The GRE Issue Writing Task

 

Related Sites   GRE Writing Skills  24-Hour GRE Prep  GRE Word Smarts     Top GRE Books   Official GRE Practice  Kaplan GRE Verbal  GRE Math (ARCO)

 
The GRE Issue writing task is designed to test your ability to communicate a position on an issue effectively and persuasively. Your task is to analyze the issue presented, considering various perspectives, and to develop your own position on the issue. There is no "correct" answer.

The exam's Issue prompt will consist of two elements:

The directive: a general instruction for responding to the statement (the directive is essentially the same for any topic)

A topic: a one- or two-sentence statement of opinion about a particular issue

Here's the Issue directive, along with a topic that is similar to some of those in the official pool. Keep in mind, however, that it is not one of the official topics, so you won't see this exact one on the actual exam. (The testing service does not permit reprint of its official Analytical Writing topics.)

Present your perspective on this issue; use reasons and/or examples from your experience, observation, and/or reading to explain your viewpoint.

"Great advances in knowledge always require rejection of authority."

Now here's a sample response to this essay prompt. As you read the response, keep in mind:

• None of the points asserted in this response are irrefutable, because the issue is far from "black-and-white." It's all a matter of opinion.

• This essay is brief enough — about 400 words — to compose and type in 45 minutes.

• This response meets all the ETS criteria for a score of 6 — the highest possible score.

• This essay was not composed under a strict time limit. So don't worry if your practice essays don't turn out as polished as this one. Rest assured: You can attain a top score of 6 on your Issue essay even if contains minor flaws in grammar, diction, spelling, and so forth.

Sample Response

The speaker claims that great advances in knowledge necessarily involve rejection of authority. To the extent that political authority impedes such advances, I agree with this claim. Otherwise, in my view most advances in knowledge actually embrace certain forms of authority, rather than rejecting authority out of hand.

One striking example of how political authority can impede the advancement of knowl­edge involves what we know about the age and evolution of planet Earth. In earlier centuries the official Church of England called for a literal interpretation of the Bible, according to which the Earth’s age is determined to be about 6,000 years. If Western thinkers had continued to yield to the ostensible authority of the Church, the fields of structural and historical geology would never have advanced beyond the blind acceptance of this contention as fact.

A more modern example of how yielding to political authority can impede the advance­ment of knowledge involves the Soviet Refusenik movement of the 1920s. During this time period the Soviet government attempted not only to control the direction and the goals of its scientists’ research but also to distort the outcome of that research. During the 1920s the Soviet government quashed certain areas of scientific inquiry, destroyed entire research facilities and libraries, and caused the sudden disappearance of many scientists who were engaged in research that the state viewed as a potential threat to its power and authority. Not surprisingly, during this time period no significant advances in scientific knowledge occurred under the auspices of the Soviet government.

However, given a political climate that facilitates free thought and honest intellectual inquiry, great advances in knowledge can be made by actually embracing certain forms of “authority.” A good example involves modern computer technology. Only by building on, or embracing, certain well-established laws of physics were engineers able to develop silicon-based semi-conductor technology. Although new biotechnology research suggests that organic, biochemical processors will replace artificial semi-conductors as the com­puters of the future, it would be inappropriate to characterize this leap in knowledge as a rejection of authority.

In sum, to the extent that political authority imposes artificial constraints on knowledge, I agree that advances in knowledge might require rejection of authority. Otherwise, in my observation advances in knowledge more typically embrace and build on authoritative scientific principles and laws, and do not require the rejection of any type of authority.