GRE Analytical Writing Hub (Issue Task Only): Templates, Scoring, and Practice

As of January 2026, the GRE General Test includes one Analytical Writing task: Analyze an Issue. You have 30 minutes, and Analytical Writing still appears first on test day. The built-in word processor is intentionally simple—basic typing, cut/copy/paste, undo—but no spellcheck or grammar check. Score scales are unchanged: Analytical Writing is reported on a 0–6 scale in half-point increments, and official scores typically post within about 8–10 days. The removal of the old Argument essay means your entire AWA score now comes from this single Issue response.

The Issue task isn’t a test of facts. It evaluates whether you can take a clear position, consider complexities, develop reasons with relevant examples, organize ideas coherently, and express them with control of language. Strong responses engage nuance and anticipate reasonable objections; weaker ones rely on assertions, wander off task, or present lists of claims without support.

Your response receives a holistic score from 0–6. Essays are read by trained raters and also scored by ETS’s automated scoring engine; when needed, additional human rating is used to resolve discrepancies. Raters judge overall quality in four broad areas: clarity and insight of your position, depth and relevance of support, organization and logical progression, and command of written English. There’s no official word-count requirement; quality and coherence matter more than length.

Use this five-part blueprint when time is tight:

• Introduction (2–3 sentences): Rephrase the claim and take a stance that directly aligns with the prompt’s directive (agree, disagree, qualify, or extent).
• Reason 1: Present your strongest reason and anchor it with a concrete example, scenario, or brief case.
• Reason 2: Add a distinct reason (not a rephrase of Reason 1) with different evidence.
• Counterargument and rebuttal: Acknowledge a credible objection or boundary condition; concede what has merit, then show why your position still stands or when it should be limited.
• Conclusion: Synthesize the main insight and restate scope—where your claim applies most and where caution is warranted.

1. Counterpoint-first (use when the prompt invites qualifications):

• Opening: State a nuanced stance (e.g., the claim is valid under X but not Y).
• Counterpoint: Explain the tempting but flawed view.
• Rebuttal with two reasons and examples.
• Boundary conditions: Where your stance might not hold.
• Closing: Policy or principle for deciding between X and Y.

2. Problem–Cause–Solution (good for policy-leaning prompts):

• Define the problem precisely; avoid vague terms.
• Identify the main driver(s) with evidence or plausible mechanism.
• Propose solutions; weigh trade-offs and feasibility.
• Conclude with criteria for implementation and evaluation.

3. Case-contrast (for technology, education, or workplace prompts):

• State position.
• Case A: Show the position working well; evidence and why.
• Case B: Contrast where the position fails or must be limited.
• Synthesis: Extract principles that reconcile A and B.
• Conclude with a calibrated recommendation.

• 0:00–2:00 Analyze the instructions (to what extent? agree/disagree? specific conditions?) and isolate key terms.
• 2:00–5:00 Brainstorm both sides. Force at least three distinct lines of reasoning on your side and one credible counter.
• 5:00–6:30 Choose stance and outline: thesis, Reason 1, Reason 2, counter + rebuttal, conclusion.
• 6:30–23:00 Draft quickly following the outline. Lead with topic sentences; anchor claims with examples.
• 23:00–28:00 Strengthen logic: add transitions, specify who/when/why in examples, and sharpen your rebuttal.
• 28:00–30:00 Polish: fix obvious grammar/usage issues, verify you answered the exact directive, and tighten wordy phrases.

• Scope signals: Use phrases like “in research-intensive roles” or “in early-stage startups” to show you understand where your claim applies.
• Mechanisms over slogans: Explain how/why a policy leads to an outcome (incentives, information, constraints), not just that it does.
• Concrete examples: Brief, plausible scenarios beat name-dropping. If you cite studies, focus on logic, not precise statistics you can’t verify.
• Fair countering: Acknowledge a strong objection before rebutting; straw men weaken credibility.
• Signposting: Clear topic sentences and transitions (However, In contrast, A more compelling reason) keep logic visible.

• Drifting from the task directive (e.g., arguing for policy X when the prompt asks whether X should be prioritized over Y).
• Stacking similar reasons; ensure each body paragraph advances a distinct rationale.
• Vague examples (e.g., “studies show…” with no substance). Use specific, plausible illustrations.
• Overlong introductions; get to your thesis fast.
• Neglecting revision time; the last two minutes often add a half-point by fixing clarity and agreement errors.

Score yourself after each practice using yes/no judgments:

1. Task focus: Does the thesis answer the exact directive?
2. Distinct reasons: Are your main points non-overlapping?
3. Depth: Does each body paragraph include concrete support?
4. Counterargument: Is a credible objection fairly stated and addressed?
5. Organization: Do topic sentences and transitions make the logic obvious?
6. Precision: Are key terms defined or scoped?
7. Style: Is wording concise and varied without being flowery?
8. Mechanics: No recurring grammar/punctuation issues?
9. Revision: Did you allocate at least two minutes to tighten and correct?
10. Overall coherence: Would a reader summarize your argument in one sentence?

Use flexible, non-specialized examples you can tailor:

• Remote/hybrid work trade-offs: productivity gains vs. mentorship loss; policies that vary by role seniority.
• Algorithmic decision-making: efficiency and bias risks; human-in-the-loop oversight.
• Public funding choices: immediate benefits (infrastructure) vs. long-run payoffs (basic research/arts); portfolio approach.
• Education technology: personalization benefits; need for teacher mediation and equity safeguards.
• Climate policy: near-term costs vs. innovation incentives; phased standards with support for small firms.
• Metrics obsession: Goodhart’s Law; complement quantitative targets with qualitative review.
• Universal policies vs. local autonomy: baseline standards plus leeway for local experimentation.
• Historical case logic: rapid tech adoption (printing press, electrification) reshaped skills and institutions—use to reason about today’s AI.

• While [claim] holds under [conditions], it weakens when [boundary].
• The more compelling consideration is [reason], because [mechanism].
• A plausible counterpoint is [X]; however, this overlooks [Y].
• This argument confuses correlation with causation; specifically, [explain].
• Policymakers should prioritize [A] over [B] when [criteria] are met.
• Two distinct effects follow: first, [effect 1]; second, [effect 2].
• The principle at stake is [principle], which implies [policy/stance].
• Critics are right that [risk]; the remedy is not rejection but [safeguard].
• Generalizing from [context] to [different context] ignores [key difference].
• In sum, [thesis restated], especially in contexts where [scope].

Option A: The 7-day Issue Sprint (60–75 minutes total)

• Day 1: Read 3 prompts and write 3 one-sentence theses (10 min).
• Day 2: Outline one prompt only (thesis + 2 reasons + counter) (10 min).
• Day 3: Timed half-essay: intro + one body paragraph (12–15 min).
• Day 4: Write a counterargument + rebuttal for a new prompt (10 min).
• Day 5: Timed full essay (30 min).
• Day 6: Self-score with the checklist; rewrite just the weakest paragraph (10–12 min).
• Day 7: Rest or quick warm-up: produce two thesis statements (5 min). Option B: Micro-doses for busy weeks
• Before Quant sets: 3-minute thesis drill.
• After Verbal RC: turn a passage’s main idea into a GRE-style thesis + counter (5 minutes).
• Weekend: one full timed essay plus 10-minute revision lab.

• From Verbal RC/CR: Practice articulating a passage’s claim, assumptions, and limits—exactly the skills you’ll use in AWA. After two RC passages, write a one-sentence stance and a counter.
• From Quant: When you explain a solution, emphasize reasoning chains (because → therefore); that habit transfers to tighter AWA logic.
• Flashcards for AWA? Yes—make cards for portable examples, refined sentence stems, and common logical fallacies.

• Ten minutes before your appointment: craft a 3-line outline to a random claim (thesis, strongest reason, counter). This primes structure.
• In the first two minutes on-screen: read the directive twice and circle key terms; decide your stance before drafting anything.
• Final minute: verify that your conclusion matches your thesis and that you addressed the exact prompt (e.g., “prioritize,” “require,” “in most cases”).

Exambank is designed around targeted, time-efficient practice. Here’s how to use it without stealing time from Quant/Verbal:

• Session planner: Block 30-minute AWA sessions on light study days; on heavy days, schedule 5–10 minute thesis or counterargument drills.
• Learn → Solve Together → Test Yourself: Apply this flow to AWA skills by learning argument structures, practicing short, guided reasoning drills, and then timing a full Issue essay.
• Adaptive reinforcement: Pair AWA micro-drills with the Verbal skills Exambank is already targeting for you (inference, structure, tone); you’ll get double value from the same cognitive muscles.
• Progress tracking: Log essay attempts and self-scores so trends are visible alongside your Quant and Verbal trajectories; aim for steady 0.5-point improvements over a few weeks.

Do I need three body paragraphs? No. Two distinct, well-developed reasons plus a serious counterargument often outperform three thin paragraphs. Is there a target length? There’s no official word-count. Most strong essays end up in the 350–550 word range because they include specific examples and a counterargument. Should I memorize a template? Memorize a structure, not sentences. Over-templated prose can sound generic and won’t rescue weak reasoning. Can I cite data? You can, but keep it general and tie it to logic; avoid precise statistics you can’t substantiate. Plausible, concrete scenarios work well.

• Write a crisp thesis.
• Draft one high-quality body paragraph with a concrete example.
• Add a compact counterargument and a one-sentence rebuttal.
• Conclude with scope: where your claim holds most strongly. This yields a coherent essay with visible reasoning even if shorter.

Because the shorter GRE puts all AWA weight on one 30-minute essay, consistency matters more than ever. A repeatable structure, visible logic, and two rounds of focused practice per week are enough to move you from “serviceable” to “confident” on test day.