Chapter 13

Deconstructing Sample GMAT Essays

IN THIS CHAPTER

check Clarifying GMAT AWA scores

check Analyzing sample argument essays

This chapter defines analytical writing assessment (AWA) scores for you and provides you with some sample GMAT AWA essays so you can see what these babies look like and apply some elements of the examples to your own writing. By deconstructing sample essays to figure out what makes for a great essay per GMAT standards, you’ll have a much better chance of constructing great essays of your own.

Defining GMAT AWA Scores

The difference between an essay that’s simply adequate and one that’s outstanding comes down to a few important factors. Here’s how the GMAT differentiates among essays that score 4, 5, and 6, based on analysis and organization:

An outstanding essay (score 6) thoroughly analyzes and evaluates an argument and addresses whether the case the author makes is logically sound. The analysis uses logical reasoning to identify any flaws in the argument and offers insight as to how to minimize or eliminate these flaws. The essay is thorough and organized.
A strong essay (score 5) still offers a powerful, well-reasoned analysis, but it may not be as insightful as an outstanding (score 6) essay. The essay contains well-chosen examples for support and is also well organized, though it’s likely not as tightly organized as an outstanding essay.
An adequate essay (score 4) offers a competent analysis of an argument. This essay interprets the strength and validity of an argument made by another and supports its points with relevant examples. The analysis may not be particularly well developed, but the fact that the essay shows competence in at least attempting to validate or disprove the assertions of another distinguishes it from lower-scoring essays.

Here’s how the GMAT distinguishes among the top three scores based on quality of writing:

An outstanding essay (score 6) demonstrates superior control of the language and employs a variety of grammatically accurate and detailed sentences. This essay uses effective transitions. Although the essay may have a few minor errors, it generally reflects a superior ability in grammar, usage, and mechanics of standard written English.
A strong essay (score 5) is similar to an outstanding essay, but the sentences may not have quite as much variety, and the choice of words may not convey as much detail. This essay employs transitions but not as effectively as an outstanding essay. This essay may have a few minor errors but reflects a facility for grammar, usage, and mechanics.
An adequate essay (score 4) lacks sentence variety and, although the diction may be accurate, the word choice isn’t particularly detailed or precise. This essay may employ transitions, but they’re likely to be somewhat abrupt. The adequate essay reflects a familiarity with standard written English but may contain several minor errors or a few more-serious flaws.

In addition to the top three possible scores, four lower scores reflect flaws of differing magnitudes. We give less time to describing these categories, because after you’ve read Chapters 11 and 12 and practiced writing essays for the exam, you aren’t likely to produce one of these lower scores on the GMAT:

A limited essay (score 3) is like an adequate paper in most respects, but it’s clearly flawed in one or more areas. This essay may make an ineffective interpretation of the argument; lack organization; fail to present relevant examples; have problems in sentence structure; or contain errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics numerous enough to interfere with conveying meaning.
A seriously flawed essay (score 2) demonstrates more significant errors than a limited essay. It may fail to properly follow the directions stated in the prompt, lack any semblance of organization, neglect to provide any examples, have serious problems with language or sentence structure, and contain errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics that seriously interfere with meaning.
A fundamentally deficient essay (score 1) provides little evidence of the ability to effectively interpret the strength of the argument in the prompt. This essay may also have grave and pervasive writing errors that seriously interfere with the meaning of the essay.
A no-score essay (score 0) is blank, completely off topic, or not written in English.

Taking a Look at Sample Essays

The task for the analytical writing assessment is to analyze an argument. The prompt asks you to write an essay that uses logical reasoning to critique an argument made by another. Its focus is how well you evaluate an argument instead of what your own views and opinions may be on a particular topic. In the following sections, we provide sample essay prompts as well as sample essay responses and walk you through the elements of an effective, well-written response. You’ll find more opportunities to turn your logical reasoning powers into outstanding essays in the practice tests included with this book.

Sample essay #1

If you have an extra 30 minutes just lying around, you can take the time to analyze the essay prompt in this section and write a full essay before you read the sample response we provide. If not, at least take five minutes before you read the sample essay to create a quick outline, using Steps 1 through 6 from Chapter 12. Read the instructions following the argument very carefully, and remember: The idea here is to analyze the given argument, not create your own. Here’s the sample prompt:

The following appeared as part of an editorial in a business newsletter:

“Gasoline prices continue to hover at record levels, and increased demand from China and India assures that the days of one dollar per gallon gasoline are over. Continued threat of unrest in the oil-producing regions of the Middle East, Africa, and South America means a perpetual threat to the U.S. oil supply. American leaders have acknowledged the need for new sources of power to fuel the hundreds of millions of cars and trucks in America. Despite this acknowledgment, the U.S. government has yet to provide substantial funding for this important research. Officials are relying on private industry and university researchers to undertake this research that is vital to the economy and national security. Given the long interval before new technologies are likely to become profitable and the tremendous cost, research into new fuels will be successful only if funded by the U.S. government using taxpayer funds.”
Examine this argument and present your judgment on how well reasoned it is. In your discussion, analyze the author’s position and how well the author uses evidence to support the argument. For example, you may question the author’s underlying assumptions or consider alternative explanations that may weaken the conclusion. You can also provide additional support for or arguments against the author’s position, describe how stating the argument differently may make it more reasonable, and discuss what provisions may better equip you to evaluate its thesis.

After you’ve attempted your own response to the prompt, read through this sample:

The author of this editorial presents the idea that the development of new technology for fueling the automobiles of America is an absolutely necessary project and provides substantial evidence to support this claim, for example, the rising price of gasoline, the swelling demand for oil in overseas markets, and warning signs of turbulence and instability in oil-producing countries. However, the author has not provided much evidence for or reasoning behind the statement that the U.S. government should fund this research and instead relies on certain assumptions about the reader’s level of background knowledge about the issues.
The editorial states that it will take a long time and a lot of expense to develop these new technologies, but the argument fails to include evidence of this. The author is making the assumption that readers will know that private companies and universities have been working for decades on projects such as hydrogen fuel cells, bio-diesel, ethanol, and electric cars. The editorial would be much stronger if it included one or two sentences on the fact that each of these technologies is feasible and that with increased funding could be brought rapidly to market.
Furthermore, it is suggested that the development of new fuel technologies is “vital to the economy and national security” of the U.S., but this statement is neither explained nor substantiated. It seems to me that if a greater amount of government funding is dedicated to scientific research, the budgets of other programs and departments will have to be cut, which could have serious negative impacts on national security, and possibly also the economy. If the editorial were to compare the hundreds of millions needed to fund research into alternatives to oil with the hundreds of billions spent each year on national security, then the argument would be stronger.
Clearly, the author of this editorial has made several assumptions about his/her readers, the most important probably being that readers of this business newsletter are familiar with this issue and will be able to provide the details of government funding and alternative fuel research lacking in the editorial. The evidence that the author does provide is strong. The editorial’s conclusions seem valid. However, the editorial lacks the necessary foundation of facts and reasoning that would demonstrate, for example, why funding alternative fuel research now will allow new fuel technologies to gradually replace dependence on oil before a crisis hits.
This editorial discusses a very important issue and raises the critical subject of government funding for research into alternative fuels. However, the author has not provided much evidence or reasoning behind the conclusion that the U.S. government should fund this research.

Discussion of sample essay #1

This response is well developed and clearly articulated. The essay begins with a very strong introductory paragraph that develops the position, credits the editorial’s strong points, and then clearly states the thesis that the author has made too many assumptions and not provided the necessary evidence. From the start, this essay appears to merit at least a 4.5.

The middle three paragraphs provide specific examples of assumptions that the editorial makes and indicate how the author could strengthen the argument. The first example is the assumption that the reader will know that alternative fuel technologies take a long time to develop. This essay provides the specific examples that the editorial itself lacked. The next paragraph discusses the claim that the economy and national security depend on alternative fuels. This is probably the weakest paragraph in the essay. The essay sidesteps the editorial’s point when the essay turns to the issue of reducing the budgets of other programs. Still, this is a well-written paragraph that does offer valid suggestions for strengthening the editorial. The fourth paragraph ties everything together by pointing out the specific assumptions that the editorial is making about its readers. This paragraph demonstrates the sophistication of the essay by pointing out the editorial’s intended audience, the weaknesses of the assumptions it makes, its strengths, and finally, ways to make the editorial better.

This essay is strong because it’s specific and well developed. The essay singles out particular points in the editorial and explains not only the weaknesses of those points but also ways to make them stronger. It provides a clear introduction and thesis statement. The conclusion is brief and fulfills its purpose of restating the thesis. The diction used in this essay is precise and descriptive. The sentences are simple but varied, and they mostly demonstrate active rather than passive voice. There are no obvious errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics. This essay overall would likely garner a 5 but definitely nothing lower than a 4.5.

Sample essay #2

Here’s another prompt for you to try. Again, if possible, attempt your own essay before you read through the sample response; if you don’t have time to write an entire essay, take at least five minutes to create a quick outline, using Steps 1 through 6 from Chapter 12.

The following is an excerpt from an editorial that appeared in a periodical dedicated to education topics:

“The most important factor in choosing a career should be the potential salary. It all comes down to quality of life. A high salary ensures that you’ll be able to pay your bills, live in a nice house, drive a nice car, and afford a comfortable, enjoyable lifestyle that’s sure to be the envy of your friends. This is most easily achieved by securing a job with the highest salary possible. Well-paid positions like those of doctors, lawyers, and architects are important to society, well respected, and profitable, so these are the types of positions you should shoot for. While many believe it is important to find a job that you enjoy first and foremost, if that job doesn’t pay well, you’ll be faced with numerous stresses and hardships sure to affect your overall quality of life and you will ultimately come to regret not prioritizing financial stability above all else.”
Examine this argument and present your judgment on how well reasoned it is. In your discussion, analyze the author’s position and how well the author uses evidence to support the argument. For example, you may question the author’s underlying assumptions or consider alternative explanations that may weaken the conclusion. You can also provide additional support for or arguments against the author’s position, describe how stating the argument differently may make it more reasonable, and discuss what provisions may better equip you to evaluate its thesis.

Attempt your own response to the prompt, and then read through the following sample essay:

The author of this essay clearly states his belief that, when choosing a career path, earning potential is paramount. While he offers a number of reasons as to why he feels this way, such as an improved overall quality of life, a comfortable home, and the ability to impress your friends, his arguments are based on generalizations and assumptions about what others value most in life and the overall strength of his stance suffers as a result.
For example, the author “ensures” the reader that a high salary will enable them to live a lavish lifestyle and a life of little stress and strife. Yet he doesn’t take into account the fact that high-paying jobs are also often high-demand, sometimes at the expense of a happy marriage, quality time with the kids, or simply time to kick back and relax.
Furthermore, he is assuming that happiness is achieved through material comforts, such as a fancy house and car, but he fails to recognize that his idea of happiness is not necessarily shared by the rest of the population. Nor does he consider other ways of finding happiness, like, say, helping others or finding a way to make a difference in the world.
Throughout the essay, a fundamental problem with the author’s reasoning is his assumption that his readers share his feelings as to what is most valuable in life. Even when he acknowledges the fact that others feel that finding a career you enjoy should be top priority, he fails to devote any time or attention to the notion that one can feel “rich” even without a thick wallet and flashy car if they’re able to engage in a career that they find fulfilling and gratifying.
While the author of this essay is sure to make his personal stance known in regard to what’s most important in choosing a career, he fails to offer concrete evidence or devote sufficient attention as to why what is true for him fails to be true for the masses.

Discussion of sample essay #2

How do you think this essay would likely score? The essay asserts early on that the author in the prompt fails to acknowledge the fundamental differences as to what constitutes happiness and backs this up with examples and reasoning, so it’s unlikely to receive a score below 4.

The response refutes the author’s assertions that happiness is achieved through finding a job with the highest possible salary and backs this up with examples, such as the fact that high-paying jobs are frequently also high-stress and that other areas of one’s life are often neglected. The essay also argues against the claim that material goods are the key to quality of life by noting that one person’s opinion of what constitutes a high quality of life isn’t necessarily true for someone else. To improve the quality of the supporting examples, the author could have been more specific, and she could have provided more compelling evidence for her point by referring to individuals in the public spotlight. For example, the author could have talked about the recent nervous breakdown of a wealthy celebrity to show that wealth doesn’t necessarily lead to a stress-free life. And the author could have supplemented her assertion that money doesn’t buy happiness by expounding on the fulfilling life of Mother Teresa.

Generally, the essay makes its points, using strong, concise English with few grammatical errors, although the concluding paragraph is constructed as one long sentence that would read more clearly if it were broken down into two. And the author includes a couple of pronouns that don’t agree in number with their references. For example, the author uses the plural pronoun they to refer to the singular noun one in “… one can feel ‘rich’ even without a thick wallet and flashy car if they’re able to engage in a career that they find fulfilling and gratifying.” The essay also paraphrases the same general idea several times when it discusses the idea that the author of the prompt’s idea of happiness differs from that of others. This essay would likely score a solid 4 or, possibly, as high as a 5.

Compare what you’ve written in response to the prompt to the sample essay. Evaluate your masterpiece and ask yourself how it measures up to — and perhaps accomplishes more than! — the sample. Use your evaluation to perfect your writing achievement.

Sample essay #3

Read through this prompt and attempt your own essay before you read through the sample response. If you don’t have time to write an entire essay, take at least five minutes to create a quick outline, using Steps 1 through 6 from Chapter 12.

The following is an excerpt from an editorial that appeared in a local city newspaper:

“Some cities have enacted bans on pit bull breeds that prohibit city residents from owning dogs that fall under the ‘pit bull’ umbrella, and other cities across the nation should follow suit as a matter of public safety. Given that statistics show that three-quarters of all dog-inflicted deaths involve either pit bulls or Rottweilers, which many also consider a ‘bully’ breed, it is undeniable that these animals are unnecessarily dangerous. They are also widely abused, which contributes, at least in part, to their aggressive nature. Some pit bull owners say banning an entire breed is essentially racial profiling for dogs, but what if one type of person was responsible for three-quarters of all murders in the country? Such people should not be able to roam free and endanger whomever they like, and neither should pit bulls.”
Examine this argument and present your judgment on how well reasoned it is. In your discussion, analyze the author’s position and how well the author uses evidence to support the argument. For example, you may question the author’s underlying assumptions or consider alternative explanations that may weaken the conclusion. You can also provide additional support for or arguments against the author’s position, describe how stating the argument differently may make it more reasonable, and discuss what provisions may better equip you to evaluate its thesis.

A sample response to this prompt may read like this:

Though the argument made in the prompt starts out strong by referencing key statistics about the dangers associated with pit bulls, it falters somewhat later on, when the author tries to consider the arguments of those who are against implementing pit bull bans. The fact that the author references a pit bull ban that is already in effect in a major U.S. city seems to add some validity to the overall argument against the breed, and the statistics about the percentage of canine-inflicted deaths in America offer a solid argument about why a ban might be a good idea.
The author then falters a bit when trying to drive home the point that pit bulls are also violent and dangerous because they are widely abused. While this may or may not be true, it would have strengthened the author’s argument and made he or she seem more convincing if additional statistics about abuse were included here, as they were in the section regarding canine-related fatalities. Even without formal statistics, this section of the prompt would have benefitted from additional clarification about the connection between abusive owners and aggressive pit bulls.
The holes in the author’s argument become increasingly apparent when he or she notes that ban opponents often compare the act of banning certain dog breeds to racial profiling. The author tries to make the point that if a certain “type” of human was responsible for the majority of all murders, that “type” of person would likely be banned, too. But the author fails to further clarify what he or she means by “type,” leaving it open to interpretation and scrutiny. Is the author referencing people of a certain race, nationality or color? Or a person with a certain type of personality trait, or hair color? Without further explanation, this argument falls flat, and the author is therefore unable to effectively refute the arguments of pit bull-ban advocates. Because of this failure to effectively address the other side, the strength of the entire argument suffers.

Discussion of sample essay #3

At first glance, this response appears relatively strong. It has no glaring spelling errors and just a couple grammatical problems, and each paragraph transitions well to the next. Additionally, the author of the response takes the time to discuss both the strengths and downfalls of the editorial and back up his opinions with thoughtful reasoning. Based off this alone, the response will likely warrant a score that comes in somewhere around a 5.

The response summarizes its content in the first few lines, giving the reader an idea that the writer plans to further develop key points, such as how the initial editorial relied on statistics to strengthen its argument, later on. The writer also mentions that while the original editorial certainly had its merits, it is not without flaws, again referring to areas of the essay that would be more closely dissected further along in the content.

This response is also likely to receive a high score because the author not only points out where he believes the editorial is flawed — such as when it fails to establish a strong connection between abusive owners and aggressive pit bulls — but also because he offers ideas for how it might be strengthened (by adding strong, clarifying information about the perceived connection and including additional statistics specific to abusive owners). The response to the original editorial is also thoughtful in that it analyzes the editorial’s consideration of the other side of the argument. The editorial notes that pit bull owners often equate breed bans to racial profiling, but it makes a weak argument about why this should not be the case. The response identifies this weakness and references it when assessing the overall strength of the original argument. Because the response’s author carefully considered the strengths and weaknesses of the editorial and avoided grammatical and spelling errors, this essay would likely score high.

Sample essay #4

Here is yet another prompt for you to analyze. Create a response and then read through the sample essay that follows.

The following is an excerpt from a promotional brochure for an online dating service:

“Technology and social media are intended to better-connect society and enable us as humans to maintain relationships we may otherwise not be able. However, many people try to argue that what it is really doing is inserting more wedges between us socially by limiting face-to-face interaction and keeping our faces in our phones. When it comes to forming strong relationships with other people, though, why are relationships that develop online considered any less valid than those conceived through in-person interaction? Some online relationships might actually prove stronger than those that are developed by more traditional means, because people may be more apt to reveal their true selves from behind a screen than they would otherwise. Technology also helps those who might be shy or antisocial come out of their shells by taking away the stresses associated with real human interaction, so it can actually strengthen rather than weaken social relationships.”
Examine this argument and present your judgment on how well reasoned it is. In your discussion, analyze the author’s position and how well the author uses evidence to support the argument. For example, you may question the author’s underlying assumptions or consider alternative explanations that may weaken the conclusion. You can also provide additional support for or arguments against the author’s position, describe how stating the argument differently may make it more reasonable, and discuss what provisions may better equip you to evaluate its thesis.

Read through the following sample essay in response to this prompt to see how it compares with your masterpiece.

The author of the prompt is thoughtful in his or her discussion of whether technology and social media make us less connected as a society, and he or she makes a number of strong points when supporting the argument that these resources do not, in fact, weaken social relationships. That being said, there are a number of areas in which I think the argument might have benefitted from some additional input or material.
One such area where the author might have strengthened the prompt would be at the beginning, by plainly stating his or her belief that technology does not weaken social relationships. Instead, the prompt’s author “beats around the bush,” so to speak. Rather than clearly state his or her opinion right off the bat and then use arguments and key points to back up the assertion, the editorial author instead starts out by refuting some of the arguments in favor of technology hindering personal relationships. He or she begins by saying, “Technology and social media are intended …” which actually reveals very little about his or her own personal take on the matter. While refuting the opposition’s arguments is certainly important, it might have been better if this was done further on in the initial argument, after a “thesis” statement-of-sorts based on the author’s own opinions had been clearly stated.
As for the argument’s strengths, the author made some strong points about why technology and social media may help some people build social bridges — it’s just a little regrettable that these points didn’t come up until almost the end of the argument. Such points included the arguments about shy people perhaps feeling more at ease behind a computer screen, and the notion that some people were more comfortable discussing serious, emotional matters via a computer than through face-to-face interaction.

Discussion of sample essay #4

This essay presents a clear, concise assessment of the initial prompt’s strengths and weaknesses, and it does so with few, if any, spelling or grammatical errors along the way. It is apparent that the essay author took the time to consider the information provided in the original prompt and suggest that the argument may have been stronger had it made its case earlier.

For example, the essay author points out that the editorial’s author failed to promptly state his or her own opinion on whether technology and social media ruin relationships. Though it quickly becomes apparent that he or she does not feel online socialization is a bad thing, the essay writer was convinced the impact would have been greater if the prompt author’s personal opinion had been made clear from the outset.

The essay author did, however, take the time to point out where the argument in the prompt was particularly strong, and she called out a few key examples of such arguments, indicating strong comprehension and a convincingness on the part of the prompt author, even if the essay author didn’t necessarily agree with the prompt’s stance.

One area where the author might have strengthened their critique would have been to not only point out that the prompt’s “… argument might have benefitted from some additional input or material,” but to actually provide some suggestions for such material. For example, the essay author could have suggested the use of statistics or survey results pertaining to the connection between interconnectedness and social media, or added additional arguments not made in the prompt to support the same stance. Because the essay author took a thoughtful approach when writing her essay and analyzed much of the content of the original editorial while demonstrating strong writing skills, this essay would likely score a 3.