Learning Hub/GRE/Writing

GRE Analytical Writing

Master Issue Analysis and Argument Critique with rubric guidelines, 10 logical fallacies, essay structures, and 9 practice prompts.

2 Writing Tasks

Analyze an Issue

30 minutes

Evaluate a complex issue from multiple perspectives

Common types:

• Agreement/Disagreement: Do you agree that X is true?

• Extent questions: To what extent is X important?

• Value judgment: Is X more important than Y?

• Recommendation: Should X be done?

• Comparative: Which approach (X or Y) is better?

• Conditional: If X were true, would Y happen?

Analyze an Argument

30 minutes

Critique the logical flaws in a given argument

Common types:

• Unsupported assumptions

• Weak evidence

• False causation

• Hasty generalization

• Misleading statistics

• Ad hominem attacks

6-Point Scoring Rubric

6 - Excellent

✓Insightful analysis from multiple perspectives
✓Well-developed, logically sound arguments
✓Clear, compelling writing with sophisticated vocabulary
✓Few to no errors in grammar or mechanics

5 - Strong

✓Thoughtful analysis with good development
✓Generally sound arguments with minor gaps
✓Clear writing with good word choice
✓Minor grammatical errors that don't impede meaning

4 - Adequate

✓Competent analysis with some depth
✓Mostly sound arguments but may oversimplify
✓Clear writing but may be somewhat repetitive
✓Some errors but generally understandable

3 - Limited

✓Basic analysis lacking depth
✓Arguments present but may have significant flaws
✓Writing is generally clear but may be simplistic
✓Multiple errors affecting clarity in places

2 - Flawed

✓Minimal analysis; may misunderstand the prompt
✓Weak arguments with logical fallacies
✓Writing is unclear or difficult to follow
✓Frequent errors that impede understanding

1 - Deficient

✓Fails to analyze the prompt meaningfully
✓No coherent argument; major logical flaws
✓Severely unclear or incoherent writing
✓Pervasive errors making text incomprehensible

10 Common Logical Fallacies (for Argument Task)

Ad Hominem

Attacking the person rather than their argument

Example:

Argument: "The study shows organic food is healthier." Fallacy: "This study is wrong because the researcher is paid by organic companies."

Analysis: The arguer attacks the researcher's credibility instead of addressing the study's methodology.

Hasty Generalization

Drawing a conclusion from insufficient evidence

Example:

Argument: "Three companies moved to Mexico, so all companies will relocate." Fallacy: Based on only three cases.

Analysis: The argument generalizes from a small sample to all companies without sufficient evidence.

False Cause (Post Hoc)

Assuming X caused Y just because X happened before Y

Example:

Argument: "The new principal started last year, and test scores rose. Therefore, the principal caused the improvement." Fallacy: Could be due to other factors (new curriculum, student demographics, etc.)

Analysis: The argument confuses temporal sequence with causation. Other factors could explain the score increase.

Appeal to Authority

Using authority figures to support an argument without evidence

Example:

Argument: "The president says X is true, so it must be." Fallacy: No independent evidence provided.

Analysis: Celebrity endorsements or authority figures don't constitute logical evidence for the claim.

Circular Reasoning

Using the conclusion to support the premise

Example:

Argument: "Shakespeare is great because his works are masterpieces, and masterpieces are great works."

Analysis: The argument restates the conclusion without providing independent evidence.

Either/Or (False Dilemma)

Presenting only two options when more exist

Example:

Argument: "Either we ban plastic bags or the environment will be destroyed." Fallacy: Ignores alternatives like recycling programs, gradual reduction, etc.

Analysis: The argument presents a false binary when multiple solutions exist.

Straw Man

Misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack

Example:

Argument: "Some people support gun control." Misrepresentation: "They want to ban all guns completely." Fallacy: Most gun control advocates want regulations, not a complete ban.

Analysis: The arguer exaggerates the opposing view to make it indefensible.

Begging the Question

Assuming the conclusion in the premises

Example:

Argument: "Violent video games are harmful because they have negative effects on children." Fallacy: "Harmful" and "negative effects" mean the same thing.

Analysis: The argument assumes what it's trying to prove without providing independent evidence.

Irrelevant Conclusion

Proving something other than what was originally claimed

Example:

Argument: "We should hire Ms. Smith for the engineering job." Evidence: "She is a very kind person." Fallacy: Kindness is irrelevant to engineering ability.

Analysis: The evidence doesn't address the actual claim about job qualifications.

Weak Analogy

Making a comparison between things that aren't sufficiently similar

Example:

Argument: "Running a country is like running a business; therefore, we should elect a CEO president." Fallacy: Countries have different goals, constraints, and accountability than businesses.

Analysis: The analogy overlooks critical differences between the two situations.

Essay Structure Templates

Issue Essay

ISSUE ESSAY STRUCTURE (Analyze an Issue) PARAGRAPH 1 - Introduction (3-4 sentences) • Restate the issue in your own words • Acknowledge multiple perspectives briefly • Thesis statement: your position (agree/disagree/qualified stance) PARAGRAPH 2 - Reason/Example 1 (3-5 sentences) • Topic sentence with main idea • 1-2 specific examples or evidence • Explain how example supports your thesis PARAGRAPH 3 - Reason/Example 2 (3-5 sentences) • Different reason or contrasting perspective • Examples with specific details • Connection back to main argument PARAGRAPH 4 - Counterargument & Refutation (2-3 sentences) • Acknowledge opposing view • Explain why your position is stronger • Shows balanced thinking PARAGRAPH 5 - Conclusion (2-3 sentences) • Restate thesis in new language • Broader implications • Final thought

Argument Essay

ARGUMENT ESSAY STRUCTURE (Analyze an Argument) PARAGRAPH 1 - Introduction (2-3 sentences) • Briefly summarize the argument • State your task: identify logical flaws • Thesis: The argument suffers from several flaws PARAGRAPH 2 - Flaw #1 (3-5 sentences) • Name the logical fallacy or flaw • Quote or reference the specific claim • Explain why this is problematic • What evidence would be needed PARAGRAPH 3 - Flaw #2 (3-5 sentences) • Identify second flaw • Quote from argument • Explain the problem • Alternative explanation PARAGRAPH 4 - Flaw #3 (3-5 sentences) • Third flaw (if needed) • Specific evidence from text • Analysis of the problem PARAGRAPH 5 - Conclusion (2-3 sentences) • Summarize the main flaws • Note: Conclusion is weak/unreliable • What would strengthen the argument