The Analytical Writing measure is the section students most often save for last and most often misjudge. Most preparation guides settle for the same advice: take a position, use specific examples, organise into clear paragraphs. All true, all hard to apply when you are staring at a blank screen with 30 minutes on the clock.
What helps more is a worked example: a real prompt, a real 6.0 response, and a clear read on why each paragraph does what it does against the official ETS rubric. That is what this post provides. The essay below is original, written specifically for this post, and judged paragraph by paragraph against the published ETS scoring guide. A 4.0 response on the same prompt is included for contrast so you can see what the difference actually looks like.
Want feedback on a real essay you wrote? Run it through our free AI grader at /gre-awa-grader. It scores against the same 0 to 6 rubric ETS uses and returns a structured breakdown of position clarity, evidence, organisation, and language.
The ETS Scoring Rubric in Plain English
Before the examples, a quick read on what ETS rewards. The official Analyze an Issue scoring guide weights four things heavily (our full GRE Analytical Writing guide covers the task types and timing in more depth):
- Clear position. The reader should know within the first paragraph what you actually argue. "Both sides have merit" essays score poorly even when well-written.
- Reasoning quality. The argument needs internal logic. Each claim should connect to the position; each example should support the claim. Hand-waving and vibes do not score.
- Specific support. Generic examples ("throughout history," "in modern society") earn less than concrete ones (a named policy, a specific study, a real institutional case). You do not need to cite sources; you do need to use details a reader can picture.
- Control of language. Sentence structure variety, vocabulary precision, paragraph organisation, and the absence of distracting errors. Style matters; perfection does not. A few typos rarely change a score band.
| Score | What ETS labels it | What it usually looks like |
|---|---|---|
| 6 | Outstanding | Clear, persuasive position. Compelling reasons with specific support. Skilled language. |
| 5 | Strong | Clear position. Generally well-developed reasoning. Strong control of language with minor flaws. |
| 4 | Adequate | Discernible position. Adequate reasoning. Acceptable control of language with some lapses. |
| 3 | Limited | Position vague or inconsistent. Reasoning thin. Language sometimes confused. |
| 2 | Seriously flawed | No clear position or one not supported. Major reasoning gaps. Persistent language problems. |
| 1 | Fundamentally deficient | Off-topic or unintelligible. |
Sample Prompt (the kind you will see on test day)
Prompt: "Universities should require every student, regardless of major, to take a substantial number of courses in the humanities." Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning. In developing and supporting your position, consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true.
What the prompt is really asking: pick a defensible position (agree, disagree, or qualified), and defend it with reasoning and concrete support. The test rewards a clear stake, not a neutral both-sides survey. Below is a 6.0-band response written to the prompt above, followed by a 4.0-band response on the same prompt for contrast.
Sample Response: 6.0 Band (Outstanding)
Word count: roughly 540 words, written in 28 minutes. Position: qualified agreement. Structure: introduction with thesis, three body paragraphs (each opening with a specific reason and supporting it with concrete examples), short counter-acknowledgement, and a conclusion that returns to the stake.
I largely agree that universities should require substantial humanities coursework regardless of major, but the case is stronger when framed in terms of three specific competencies, namely sustained reading, structured argument, and ethical reasoning, that other parts of a modern curriculum rarely teach with the same rigour.
First, sustained reading. Engineering and natural-science curricula, by their structure, train students to extract information from short, dense passages: a derivation, a lab procedure, a data table. They very rarely require a student to live inside a 300-page argument long enough to see its structure. A history seminar that asks a sophomore to spend two weeks with Tony Judt's Postwar produces a different kind of attention from any single textbook chapter. That attention transfers: alumni of demanding humanities sequences read long contracts, long reports, and long technical specifications more patiently than peers who have not done that work.
Second, structured argument. A computer science student learns to build proofs, but a proof is local and formal; it has no political opposition. A philosophy paper, a literary essay, or a historical thesis must hold up against a hostile reader who is themselves trained to look for the soft spots. The act of anticipating that hostile reader, and arming the argument against it, is the foundation of professional persuasion. The graduate who can hold a position under that kind of scrutiny outperforms the graduate who cannot, in fields from medicine to product design.
Third, ethical reasoning. Almost every technical field now requires its practitioners to make decisions whose harm or benefit is not captured by the technical metrics themselves. A machine-learning engineer choosing a loss function is also choosing whose errors matter more. A civil engineer ranking infrastructure projects is also ranking communities. Pretending these are technical decisions, rather than ethical ones partially dressed in technical language, produces avoidable harm. Sustained reading in moral and political philosophy, even at a basic level, gives students the vocabulary and the precedents to see those choices for what they are.
The standard objection is that requiring humanities crowds out time for technical depth, which the labour market actually rewards. That objection has weight at the margin, particularly for highly specialised programmes that struggle to fit existing requirements into four years. But the proposal does not require eliminating technical depth: a substantial humanities core can occupy four to six courses across eight semesters, which most flexible curricula can accommodate, and the case for the trade-off rests on the long-run quality of judgment those courses build, not on the short-run signalling value of an additional elective.
The case for required humanities is not nostalgia; it is a concrete claim about three durable capacities universities have a comparative advantage in teaching. A curriculum that quietly drops these capacities to add another optimisation course produces graduates who optimise efficiently for ends they were never taught to evaluate. That trade is bad on its own terms.
Why This Essay Scores 6.0 (Paragraph by Paragraph)
| Paragraph | What it does | Rubric criterion satisfied |
|---|---|---|
| 1 (Intro) | Establishes a qualified position ("largely agree") with a specific framing (three competencies). Avoids the both-sides hedge. | Clear position; sets the structure for what follows. |
| 2 (Reading) | Concrete contrast (short technical passages vs sustained books), named example (Judt's Postwar), transferable outcome (reading long contracts). | Specific support; reasoning that connects to the thesis. |
| 3 (Argument) | Distinguishes proof from argument, names the hostile-reader concept, links to professional domains. | Reasoning quality; control of abstraction without losing concreteness. |
| 4 (Ethics) | Two specific cases (ML engineer's loss function, civil engineer's ranking) showing the technical/ethical entanglement. | Concrete support that prevents the paragraph reading as moralising. |
| 5 (Counter) | Acknowledges the strongest objection (crowding out), addresses it on its own terms (four to six courses fit), avoids dismissing it. | Demonstrates engagement with a real opposing view, which the rubric explicitly rewards. |
| 6 (Close) | Returns to the stake with a sharper formulation ("optimise for ends they were never taught to evaluate"). Does not introduce new arguments. | Coherent close; reinforces the thesis without padding. |
For Contrast: A 4.0 Band Response on the Same Prompt
Word count: about 320. Position: agree, but soft. Structure: intro, three short body paragraphs with mostly generic reasoning, weak conclusion. The grammar is fine; the support is thin.
I agree that universities should make students take humanities courses, because humanities are important for becoming a well-rounded person. In today's world, students need more than just technical knowledge. They also need to know about history, literature, and philosophy.
First, humanities help students think critically. When you read a novel or study history, you have to analyse what is happening and form your own opinions. This is useful in any career because employers want workers who can think for themselves. Without humanities, students might only know the technical parts of their job and not the bigger picture.
Second, humanities give students communication skills. Writing essays for a literature class teaches you how to organise your ideas and express them clearly. This is important because in any job, you have to write emails and reports. Even engineers and scientists need to write.
Some people might say that humanities take time away from major requirements. This is true to some extent, but the benefits outweigh the costs. A small number of required courses will not hurt students' progress in their major. In conclusion, universities should require humanities courses because they make students better thinkers and communicators.
Why That Essay Caps Around 4.0
- Position is present but bland ("important for becoming a well-rounded person"). The reader cannot tell what makes this writer's argument different from any other.
- Reasoning is generic. "Critical thinking," "communication skills" are stock phrases without concrete instantiation. No named book, no named example, no named field.
- Counter-argument is acknowledged but waved away ("benefits outweigh the costs") rather than engaged.
- Sentences are correct but uniform in length and rhythm. Vocabulary is functional, not precise.
- Conclusion restates the intro rather than sharpening the stake.
The fastest single upgrade from a 4 to a 5 is replacing every generic claim with one concrete instantiation. Instead of "history teaches critical thinking," pick a specific historical episode and show how reasoning about it forces the reader to weigh competing accounts.
A Reusable Structure That Works on Any Prompt
Most score-6 essays share a structure you can drop into any prompt. The breakdown by time, for a 30-minute session:
| Minute | Phase | What to produce |
|---|---|---|
| 0 to 3 | Read and decide | Read the prompt twice. Pick agree, disagree, or qualified. Write the position in one sentence on scratch. |
| 3 to 7 | Outline | Three body-paragraph leads: each a different reason. One counter-argument to acknowledge. One sentence for the conclusion's sharper formulation. |
| 7 to 25 | Draft | Write straight through. Intro with thesis (2 to 3 sentences). Three body paragraphs (each 100 to 130 words, opening with the reason, supporting with a specific example). Counter paragraph (4 to 6 sentences). Conclusion (3 to 4 sentences). |
| 25 to 30 | Revise | Fix the typos. Sharpen the thesis sentence. Replace any vague example with a specific one. Cut one sentence per paragraph if you are over 600 words. |
For a deeper walk-through of how the AWA fits inside the full test, see our GRE test day plan. To rehearse the essay under real section timing, take a free full-length mock test. For practising the essay with real-time AI feedback, the free AWA grader scores against this same rubric and returns a structured breakdown.
More Sample Prompts to Practise On
ETS publishes a pool of Issue prompts that the real test draws from. The five below are representative of the topic shapes you will see (in our own paraphrasing; the real pool lives on the ETS site):
- Governments should focus their funding on basic scientific research rather than on applied research aimed at immediate practical results.
- Societies benefit more from citizens who question their established institutions than from those who loyally uphold them.
- The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the achievements of its most prominent individuals.
- Long-term economic stability matters more than short-term economic growth, and governments should plan accordingly.
- A nation should require all of its students to follow the same national curriculum until they enter college.
Practise one essay per week from now until your test, writing each in 30 minutes with no prep, then submit it to the AWA grader. Four to six rounds is usually enough to move from a 4.0 to a 5.0 if you actually internalise the rubric feedback.
Frequently Asked Questions
Action: pick one of the five prompts above, write a 30-minute response right now, and run it through the free AWA grader. The first essay always feels rough; the score it returns is the input to your next four weeks of practice.