops the position with logically sound reasons and/or well-chosen examples
is focused and generally well organized, connecting ideas appropriately
conveys ideas clearly and well, using appropriate vocabulary and sentence variety
demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English, but may have minor errors
Score 4
In addressing the specific task directions, a 4 response presents a competent analysis of the issue and conveys meaning with acceptable clarity.
A typical response in this category:
presents a clear position on the issue in accordance with the assigned task
develops the position with relevant reasons and/or examples
is adequately focused and organized
demonstrates sufficient control of language to express ideas with acceptable clarity
generally demonstrates control of the conventions of standard written English, but may have some errors
Score 3
A 3 response demonstrates some competence in addressing the specific task directions, in analyzing the issue and in conveying meaning, but is obviously flawed.
A typical response in this category exhibits ONE OR MORE of the following characteristics:
is vague or limited in addressing the specific task directions and/or in presenting or developing a position on the issue
is weak in the use of relevant reasons or examples or relies largely on unsupported claims
is limited in focus and/or organization
has problems in language and sentence structure that result in a lack of clarity
contains occasional major errors or frequent minor errors in grammar, usage or mechanics that can interfere with meaning
Score 2
A 2 response largely disregards the specific task directions and/or demonstrates serious weaknesses in analytical writing.
A typical response in this category exhibits ONE OR MORE of the following characteristics:
is unclear or seriously limited in addressing the specific task directions and/or in presenting or developing a position on the issue
provides few, if any, relevant reasons or examples in support of its claims
is poorly focused and/or poorly organized
has serious problems in language and sentence structure that frequently interfere with meaning
contains serious errors in grammar, usage or mechanics that frequently obscure meaning
Score 1
A 1 response demonstrates fundamental deficiencies in analytical writing.
A typical response in this category exhibits ONE OR MORE of the following characteristics:
provides little or no evidence of understanding the issue
provides little evidence of the ability to develop an organized response (e.g., is disorganized and/or extremely brief)
has severe problems in language and sentence structure that persistently interfere with meaning
contains pervasive errors in grammar, usage or mechanics that result in incoherence
Score 0
Off topic (i.e., provides no evidence of an attempt to address the assigned topic), is in a foreign language, merely copies the topic, consists of only keystroke characters or is illegible or nonverbal.
Score NS
The essay response is blank.
How can I get a clearer idea of how GRE readers apply the Issue scoring criteria to actual responses?
eview scored sample Issue essay responses and reader commentary. The sample responses, particularly at the 5 and 6 score levels, will show you a variety of successful strategies for organizing, developing and communicating a persuasive argument. The reader commentary discusses specific aspects of evaluation and writing, such as the use of examples, development and support, organization, language fluency and word choice. For each response, the commentary points out aspects that are particularly persuasive as well as any that detract from the overall effectiveness of the essay.
Since the Issue task is meant to assess the persuasive writing skills you have developed throughout your education, it has been designed neither to require any particular course of study nor to advantage students with a particular type of training. You will not be expected to know specific critical thinking or writing terms or strategies; so how do I respond to the task?
you should be able to respond to the specific instructions and use reasons, evidence and examples to support your position on an issue.
Suppose, for instance, that an Issue topic asks you to consider a policy that would require government financial support for art museums and the implications of implementing the policy. If your position is that government should fund art museums, you might support your position by discussing the reasons art is important and explain that government funding would make access to museums available to everyone.
On the other hand, if your position is that government should not support museums, you might point out that art museums are not as deserving of limited governmental funding as are other, more socially important institutions, which would suffer if the policy were implemented. Or, if you are in favor of government funding for art museums only under certain conditions, you might focus on the artistic criteria, cultural concerns or political conditions that you think should determine how, or whether, art museums receive government funds. It is not your position that matters as much as the critical thinking skills you display in developing your position.
How can I prepare for the Issue task?
An excellent way to prepare for the Issue task is to practice writing on some of the published topics. There is no “best” approach: some people prefer to start practicing without regard to the 30-minute time limit; others prefer to take a “timed test” first and practice within the time limit. Regardless of which approach you take, you should first review the task directions and then follow these steps:
Carefully read the claim and the specific instructions and make sure you understand them; if they seem unclear, discuss them with a friend or teacher.
Think about the claim and instructions in relation to your own ideas and experiences, to events you have read about or observed and to people you have known; this is the knowledge base from which you will develop compelling reasons and examples in your argument that reinforce, negate or qualify the claim in some way.
Decide what position on the issue you want to take and defend.
Decide what compelling evidence (reasons and examples) you can use to support your position.
Remember that this is a task in critical thinking and persuasive writing. The most successful responses will explore the complexity of the claim and follow the specific task instructions. As you prepare for the Issue task, you might find it helpful to ask yourself the following questions:
What, precisely, is the central issue? What precisely are the instructions asking me to do? Do I agree with all or any part of the claim? Why or why not? Does the claim make certain assumptions? If so, are they reasonable? Is the claim valid only under certain conditions? If so, what are they? Do I need to explain how I interpret certain terms or concepts used in the claim? If I take a certain position on the issue, what reasons support my position? What examples — either real or hypothetical — could I use to illustrate those reasons and advance my point of view? Which examples are most compelling?
Once you have decided on a position in the Issue task to defend, consider the perspectives of others who might not agree with your position.
Ask yourself:
What reasons might someone use to refute or undermine my position? How should I acknowledge or defend against those views in my essay?
How can I plan my response to the Issues task?
you might want to summarize your position and make notes about how you will support it. When you’ve done this, look over your notes and decide how you will organize your response. Then write a response developing your position on the issue. Even if you don’t write a full response, you should find it helpful to practice with a few of the Issue topics and to sketch out your possible responses.
After you have practiced with some of the topics, try writing responses to some of them within the 30-minute time limit so that you have a good idea of how to use your time in the actual test.
Where can I get feedback on my practice responses?
It would probably be helpful to get some feedback on your response from an instructor who teaches critical thinking or writing or to trade essays on the same topic with other students and discuss one another’s responses in relation to the scoring guide. Try to determine how each essay meets or misses the criteria for each score point in the guide. Comparing your own response to the scoring guide will help you see how and where to improve.
What matters most to reviewers of the Issues task?
the cogency of your ideas about the issue and the clarity and skill with which you communicate those ideas to academic readers - not the number of examples, the number of paragraphs or the form your argument takes
Sample Issue task 1 question:
As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
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.
Sample Issue task 1 responses, scores, and reader commentary:
Essay Response — Score 6
The statement linking technology negatively with free thinking plays on recent human experience over the past century. Surely there has been no time in history where the lived lives of people have changed more dramatically. A quick reflection on a typical day reveals how technology has revolutionized the world. Most people commute to work in an automobile that runs on an internal combustion engine. During the workday, chances are high that the employee will interact with a computer that processes information on silicon bridges that are .09 microns wide. Upon leaving home, family members will be reached through wireless networks that utilize satellites orbiting the earth. Each of these common occurrences could have been inconceivable at the turn of the 19th century.
The statement attempts to bridge these dramatic changes to a reduction in the ability for humans to think for themselves. The assumption is that an increased reliance on technology negates the need for people to think creatively to solve previous quandaries. Looking back at the introduction, one could argue that without a car, computer, or mobile phone, the hypothetical worker would need to find alternate methods of transport, information processing and communication. Technology short circuits this thinking by making the problems obsolete.
However, this reliance on technology does not necessarily preclude the creativity that marks the human species. The prior examples reveal that technology allows for convenience. The car, computer and phone all release additional time for people to live more efficiently. This efficiency does not preclude the need for humans to think for themselves. In fact, technology frees humanity to not only tackle new problems, but may itself create new issues that did not exist without technology. For example, the proliferation of automobiles has introduced a need for fuel conservation on a global scale. With increasing energy demands from emerging markets, global warming becomes a concern inconceivable to the horse-and-buggy generation. Likewise dependence on oil has created nation-states that are not dependent on taxation, allowing ruling parties to oppress minority groups such as women. Solutions to these complex problems require the unfettered imaginations of maverick scientists and politicians.
In contrast to the statement, we can even see how technology frees the human imagination. Consider how the digital revolution and the advent of the internet has allowed for an unprecedented exchange of ideas. WebMD, a popular internet portal for medical information, permits patients to self research symptoms for a more informed doctor visit. This exercise opens pathways of thinking that were previously closed off to the medical layman. With increased interdisciplinary interactions, inspiration can arrive from the most surprising corners. Jeffrey Sachs, one of the architects of the UN Millenium Development Goals, based his ideas on emergency care triage techniques. The unlikely marriage of economics and medicine has healed tense, hyperinflation environments from South America to Eastern Europe.
This last example provides the most hope in how technology actually provides hope to the future of humanity. By increasing our reliance on technology, impossible goals can now be achieved. Consider how the late 20th century witnessed the complete elimination of smallpox. This disease had ravaged the human race since prehistorical days, and yet with the technology of vaccines, free thinking humans dared to imagine a world free of smallpox. Using technology, battle plans were drawn out, and smallpox was systematically targeted and eradicated.
Technology will always mark the human experience, from the discovery of fire to the implementation of nanotechnology. Given the history of the human race, there will be no limit to the number of problems, both new and old, for us to tackle. There is no need to retreat to a Luddite attitude to new things, but rather embrace a hopeful posture to the possibilities that technology provides for new avenues of human imagination.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 6
The author of this essay stakes out a clear and insightful position on the issue and follows the specific instructions by presenting reasons to support that position. The essay cogently argues that technology does not decrease our ability to think for ourselves, but merely provides “additional time for people to live more efficiently.” In fact, the problems that have developed alongside the growth of technology (pollution, political unrest in oil-producing nations) actually call for more creative thinking, not less.
In further examples, the essay shows how technology allows for the linking of ideas that may never have been connected in the past (like medicine and economic models), pushing people to think in new ways. Examples are persuasive and fully developed; reasoning is logically sound and well supported.
Ideas in the essay are connected logically, with effective transitions used both between paragraphs (“However” or “In contrast to the statement”) and within paragraphs. Sentence structure is varied and complex and the essay clearly demonstrates facility with the “conventions of standard written English (i.e., grammar, usage and mechanics),” with only minor errors appearing. Thus, this essay meets all the requirements for receiving a top score, a 6.
Essay Response — Score 5
Surely many of us have expressed the following sentiment, or some variation on it, during our daily commutes to work: “People are getting so stupid these days!” Surrounded as we are by striding and strident automatons with cell phones glued to their ears, PDA’s gripped in their palms, and omniscient, omnipresent CNN gleaming in their eyeballs, it’s tempting to believe that technology has isolated and infantilized us, essentally transforming us into dependent, conformist morons best equipped to sideswip one another in our SUV’s.
Furthermore, hanging around with the younger, pre-commute generation, whom tech-savviness seems to have rendered lethal, is even less reassuring. With “Teen People” style trends shooting through the air from tiger-striped PDA to zebra-striped PDA, and with the latest starlet gossip zipping from juicy Blackberry to teeny, turbo-charged cell phone, technology seems to support young people’s worst tendencies to follow the crowd. Indeed, they have seemingly evolved into intergalactic conformity police. After all, today’s tech-aided teens are, courtesy of authentic, hands-on video games, literally trained to kill; courtesy of chat and instant text messaging, they have their own language; they even have tiny cameras to efficiently photodocument your fashion blunders! Is this adolescence, or paparazzi terrorist training camp?
With all this evidence, it’s easy to believe that tech trends and the incorporation of technological wizardry into our everyday lives have served mostly to enforce conformity, promote dependence, heighten comsumerism and materialism, and generally create a culture that values self-absorption and personal entitlement over cooperation and collaboration. However, I argue that we are merely in the inchoate stages of learning to live with technology while still loving one another. After all, even given the examples provided earlier in this essay, it seems clear that technology hasn’t impaired our thinking and problem-solving capacities. Certainly it has incapacitated our behavior and manners; certainly our values have taken a severe blow. However, we are inarguably more efficient in our badness these days. We’re effective worker bees of ineffectiveness!
If T\technology has so increased our senses of self-efficacy that we can become veritable agents of the awful, virtual CEO’s of selfishness, certainly it can be beneficial. Harnessed correctly, technology can improve our ability to think and act for ourselves. The first challenge is to figure out how to provide technology users with some direly-needed direction.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 5
The language of this essay clearly illustrates both its strengths and weaknesses. The flowery and sometimes uncannily keen descriptions are often used to powerful effect, but at other times, the writing is awkward and the comparisons somewhat strained. See, for example, the ungainly sequence of independent clauses in the second-to-last sentence of paragraph 2 (“After all, today’s tech-aided teens …”).
There is consistent evidence of facility with syntax and complex vocabulary (“Surrounded as we are by striding and strident automatons with cell phones glued to their ears, PDA’s gripped in their palms, and omniscient, omnipresent CNN gleaming in their eyeballs, it’s tempting to believe…”). However, such lucid prose is often countered by an over-reliance on abstractions and tangential reasoning. For example, what does the fact that video games “literally train [teens] to kill” have to do with the use or deterioration of thinking abilities?
Because this essay takes a complex approach to the issue (arguing, in effect, that technology neither enhances nor reduces our ability to think for ourselves, but can do one or the other, depending on the user) and because the author makes use of “appropriate vocabulary and sentence variety,” a score of 5 is appropriate.
Essay Response — Score 4
In all actuality, I think it is more probable that our bodies will surely deteriorate long before our minds do in any significant amount. Who can’t say that technology has made us lazier, but that’s the key word, lazy, not stupid. The ever increasing amount of technology that we incorporate into our daily lives makes people think and learn every day, possibly more than ever before. Our abilities to think, learn, philosophize, etc. may even reach limits never dreamed of before by average people. Using technology to solve problems will continue to help us realize our potential as a human race.
If you think about it, using technology to solve more complicating problems gives humans a chance to expand their thinking and learning, opening up whole new worlds for many people. Many of these people are glad for the chance to expand their horizons by learning more, going to new places, and trying new things. If it wasn’t for the invention of new technological devices, I wouldn’t be sitting at this computer trying to philosophize about technology. It would be extremely hard for children in much poorer countries to learn and think for themselves with out the invention of the internet. Think what an impact the printing press, a technologically superior mackine at the time, had on the ability of the human race to learn and think.
Right now we are seeing a golden age of technology, using it all the time during our every day lives. When we get up there’s instant coffee and the microwave and all these great things that help us get ready for our day. But we aren’t allowing our minds to deteriorate by using them, we are only making things easier for ourselves and saving time for other important things in our days. Going off to school or work in our cars instead of a horse and buggy. Think of the brain power and genius that was used to come up with that single invention that has changed the way we move across this globe.
Using technology to solve our continually more complicated problems as a human race is definately a good thing. Our ability to think for ourselves isn’t deteriorating, it’s continuing to grow, moving on to higher though functions and more ingenious ideas. The ability to use what technology we have is an example
Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 4
This essay meets all the criteria of a level-4 essay. The writer develops a clear position (“Using technology to solve our problems will continue to help us realize our potential as a human race”). The position is then developed with relevant reasons (“using technology to solve more complicat[ed] problems gives humans a chance to expand their thinking and learning” and “we are seeing a golden age of technology”).
Point 1, “using technology,” is supported with the simple but relevant notion that technology allows us access to information and abilities to which we would not normally have access. Similarly, point 2, the “golden age,” is supported by the basic description of our technologically saturated social condition. Though the overall development and organization of the essay does suffer from an occasional misdirection (see paragraph 3’s abrupt progression from coffee pots to the benefits of technology to cars), the essay as a whole flows smoothly and logically from one idea to the next.
It is useful to compare this essay to the level-3 essay presented next. Though both essays entail some surface-level discussion and often fail to probe deeply into the issue, this writer does take the analysis a step further. In paragraph 2, the distinction between this essay and the next one (the level-3 response) can most clearly be seen. To support the notion that advances in technology actually help increase thinking ability, the writer draws a clever parallel between the promise of modern, sophisticated technology (computer) and the actual “impact” of equally “promising” and pervasive technologies of the past (printing press).
Like the analysis, the language in this essay clearly meets the requirements for a score of 4. The writer displays sufficient control of language and the conventions of standard written English. The preponderance of mistakes are of a cosmetic nature (“trying to solve more complicating problems.”) There is a sentence fragment (“Going off …”) along with a comma splice (“Our ability … isn’t deteriorating, it’s continuing to grow …”) in paragraph 3. However, these errors are minor and do not interfere with the clarity of the ideas being presented.
Essay Response — Score 3
There is no current proof that advancing technology will deteriorate the ability of humans to think. On the contrary, advancements in technology had advanced our vast knowledge in many fields, opening opportunities for further understanding and achievement. For example, the problem of dibilitating illnesses and diseases such as alzheimer’s disease is slowing being solved by the technological advancements in stem cell research. The future ability of growing new brain cells and the possibility to reverse the onset of alzheimer’s is now becoming a reality. This shows our initiative as humans to better our health demonstrates greater ability of humans to think.
One aspect where the ability of humans may initially be seen as an example of deteriorating minds is the use of internet and cell phones. In the past humans had to seek out information in many different enviroments and aspects of life. Now humans can sit in a chair and type anything into a computer and get an answer. Our reliance on this type of technology can be detrimental if not regulated and regularily substituted for other information sources such as human interactions and hands on learning. I think if humans understand that we should not have such a reliance on computer technology, that we as a species will advance further by utilizing the opportunity of computer technology as well as the other sources of information outside of a computer. Supplementing our knowledge with internet access is surely a way for technology to solve problems while continually advancing the human race.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 3
This essay never moves beyond a superficial discussion of the issue. The writer attempts to develop two points: that advancements in technology have progressed our knowledge in many fields and that supplementing rather than relying on technology is “surely a way for technology to solve problems while continually advancing the human race.” Each point, then, is developed with relevant but insufficient evidence. In discussing the potential of technology to advance knowledge in many fields (a broad subject, rife with possible examples), the writer uses only one limited and very brief example from a specific field (medicine and stem-cell research).
Development of the second point is hindered by a lack of specificity and organization. The writer creates what might be best described as an outline. The writer cites a need for regulation/supplementation and warns of the detriment of over-reliance upon technology. However, the explanation of both the problem and solution is vague and limited (“Our reliance … can be detrimental. If humans understand that we should not have such a reliance … we will advance further”). There is neither explanation of consequences nor clarification of what is meant by “supplementing.” This second paragraph is a series of generalizations that are loosely connected and lack a much-needed grounding.
In the essay, there are some minor language errors and a few more serious flaws (e.g., “The future ability of growing new brain cells” or “One aspect where the ability of humans may initially be seen as an example of deteriorating minds”). Despite the accumulation of such flaws, the writer’s meaning is generally clear. Thus, this essay earns a score of 3.
Essay Response — Score 2
In recent centuries, humans have developed the technology very rapidly, and you may accept some merit of it, and you may see a distortion in society occured by it. To be lazy for human in some meaning is one of the fashion issues in thesedays. There are many symptoms and resons of it. However, I can not agree with the statement that the technology make humans to be reluctant to thinkng thoroughly.
Of course, you can see the phenomena of human laziness along with developed technology in some place. However, they would happen in specific condition, not general. What makes human to be laze of thinking is not merely technology, but the the tendency of human that they treat them as a magic stick and a black box. Not understanding the aims and theory of them couses the disapproval problems.
The most important thing to use the thechnology, regardless the new or old, is to comprehend the fundamental idea of them, and to adapt suit tech to tasks in need. Even if you recognize a method as a all-mighty and it is extremely over-spec to your needs, you can not see the result you want. In this procedure, humans have to consider as long as possible to acquire adequate functions. Therefore, humans can not escape from using their brain.
In addition, the technology as it is do not vain automatically, the is created by humans. Thus, the more developed tech and the more you want a convenient life, the more you think and emmit your creativity to breakthrough some banal method sarcastically.
Consequently, if you are not passive to the new tech, but offensive to it, you would not lose your ability to think deeply. Furthermore, you may improve the ability by adopting it.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 2
The language of this essay is what most clearly links it to the score of 2. Amidst sporadic moments of clarity, this essay is marred by serious errors in grammar, usage and mechanics that often interfere with meaning. It is unclear what the writer means when he/she states, “To be lazy for human in some meaning is one of the fashion issues in thesedays,” or “to adapt suit tech to tasks in need.”
Despite such severe flaws, the writer has made an obvious attempt to respond to the prompt (“I can not agree with the statement that the technology make humans to be reluctant to thinking thoroughly”) as well as an unclear attempt to support such an assertion (“Not understanding the aims and theory of them [technology] couses the disapproval problems” and “The most important thing to use the thechnology … is to comprehend the fundamental idea of them”). On the whole, the essay displays a seriously flawed but not fundamentally deficient attempt to develop and support its claims.
(Note: In this specific case, the analysis is tied directly to the language. As the language falters, so too does the analysis.)
Essay Response — Score 1
Humans have invented machines but they have forgot it and have started everything technically so clearly their thinking process is deterioating.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 1
The essay is clearly on topic, as evidenced by the writer’s usage of the more significant terms from the prompt: “technically” (technologically), “humans,” “thinking” (think) and “deteriorating” (deteriorate). Such usage is the only clear evidence of understanding. Meaning aside, the brevity of the essay (one sentence) clearly indicates the writer’s inability to develop a response that follows the specific instructions given (“Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement above and explain your reasoning for the position you take”).
The language, too, is clearly level 1, as the sentence fails to achieve coherence. The coherent phrases in this one-sentence response are those tied to the prompt: “Humans have invented machines” and “their thinking process is deteriorating.” Otherwise, the point being made is unclear.
Strategies for responding to Issue task 1:
Q: As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
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.
for any response to receive a top score, it is particularly important that you remain focused on the task and provide clearly relevant examples and/or reasons to support the point of view you are expressing. Lower level responses may be long and full of examples of modern technology, but those examples may not be clearly related to a particular position. For example, a respondent who strongly disagrees with the statement may choose to use computer technology as proof that thinking ability is not deteriorating. However, the mere existence of computer technology does not adequately prove this point; e.g., perhaps the ease of computer use inhibits our thinking ability. To receive a higher level score, the respondent should explain in what ways computer technology may call for or require thinking ability.
you are asked to discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement. Thus, responses may range from strong agreement or strong disagreement to qualified agreement or qualified disagreement. You are also instructed to explain your reasoning and consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true. A successful response need not include comment on all or any one of the points listed below and may well discuss other reasons or examples not mentioned here in support of the position taken.
Issue task 1 - possible arguements for and against:
Q: As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
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.
This topic could elicit a wide variety of approaches, especially considering the different possible interpretations of the phrase “the ability of humans to think for themselves.” Although most respondents may take it to mean problem solving, others could interpret it as emotional and social intelligence; i.e., the ability to communicate/connect with others. With any approach, it is possible to discuss examples such as calculators, word processing tools such as spell/grammar check, tax preparation software, Internet research and a variety of other common household and business technologies.
You may agree with the topic and argue that:
reliance on technology leads to dependency; we come to rely on problem-solving technologies to such a degree that when they fail we are in worse shape than if we didn’t have them
everyday technologies such as calculators and cash registers have decreased our ability to perform simple calculations, a “use it or lose it” approach to thinking ability
Or you may take issue with the topic and argue that technology facilitates and improves our thinking skills, arguing that:
developing, implementing and using technology requires problem solving
technology frees us from mundane problem solving (e.g., calculations) and allows us to engage in more complex thinking
technology provides access to information otherwise unavailable
technology connects people at a distance and allows them to share ideas
technology is dependent on the human ability to think and make choices (every implementation of and advance in technology is driven by human intelligence and decision making)
On the other hand, you could decide to explore the middle ground in the debate and point out that while technology may diminish some mental skill sets, it enables other (perhaps more important) types of thinking to thrive. Such a response might distinguish between complex problem solving and simple “data maintenance” (i.e., performing calculations and organizing information).
Other approaches could involve taking a historical, philosophical or sociological stance or, with equal effectiveness, using personal experience to illustrate a position. One could argue that the value or detriment of relying on technology is determined by the individual (or society) using it or that only those who develop technology (i.e., technical specialists) are maintaining their problem-solving skills, while the rest of us are losing them.
Again, it is important for you to avoid overly general examples or lists of examples without expansion. It is also essential to do more than paraphrase the prompt. Please keep in mind that what counts is the ability to clearly express a particular point of view in relation to the issue and specific task instructions and to support that position with relevant reasons and/or examples.
Analytical Writing Overall Score Level Descriptions
Although the GRE® Analytical Writing measure contains two discrete analytical writing tasks, a single combined score is reported because it is more reliable than is a score for either task alone. The reported score ranges from 0 to 6, in half-point increments.
The statements below describe, for each score level, the overall quality of analytical writing demonstrated across both the Issue and Argument tasks. Because the test assesses “analytical writing,” critical thinking skills (the ability to reason, assemble evidence to develop a position and communicate complex ideas) weigh more heavily than the writer’s control of fine points of grammar or the mechanics of writing (e.g., spelling).
Scores 6 and 5.5
Sustains insightful, in-depth analysis of complex ideas; develops and supports main points with logically compelling reasons and/or highly persuasive examples; is well focused and well organized; skillfully uses sentence variety and precise vocabulary to convey meaning effectively; demonstrates superior facility with sentence structure and language usage, but may have minor errors that do not interfere with meaning.
Scores 5 and 4.5
Provides generally thoughtful analysis of complex ideas; develops and supports main points with logically sound reasons and/or well-chosen examples; is generally focused and well organized; uses sentence variety and vocabulary to convey meaning clearly; demonstrates good control of sentence structure and language usage, but may have minor errors that do not interfere with meaning.
Scores 4 and 3.5
Provides competent analysis of ideas; develops and supports main points with relevant reasons and/or examples; is adequately organized; conveys meaning with reasonable clarity; demonstrates satisfactory control of sentence structure and language usage, but may have some errors that affect clarity.
Scores 3 and 2.5
Displays some competence in analytical writing, although the writing is flawed in at least one of the following ways: limited analysis or development; weak organization; weak control of sentence structure or language usage, with errors that often result in vagueness or lack of clarity.
Scores 2 and 1.5
Displays serious weaknesses in analytical writing. The writing is seriously flawed in at least one of the following ways: serious lack of analysis or development; lack of organization; serious and frequent problems in sentence structure or language usage, with errors that obscure meaning.
Scores 1 and 0.5
Displays fundamental deficiencies in analytical writing. The writing is fundamentally flawed in at least one of the following ways: content that is extremely confusing or mostly irrelevant to the assigned tasks; little or no development; severe and pervasive errors that result in incoherence.
Score 0
The examinee’s analytical writing skills cannot be evaluated because the responses do not address any part of the assigned tasks, are merely attempts to copy the assignments, are in a foreign language or display only indecipherable text.
Score NS
The examinee produced no text whatsoever.
