Chapter 15

Practicing Analytical Writing and Sample Essays

In This Chapter

Creating a realistic setting for writing your sample essays

Composing an Analyze an Issue essay

Composing an Analyze an Argument essay

Knowing how to write an essay and actually writing one on the day of the test are two entirely different things. In this chapter, you have an opportunity to put into practice everything I cover in Chapter 14 and write essays that are likely to earn high scores.

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 sample essays (one good, one sort of good, and one poor) along with evaluator comments, so you can gauge how well you feel you did, comparatively speaking, and have a clearer idea of what evaluators look for.

Practicing the essays is crucial to writing well under pressure, finishing in the allotted time, and avoiding writer’s block that can sap your energy. Write both essays — the Analyze an Issue and the Analyze an Argument essays — giving yourself 30 minutes each, so you have a good feel for what each type of essay entails. After you’re done writing, read through the sample essays and evaluator comments so you know what separates an outstanding essay from a poor one.

Setting the Stage for a Realistic Experience

To make your practice session more like what you’ll experience on test day, set the stage by doing the following:

Write your essay on a computer rather than by hand. Typing on a computer more effectively simulates the actual test-taking experience. You’re more likely to make typos and other careless errors when you type compared to writing by hand.

Turn off your word processor’s spelling and grammar checking features. The word processor you’ll use during the actual test doesn’t correct or even check for grammar and spelling errors or typos. You can turn these features back on after writing your essay to identify any errors. (If you have a Windows PC, using Notepad is similar to the program the GRE uses.)

Set your timer for 30 minutes per essay, but if time runs out, go ahead and finish the essay anyway. You still have to practice writing the end of the essay, and the practice will help you write faster next time. Also, keep track of the extra time you needed, so you know how much faster you need to work on test day.

Don’t skip ahead and read the essays or evaluations before writing your own essay. Doing so gives you an unfair advantage and an unrealistic experience. Read the directions followed by the issue or argument and then immediately write your essay. If you’re not very impressed with your own essay after reading the samples and commentary, you may rewrite your essay for additional practice. Unfortunately, you don’t get a second chance on the actual GRE.

Writing an Analyze an Issue Essay: Some Samples

Directions: Write an essay in response to the following statement in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement. Explain your reasoning in a clear, well-organized essay that supports your position. Consider both sides of the issue when developing your response.

“Because society is always changing, laws should always change to reflect the times as well. In addition, laws should be open to interpretation based on the facts of each individual circumstance.”

In the following sections are three sample essays based on this Issue topic, presented from best (with a score of 6) to worst (with a score of 2). Following each sample essay are evaluator comments that explain reasons for the score.

Sample essay — score 6 (outstanding)

My French grandmother was fond of saying, “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” which roughly means that the more something seems to change, the more it actually remains the same. This saying is appropriate when considering the laws of our nation. By changing or updating laws and statutes, by being flexible in their interpretation, we fundamentally remain the same: We continue to be fair and just, as the creators of the laws intended. In law, considering the spirit of the law is often necessary before creating the letter of the law.

A prime example of the need for flexibility is the Three Strikes Law in California. This law is paraphrased as “Three strikes, you’re out!” by police officials and other law-enforcement personnel who have supported it whole-heartedly. The law states that a person who previously has been convicted of two crimes will be sent to prison for life when convicted of a third crime. Newspapers are fond of reporting stories of a transient who receives a life sentence for stealing a candy bar from a gas station, or a young man who goes to prison for life for smoking a marijuana joint in public. Although one may argue there are, in fact, incorrigible criminals, ones who will continue to commit crime after crime despite all legal deterrents, common sense would dictate that spending twenty, thirty, or even fifty years in prison is not a suitable punishment for stealing a 59-cent bag of chips.

Some laws have never changed, yet they are rarely enforced. Every time a new law goes into effect, news reporters present human-interest stories about unusual laws that have ­officially never been repealed. There is the example of “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.” Every state and every county has a number of these laws that newspapers and television stations trot out occasionally for the amusement of the audiences on slow news days. Ridding our legal system of such pointless laws would be another helpful outcome of a flexible approach to the law.

And what should we make of the so-called “Blue Laws,” laws that attempt to mandate morality? In certain counties, it’s illegal to sell or purchase alcoholic beverages on Sunday. In the county in Indiana where I grew up, it was against the law to dance on Sundays. Of course, no one ever enforced that statute; it was simply a curiosity. The question is raised, therefore, do we need to enact new laws, rescind the old ones, or practice a policy of benign neglect, simply not enforcing those laws we consider unnecessary? And if we neglect certain laws, who gets to choose which laws are enforced and which are ignored? By being more flexible in the passage and creation of the laws, we are able to avoid this dilemma.

Many years ago, England had two court systems: The courts of law (which is why lawyers are called “attorneys at law”) and the courts of equity. The courts of equity attempted to “make known the King’s conscience,” showing mercy and treating cases equitably even when such treatment was against the law. Both courts were merged years ago but leave a legacy of flexibility and moral justice in their interpretation of the law. A legal system that cannot change with the times will not survive, and a legal system that will not treat cases fairly and justly should not survive.

Evaluator comments on the score 6 essay

This essay presents an excellent answer to the question. The writer uses interesting, intriguing comments (such as the opening with the grandmother’s French saying); strong, evocative vocabulary (such as “incorrigible” and “trot out”); and a good variety of sentence structures. (The use of the occasional question was particularly effective.)

The writer’s opinion is clear from the start and is supported by well-reasoned and thoroughly developed examples. The three examples are separated, yet they flow together well via the use of good transitions. The ending is perhaps a bit dramatic, but leaves no doubt as to the author’s opinion.

Sample essay — score 4 (adequate)

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 even more liberal attitudes towards drugs enable people to use them legally, as in the case of glaucoma or AIDS patients who smoke pot.

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.

Evaluator comments on the score 4 essay

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 whether 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” isn’t one of them.

Sample essay — score 2 (seriously flawed)

“Because Society is always changing, laws should always change to reflect the times as well.” This is a very true statement. Nothing ever remains exacly the same, and things change all the time. Isn’t it logical to think that the laws should change as people and other situations change? My example the American society. We are much more ethnical diverse than we were a generation or two ago, and our laws have guaranteed this diversity. Old laws said that, for example, African-American people were not allowed in certain clubs or given certain jobs and this of course was wrong. Now there are laws to show how Society has changed and accepted this variety of people. Maybe someday there will be laws needed to protect White people who can’t get jobs neither.

“In addition, laws should be open to interpretation based on the facts of each individual circumstance.” This also is true. What about car accidents? If a person has an honest accident and hits and kills someone because he just lost control, that’s a lot different than if he has been drunk and lost control that way and killed someone. It’s not fair to send someone to prison for life because he had one horrible minute, but maybe it is fair to send someone to prison for life because he made the choice to drink and drive, the wrong choice.

In conclusion, I agree totally with both parts of the statement above. People need to realize that our Society changes and because laws are meant to protect Society, those laws must also change, too.

Evaluator comments on the score 2 essay

The writer presents a clear response to the question, both at the beginning and the end of the essay. The writer, however, simply repeats the issue and makes a general statement of agreement.

Although a few examples are given to support the writer’s opinion, the organization of the essay isn’t developed well. The writer makes the comment that, “Now there are laws to show how Society has changed. . . .” The quality of the essay would be improved were the writer to add more examples and explain each example more fully. The closing statement in the second paragraph appears to introduce a new topic, which isn’t fully covered.

Poor spelling (“exacly”) and grammar (“much more ethnical diverse”) hurt the response as well. Although the writer’s opinion is still understandable, these errors contribute to the low score.

Writing an Analyze an Argument Essay: Some Samples

Directions: Write a response to the following argument that analyzes its stated or implied assumptions, reveals how the argument’s position depends on the assumptions, and explains the effect of any flawed assumptions on the argument’s validity.

The following appeared in an in-house memo sent from a marketing director to the editorial department of a television news station.

“Our research shows that when the news director comes on screen at the end of the newscast to present his perspective on an issue, many viewers switch stations or turn off the television entirely. Besides losing viewers, which lowers our ability to charge top dollar for advertising spots, we are wasting extra time that we could be filling with more ads. In addition, people tell us that they feel editorials are best read in the newspaper, not heard on television. Therefore, we recommend stopping all editorials at the ends of newscasts.”

In the following sections are three sample essays written in response to this Argument, presented from best (with a score of 6) to worst (with a score of 2). Following each sample essay are evaluator comments that explain reasons for the score.

Sample essay — score 6 (outstanding)

The marketing director concludes that the news station should stop all editorials because viewership decreases when the news director presents his perspective on an issue at the end of the newscast. The memo argues that when people don’t watch the end of the newscast, the station loses advertising revenue.

The conclusion is based on a number of questionable assumptions. First, the director recommends that the station stop all editorials at the end of newscasts because people are turning off what is currently offered. By proposing that the station eliminate all editorials, the memo assumes that viewers would not watch any kind of editorial. It could be that viewers simply don’t like the news director or are turned off by the “perspective on an issue” format.

Second, the director claims that the time devoted to the current editorial could be sold to advertisers. He assumes, then, that people who turn off the television or switch stations when the news director comes on will not do so when an advertisement comes on in the editorial’s place. If viewers stop watching the station when they know the news is over, they will probably do the same when commercials come on instead of the editorial. When advertisers find out that people are not watching their commercials, they will pay the station less.

Third, the director notes that people tell the station’s marketing team that editorials are best read in the newspaper, not heard on television. As with any survey, this finding assumes that the people who are saying these things are representative of the larger population. In other words, the marketing department assumes that these “people” are representative of the station’s viewers. The memo is vague about the identity of these people. Perhaps they are not viewers at all and, therefore, cannot be used to represent the television viewing audience. The director also fails to mention how numerous these people are and does not include any information about how many people may have expressed the opposite opinion to the marketing team. An analogous situation: Just because some people support a political candidate does not mean that others don’t prefer somebody else. In addition, the people who said that editorials are best read in the newspaper could have been people who are more oriented towards reading and writing. There is a good chance that these people wrote letters to the station. If station employees had called viewers during the newscast, they may have received many responses claiming that editorials are better to watch on TV than read.

Finally, that director bases his argument on making money for the news station. This proposal assumes that the purpose of a news station is to make money. The editorials may not generate as much advertising revenue as other television presentations would, but the editorials are better to include if one assumes that the purpose of a news station is to inform viewers and stimulate their thinking.

To improve the argument, the news director needs to address the above issues. He needs evidence that shows that viewers would turn off any kind of editorial at the end of the newscast. He also needs to demonstrate that viewers would watch advertisements after the presentation of news. He should also clarify how the marketing team received the comments about editorials in newspapers. Ideally, the director should show that such comments were generated by a scientific survey of people who actually watch the news station. The director should also articulate that the primary aim of the news station is to attract viewers and generate revenue.

Evaluator comments on the score 6 essay

This very strong response presents a coherent, well-organized, direct analysis that introduces and fully develops the various points. It identifies four central issues that weaken or even undermine the argument, and it supports each point with evidence before summarizing in a brief conclusion. The language, grammar, spelling, and general writing skills also contribute to the excellence of this essay.

Sample essay — score 4 (adequate)

This editorial 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 questionaire 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 the answer, be skewed so as to direct the response in the direction the questioner wants it to go). A good editorial will state the basis for the conclusions it makes.

The argument has inspecificity. Nowhere does the editorial say why the viewers switch stations. Maybe they don’t like that particular news director. 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 commericials, they may acceed this limit.

Evaluator comments on the score 4 essay

This response is adequate. The organization is acceptable, although it would be improved by the use of transitional phrases. The writer appears to have a basic understanding of the argument but doesn’t fully develop his comments except in a personal vein.

The writer seems to come close to nailing the points, but doesn’t quite do so. The start of the second paragraph says, “Nowhere does the editorial say why the viewers switch stations.” That the research, not the editorial, 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 news director and editorial, then follows up with a digression about his own local news stations. While these points might be relevant in an editorial meeting, they neither support nor weaken the argument.

Finally, the lack of a coherent conclusion shifts this paper from a possible 5 to a 4.

Sample essay — score 2 (seriously flawed)

The reasoning in this arguement is not well-reasoned. The writer didn’t convince me of their point at all. He doesn’t talk about the possibility of moving the editorial, maybe putting the perspective at the beginning of the newscast, when people are probly more interested than at the end when they’ve already heard everything they tuned in for. He doesn’t say anything about maybe having the editorials paid for by an advertisement. He doesn’t cover the possibility of the fact that the government considers some editorials public service anouncements. He doesn’t go into enough detail to make a good case on anything.

If I was the memo-writer, I would also talk about how the editorials maybe appeal to a more educated, higher-class (to use a politically incorrect term) audience, one that maybe spends more money on the products. Like some sitcoms appeals to a different audience (some to older viewers or white viewers, some to younger more hip maybe black viewers) the newscast can appeal to more educated viewers with the editorials.

Evaluator comments on the score 2 essay

This essay is seriously hurt by the lack of organization. Ideas are introduced but not fully developed before new ideas are added. No one argument or theme is developed. There are too many errors in grammar (pronoun agreement, saying “The writer” and “their” and “If I was”) and spelling (“arguement,” “probly,” “anouncements”), and the essay demonstrates a lack of variety in its sentence structure.

The writer shows little ability to analyze the argument and gives no support for the points made. Instead, the writer presents a personal opinion, giving his own views rather than analyzing and evaluating the points made by the author of the memo.