Chapter 15
IN THIS CHAPTER
Creating a realistic setting for writing your sample essays
Composing an Analyze an Issue essay
Formulating an Analyze an Argument essay
Knowing how to write the essays and actually writing them on the day of the test are two entirely different things. In this chapter, you get the opportunity to put into practice everything in Chapter 14 so you can write high-scoring essays.
In this chapter, I provide two essay questions, one Analyze an Issue and one Analyze an Argument, complete with the directions similar to those you’ll see on the actual GRE. You have 30 minutes to write each essay. Following each essay question, I provide two sample essays (one good and one sort of good) along with evaluator comments.
After writing your practice essay, read the 6-scoring essay and critique as a role model for what your essay should look like. Then, read and critique the 4-scoring essay. See if you can spot the flaws that prevent it from being a 6 — and read the evaluator’s comments to see what you may have missed.
To make your practice session more like what you’ll experience on test day, set the stage by doing the following:
Pause reading and write your practice essay. Then, check your notes and outline against the following information and insights that I provide. In the following sections, I present sample topics that exemplify various ways to formulate and support a position in response to this Issue Essay prompt.
If you had trouble getting started, maybe you couldn’t think of any laws to write about. This particular essay prompt is on laws that change and those that should be flexible (open to interpretation), so start by jotting down some examples of laws that meet those criteria. Here are a few examples of laws that changed in response to the changing times:
Examples of laws that could be flexible or open to interpretation may include the following:
And because the prompt specifically instructs you to consider both sides of the issue, you need to consider laws that perhaps should not change over time or be open to interpretation, such as the following:
Don’t worry if some listed items wouldn’t fit the essay — this is just a brain dump, and you don’t have time to write on all of these anyway. When writing your essay, just pick the best few.
Though laws should evolve and have some flexibility, I don’t agree with the statement that laws should always change and be interpreted by each individual circumstance. Throughout history, laws have existed and evolved with society. Our laws today are based on a balance of rigidity and flexibility. There is always some adjustment and some interpretation, but to take away the foundation of the laws and leave them completely open to popularity and interpretation would lead us either to a libertine or totalitarian society, neither of which would be healthy. In this essay, I will discuss laws that should evolve to keep pace with the new technology of an evolving society, especially regarding computers and cars. I will also discuss laws that should not be interpreted, such as premeditated murder, and finally laws that are no longer relevant and should possibly be scrubbed. Though these are all valid topics for discussion, they do not suggest that all of our laws should be subject to interpretation and flexibility.
There are plenty of examples of laws that evolve with society out of necessity. Cyberbullying wasn’t an issue 30 years ago, so there wouldn’t be a law regarding this. Today, however, the framework for cyberbullying is in place, so the law exists out of necessity. When cars first came out, there were no laws requiring drivers’ licenses or preventing drunk driving. The road was probably a very dangerous place! To keep up with a changing society, laws were introduced to regulate the road. Whether these laws are overreaching is another discussion, but overall the roads are safer with these laws than without them. In these cases — cyberbullying and roads — the laws are changing to reflect the times, and this is good.
However, these changes should be careful and deliberate. A law, such as prohibiting premeditated murder, cannot simply be flexible or interpreted based on circumstance. Around 1995, the Israeli prime minister Yitzchak Rabin was assassinated days before signing a peace treaty with Yasser Arafat, the leader of the PLO. The assassin was not a criminal before this, but he felt that the provision of the treaty would have placed the Israeli people in danger, and this was his motive for murder. His rationale was to kill one person to save many. Whether he was right is a topic for debate, but for the purpose of this essay, let’s suppose that yes: the treaty would have led to the deaths of many Israelis. Was his act justified? This is the danger of leaving laws to interpretation. If you say that yes, in this case, it was justified, then it basically opens the door to a lawless society. The law against murder becomes null, because there’s always a circumstance and interpretation making it OK. Our CEO is leading the company to bankruptcy. Kill her! My neighbor parties all night long and keeps me up, so I may lose my job. Kill him! This is absolutely NOT the direction that things should go. Laws such as this, prohibiting premeditated murder and certain other crimes, should not be open to flexibility and interpretation.
There are also laws that have faded to irrelevancy and are no longer enforced, but this is not the same as interpretation or circumstantial allowance. For example, “It’s illegal to walk on the sidewalks of Philadelphia carrying goldfish,” or “It is a crime to sing to your horses in the hearing of others” are examples of laws that are no longer relevant. I have always wondered what would happen if one of these obscure laws were suddenly enforced again. Can you imagine walking out of a pet store on a Sunday afternoon with a goldfish and getting busted? Legally, they could do it — it’s the law. Fortunately they don’t, but it brings up the point that laws may become irrelevant or obsolete, and therefore require some review. However, this is not the same as interpreting or making exceptions. These are laws that are obsolete because society has evolved away from them.
Laws should evolve and have some flexibility, but not too much. New technology, such as cars and computers, require new laws. Some old, obsolete laws probably have no place anymore in our modern society. However, certain laws cannot be flexible, such as killing one person to save many.
This essay presents an excellent answer to the question. The writer uses powerful, relevant examples to support his point and makes the clear case that though some flexibility and interpretation is warranted, it has to be controlled.
The writer’s opinion is clear from the start and is supported by well-reasoned and thoroughly developed examples. Though the thesis is not blatantly declared, the author’s position is clearly stated in the first paragraph and reinforced by the following paragraphs. The three examples are separated, yet they flow together well via the use of good transitions. The ending sums things up nicely and leaves no doubt as to the author’s opinion.
Laws must change when Society changes. This is true for all types of laws, the major laws and the minor laws. This is true for all types of Societies, the so called First World, and the so-called Third World. This is true for all types of situations, from the serious to the silly to the macabre.
An example of when a law must change is the death penalty. Many years ago, condemned prisoners were executed routinely. Such executions became major events, almost parties, with the public making an excursion to watch the hanging. The irony, of course, is that the huge crowds at the execution attracted additional criminals who then committed more crimes (theft, pickpocketing, assault) and perpetated the cycle. Today, while there are less executions, they have become media events. We don’t attend the executions in person, but we live through them vicariously, watching them on tv. When Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was given a lethal injection, the tv stations carried a minute-by-minute report. The amount of money and time and energy that was put into this could have been better spent elsewhere.
A second reason laws must be flexible is in time of war or social upheaval. Take, for example, the 1960’s. The United States had a sea change during that decade. Many more things were acceptable socially then than had ever been before, and the laws had to change to reflect that fact. The possession of certain drugs became much less serious than it had been before. People weren’t sentenced to twenty years for using drugs, just for pushing them. Today, people can use certain drugs legally, either recreationally or for medicinal purposes depending on the state.
Traffic laws are a less serious, but still good, example of when laws should change. The speed limit in downtown New York must obviously be less than that in the outskirts of Podunk, Idaho (my apologies to the Podunkians!). Many people in Wyoming and other sparsely-populated Western states fought against having a federally-mandated speed limit of 55 on the freeways, argueing that in their areas, 65 or even 75 would be more logical. This is an example of the need for a change to meet the needs of a local community or Society. The same is true for the age at which youngsters can get a license, as they are more mature earlier now than before.
In conclusion, laws are not static because people are not static. We change from decade to decade, and from locale to locale. While it is important to adhere to the Declaration of Independence’s statement that “all men are created equal,” and thus should have equal rights, not all times are created equal, and thus should not have equal laws.
This is a generally acceptable response. The writer presents an unequivocal answer to the question and uses some good vocabulary (“macabre,” “vicariously”). In addition, the length is good, with three well-organized examples.
However, the examples are out of scope. The money, time, and energy spent watching McVeigh’s execution isn’t relevant to changing laws. It’s not clear why wars and social upheavals mandate a change in laws, or during which times the laws or the enforcement changed. And the speed limit differences in differently populated areas aren’t shown to have changed; they are shown to be different.
The essay has additional weaknesses that prevent it from receiving a higher score, such as instances of inappropriate humor (“my apologies to the Podunkians!”). Although minor grammatical flaws are acceptable, “less executions” should be “fewer executions” and therefore isn’t acceptable. The essay also contains too many typos and spelling and capitalization errors, including perpetated instead of perpetuated, tv instead of TV or television, argueing instead of arguing, and Society instead of society.
Pause reading and write your practice essay. Then, check your notes and outline against the following information and insights that I provide. In the following sections, I present some of the faulty assumptions included in the argument.
This particular essay prompt tells you to analyze the argument’s stated or implied assumptions. The essay you wrote is a product of whatever you identified as stated or implied assumptions. If you had trouble getting started with your essay, you probably had difficulty identifying the faulty assumptions, which include the following:
Of course, you can’t write on all of these. You can mention them, but with the time you have, only explore the best two or three.
The marketing director suggests that the news station should stop airing all editorials because viewership decreases when the managing editor presents a perspective on an issue at the end of the newscast. The memo argues that the managing editor’s editorial drives viewers away, and that when people don’t watch the end of the newscast, the station loses advertising revenue. More information is needed to support these assumptions, such as the reasons why viewers leave at the end of the program, what the viewers would watch at the end of the newscast, and the reliability of the feedback on the editorial content.
First, the marketing director recommends that the station stop the editorials at the end of newscasts because people are turning off what is currently offered. However, it is not known why viewers leave or change the channel. They could be flipping to watch The Evening Show on another channel, or they could be turning the TV off to put their kids to bed, so regardless of whether the news station runs an editorial, viewership could be lost. Furthermore, halting the editorials may alienate the viewers who like the editorial and continue watching. It could be that the viewers who continue watching through the editorial will stop watching the news program altogether if this change is made. Before changing the content of the news program, it would be wise for the marketing director to find out why some viewers leave and whether the remaining viewers look forward to the editorial.
Second, the marketing director claims that the time devoted to the current editorial could be sold to advertisers. The director assumes, then, that people who turn off the television or switch stations when the managing editor comes on will not do so when an advertisement comes on in the editorial’s place. However, this is not a reliable assumption. If viewers stop watching the station when they know the news is over, they will probably still stop watching when commercials come on instead of the editorial. Furthermore, when advertisers find out that people are not watching their commercials, they may cancel their contracts. The marketing director would be well advised to find out what compels viewers to keep watching, before replacing the editorial segment with an ad segment.
Finally, the marketing director notes that “viewers have complained” that editorials are best read in the newspaper, not seen on television. Do these complaining viewers speak for the others? As with any survey, the response is only valid if the sample is representative of the general population. In other words, the marketing director assumes that these complaining viewers are representative of all the station’s viewers. It could be that they represent a specific segment that favors newspapers. The marketing director also fails to mention how numerous these viewers are and does not include information about viewers who have expressed the opposite opinion. Viewer feedback should be taken seriously, but before acting upon a recommendation from a random group, the marketing director needs to find out whether this feedback is shared by the general viewing population.
Therefore, to improve the argument, the marketing director needs to find answers to the questions raised above, including whether viewers would turn off any kind of editorial at the end of a newscast. The director needs to demonstrate that viewers would continue to watch advertisements after the presentation of news, and the director should also investigate whether the comments are representative of the viewing audience. It is not recommended that the TV station take any action before finding these answers.
This very strong response presents a coherent, well-organized, direct analysis that introduces and fully develops the various points. The essay writer identifies three central gaps in knowledge that weaken or even undermine the argument, and explores them sufficiently to remove any doubt that these bring valid questions that need to be answered. Finally, the writer summarizes these key points in a brief but complete conclusion. The language, grammar, spelling, and general writing skills also contribute to the excellence of this essay.
The argument presented in this memo is relatively well-reasoned, although flawed in some aspects. The primary weakness, in my opinion, is found at the beginning, where the memo states, “Our research has shown… .” without specifying what that research is. Did someone poll viewers who regularly watched the show? Did someone send out a questionnaire which was returned only by a small percentage of people, some of whom did not regularly watch the news? How were the questions phrased by the researcher (as we all know, a question can easily beg a desired answer, be skewed so as to direct the response in the direction the questioner wants it to go). A good argument will state the basis for the conclusions it makes.
The argument lacks specifics. Nowhere does the memo say why the viewers switch stations. Maybe they don’t like that particular managing editor. The station can experiment by having the editorials read by others on the staff, by reporters, or even by the public at large. There are some stations where I live that do that, have local people at the end of the newscasts tell their opinions. Many of my friends, at least, tune in to watch what their peers have to say.
Is the purpose of the last few minutes of a newscast to sell ads? Maybe, if there were no editorial, there would be an extra two minutes of news reporting, not of advertisements. There are already so many ads in a newscast as it is; more would possibly alienate the viewers even more than the editorial does. Also, I believe there is an FCC mandate as to how many minutes per hour or half hour can be commercials, at least in prime time. If the station didn’t have the editorial, but ran commercials, they may exceed this limit.
This response is adequate. The organization is acceptable, although it would be improved by the use of transitional phrases. The writer comes close to nailing the points but doesn’t quite do so. The start of the second paragraph reads, “Nowhere does the memo say why the viewers switch stations.” That the research, not the memo, indicates viewers switch stations notwithstanding, I was expecting the writer to hit the nail on the head with “We don’t know why viewers switch stations, so we can’t attribute it to the editorial.” Instead, the author speculates as to why viewers switch, proposes an evaluation of the managing editor and editorial, and then follows up with a digression about the writer’s own local news stations.
The essay digresses again from its main focus by discussing the FCC mandate, but this is out of scope. The purpose of the essay is to evaluate the assumptions, not discuss the laws of broadcasting. While the FCC mandate and the author’s own local news stations might be relevant in an editorial meeting, they are off topic and distract from the purpose of this Analysis of an Argument. Finally, the lack of a coherent conclusion makes this paper a weak 4.