Lesson 44 of 46 · Analytical Writing: the Issue task
The Issue task: what it asks and how it is scored
What the 30-minute "Analyze an Issue" task asks of you, what ETS says about its scoring, and what a position worth defending looks like.
About 18 minutes
In this lesson
- Describe where the Issue task sits in the GRE and what ETS states about how it is scored.
- Read an issue statement for its key terms, its scope words and its hidden comparison.
- Tell a qualified position apart from fence-sitting, and write a one-sentence thesis that commits.
The idea
Where the task sits
The GRE General Test opens with Analytical Writing, and the section holds one task, "Analyze an Issue", with 30 minutes to complete it. It always comes first; the Verbal and Quantitative sections follow it in any order. The whole test takes about 1 hour and 58 minutes, so the essay is about a quarter of your time in the room, and it is the first thing you do while you are fresh.
What the task asks
The task's name describes the job. You are given a short statement on an issue and asked to analyse it: work out exactly what it claims, decide how far you agree, and argue for that view. Read any instructions that come with the statement as carefully as the statement itself, and answer exactly what they ask; an excellent essay on a neighbouring question is still an essay on the wrong question.
Every issue statement in this course is our own invention, written for practice.
What ETS says about scoring
This is everything this course states about how the essay is scored, because it is everything the ETS pages we checked say:
- The Analytical Writing score runs from 0 to 6 in half-point increments, and it is reported as a single score.
- ETS describes the scoring as a "6-point holistic scale", and says the score includes a score from the e-rater engine, an automated scoring program.
- ETS also says essays are reviewed by "trained analysts" using similarity-detection software, and by "experienced content experts".
Those pages do not publish a scoring formula or say how any human judgement and the e-rater score are combined, so we make no claim about either. Two practical points follow from what is stated.
Holistic means the essay is judged as a whole. There is no list of features that each earn a fixed number of points. A brilliant sentence does not rescue an essay with no position, and a typing slip does not sink a clear, well-supported argument. Aim at the overall impression a careful reader takes away.
Similarity review means the words must be yours, written for this statement. A memorised essay, a template of stock paragraphs or borrowed sentences can match text written elsewhere, and matching text is what similarity-detection software looks for. Practise a method, not a script.
What a persuasive response does
The following is this course's advice on what makes any careful reader judge an argument persuasive. It is not a scoring rubric, and it does not paraphrase one.
- A position the reader can find in one sentence. If someone asked "so what do you think?", your thesis should answer them.
- Qualifications where the claim breaks down. Most issue statements are too broad to be simply right or simply wrong. Saying when or why the claim fails shows that you have analysed it rather than reacted to it.
- Reasons, each developed with a specific example. A reason tells the reader why; an example shows that the reason holds somewhere real.
- The strongest objection, answered. Taking on the best case against you is more convincing than ignoring it.
- Organisation and clear sentences. The reader should never have to work out how a paragraph connects to your thesis.
Agree, disagree or qualify
| Position | What it sounds like | Its risk |
|---|---|---|
| Full agreement | "The statement is right." | Ignores obvious exceptions the reader will think of. |
| Full disagreement | "The statement is wrong." | Easy to slide into attacking an extreme version nobody holds. |
| Qualified | "It is right when..., but not when..." | Turns into fence-sitting if the line is vague. |
A qualified position is not "there are good points on both sides". It draws a line through the issue and says which side of the line you stand on, and why the line falls there. "Both sides have merit" commits to nothing; "competition improves schools when they are judged on the same measures, but harms them when the measures differ" commits to something a reader could dispute. That is what makes it worth arguing.
Reading the statement before you take a side
Three things in a statement decide what you are really arguing about.
- Key terms. Words such as "success", "progress" or "education" can mean several things. Decide what you take them to mean, and say so early.
- Scope words. "All", "always", "should", "only", "never" and "most" set how strong the claim is. Strong scope words are where your qualifications will come from: a claim that something is always true is broken by one clear counterexample.
- Hidden comparisons. "Rather than", "more than" and "instead of" turn a claim into a trade-off. If a statement says money should go to A rather than B, your essay has to weigh A against B, not just praise A.
Spend the first minute here. A position built on a misread statement cannot be repaired by good writing later.
Worked examples
Example 1: Decoding a statement before taking a side
Statement: "Towns should spend public money on preserving their old buildings rather than on building new ones." Before deciding what you think, identify what the statement actually claims.
Key terms. "Public money" means taxes, so the question is about public priorities, not what private owners do. "Old buildings" is vague: a medieval church and a 1970s car park are both old. Decide that you mean buildings with historical or civic value.
Scope word. "Should" makes this a claim about policy. There is no "always", but the statement is unconditional: it does not say "sometimes" or "where possible".
Hidden comparison. "Rather than" makes it a trade-off. The essay must weigh preservation against new construction for the same money, not just argue that old buildings are nice.
Where it might break. A town short of housing or schools may need new buildings more than restored ones. That is the case where the claim is weakest, and the natural place for a qualification.
Answer
The statement claims that, when public money must be divided, preservation should win over new construction. A thesis that only praises old buildings misses the trade-off; a strong one says when preservation should win and when it should not, for example "preservation should come first only once a town's basic needs for housing and services are met".
Example 2: Choosing between three draft theses
Statement: "People learn more from their failures than from their successes." A writer drafts three theses. Which is the best basis for the essay?
- "Failure and success both teach us things, and each person is different."
- "Failure teaches more than success only when someone works out why the failure happened; an unexamined failure teaches less than a success, which at least shows a method that works."
- "Failure is always the greatest teacher in every area of life."
Test each draft against the one-sentence question: would a reader know what the writer thinks? Draft 1 fails: "both teach us things" and "each person is different" commit to nothing.
Draft 3 commits, but with "always" and "every area" it can be broken by one clear case, such as a surgeon who learns a procedure by doing it correctly under supervision. The essay would spend its time defending an extreme.
Draft 2 commits and draws a line: examined failure beats success, unexamined failure does not. It also gives the reason for the line, which tells the reader what the body paragraphs will show.
Answer
Draft 2. It takes a position, qualifies it at the point where the claim breaks, and says why. Draft 1 is the tempting "balanced" choice, but balance without a commitment is fence-sitting.
Example 3: Two ways to spend the same paragraph
A writer arguing that "cities should make public transport free" has room for one more body paragraph. Option one lists five benefits in five sentences (less traffic, cleaner air, fairer access, busier shops, fewer parking problems). Option two takes one benefit, fairer access, and develops it: who currently cannot afford fares, what free transport would change for them, and why the cost is worth it. Which serves the essay better?
Ask what a reader judging the essay as a whole takes from each. The list shows that benefits exist, but each one is asserted, not argued; a reader cannot tell which matters or why.
The developed paragraph shows a reason working: a specific group, a specific change, and a reply to the obvious objection (the cost). That is the kind of analysis the task's name asks for.
A holistic judgement does not add up points per idea, so five unsupported benefits are not worth five times one. Depth is what persuades.
Answer
Option two. One reason developed with an example and an answer to an objection persuades more than five reasons merely named. The tempting choice is the list, because it looks like more content.
Common traps
Fence-sitting dressed as balance
"There are strong arguments on both sides" feels mature, but it leaves the reader without a position to evaluate. Balance belongs in how you treat the other side, not in refusing to choose. Draw a line and say which side of it you are on.
Answering a neighbouring question
A statement about public money becomes an essay about whether old buildings are beautiful; a statement about should becomes an essay about what usually happens. Before writing, restate the claim in your own words, including its scope words and any "rather than", and check your thesis against that restatement.
Bringing a memorised essay
A prepared essay or a set of stock paragraphs cannot fit a statement you have not seen, and ETS says essays are reviewed with similarity-detection software. Prepare a method (reading the statement, finding the line, choosing examples) rather than text.
Treating length or rare words as the goal
Nothing in what ETS states says the score counts words or rewards unusual vocabulary. Padding costs time that analysis needed, and a long word used slightly wrongly makes a sentence less clear. Use the plainest word that is exactly right.
Check yourself
Answer each question before you open its answer.
Question 1: A thesis that commits and qualifies
Analyze an Issue
Statement: "Competition between schools improves the education that students receive." Which thesis best takes a clear position and qualifies it?
- A.Competition between schools improves the education that students receive.
- B.Competition can be good and it can be bad, and every school is different.
- C.Competition improves schools when they are judged on the same fair measures, but harms students when schools compete by turning away pupils who are hard to teach.
- D.Competition is the only force that has ever improved any school anywhere.
- E.Schools should stop giving grades so that students can learn for its own sake.
Show the answer
Answer: C. Competition improves schools when they are judged on the same fair measures, but harms students when schools compete by turning away pupils who are hard to teach.
Working
A good thesis does two things: a reader can tell what the writer thinks, and it says where the claim holds and where it breaks. The thesis about fair measures and turning away pupils does both, and it names the mechanism behind each half, so the body paragraphs are already planned. The restatement shows no analysis, the "both sides" version and the off-topic grading claim do not take a position on this statement, and the absolute claim is easy to refute.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This repeats the statement word for word. It commits, but it shows no analysis of where the claim holds or fails.
- B. This is fence-sitting: it names both sides but never says which the writer believes or when.
- D. This commits, but "only", "ever" and "anywhere" make an extreme claim that one counterexample breaks; it is overstatement, not qualification.
- E. This takes a position on a different issue (grading), not on competition between schools.
What carries over
A qualified thesis draws a line through the issue and says which side the writer stands on and why.
Question 2: What ETS says about Issue scoring
Analyze an Issue
Which description of how the Issue response is scored matches what ETS states on the pages this course relies on?
- A.Two human readers each give a whole-number score from 1 to 6, and the two are averaged.
- B.Separate marks for grammar, organisation and argument are added together to make the score.
- C.It is scored from 130 to 170 in one-point increments, like the other two measures.
- D.The e-rater engine alone produces the score, and no person ever looks at an essay.
- E.A single score from 0 to 6 in half-point steps, on a holistic scale that includes a score from the e-rater engine.
Show the answer
Answer: E. A single score from 0 to 6 in half-point steps, on a holistic scale that includes a score from the e-rater engine.
Working
ETS states a single Analytical Writing score from 0 to 6 in half-point increments, describes a "6-point holistic scale", and says the score includes a score from the e-rater engine. The two-reader average and the e-rater-only version both go beyond or against what is stated, the added sub-scores contradict "holistic", and 130 to 170 belongs to the other measures.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. The ETS pages this course relies on do not state a two-reader rule, and the reported score moves in half points from 0, not whole points from 1.
- B. ETS calls the scale holistic: the essay is judged as a whole, not built from separate sub-scores added together.
- C. That is the Verbal and Quantitative scale. Analytical Writing has its own 0 to 6 scale.
- D. ETS says the score includes an e-rater score, not that it is the whole score, and it says essays are reviewed by trained analysts and content experts.
What carries over
State only what ETS states about Issue scoring: 0 to 6 in half points, holistic, including an e-rater score.
Question 3: The prepared-essay plan
Analyze an Issue
A test taker plans to memorise a 500-word essay about technology and adapt it to whatever statement appears. Which is the best reason to drop the plan?
- A.The score depends on length, and a 500-word essay will be too short.
- B.The e-rater engine cannot read essays about technology.
- C.The response must answer the particular statement and its instructions, and ETS says essays are reviewed with similarity-detection software.
- D.Thirty minutes is too short to type 500 words from memory.
- E.Statements about technology never appear on the GRE.
Show the answer
Answer: C. The response must answer the particular statement and its instructions, and ETS says essays are reviewed with similarity-detection software.
Working
A memorised essay was written before the writer saw the statement, so at best it answers a neighbouring question; and ETS says essays are reviewed by trained analysts using similarity-detection software, so text prepared in advance risks being flagged by that review. The other reasons rest on claims about length, e-rater, typing time or topics that nothing ETS states supports.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Nothing ETS states says the score depends on length; the objection to the plan is about fit and originality, not word count.
- B. This is invented. ETS says nothing of the kind, and the topic of an essay is not the problem with the plan.
- D. Typing speed is not the real issue; even typed in time, a memorised essay would not address the statement it was given.
- E. Nothing this course states supports any claim about which topics appear, so this reason has no basis.
What carries over
Prepare a method for building an argument, never a text to reproduce.
Key points
One "Analyze an Issue" task, 30 minutes, always first in the GRE.
ETS states a single 0 to 6 score in half points, on a "6-point holistic scale" that includes an e-rater score.
Holistic means judged as a whole: depth and a clear position beat a list of points.
A qualified thesis draws a line and commits to one side of it; "both sides have merit" commits to nothing.
Read key terms, scope words and any "rather than" before you choose a position.
All questions here are original and written for UniExamer; none comes from the test maker.
Written by the UniExamer team with AI assistance. Every worked example and check question was re-solved by an independent checker before publication. No subject expert has reviewed this lesson yet. If you find a mistake, write to support@uniexamer.com.