GRE General Analytical Writing Syllabus

Distinguish a 'premise' from a 'conclusion' in an argument.

A premise is a statement offered as evidence or a reason; the conclusion is the claim the premises are meant to support. Premises answer 'why should I believe it?'; the conclusion is 'what am I being asked to believe?'

What signal words often introduce a conclusion in an argument?

Therefore, thus, hence, so, consequently, clearly, it follows that, this shows/proves that.

What signal words often introduce a premise/evidence in an argument?

Because, since, for, given that, as shown by, due to, in view of the fact that.

In 'Understanding the Argument,' why should you NOT state your own opinion on the topic?

The Argument task assesses your ability to analyze the logic of the given argument, not whether you personally agree with its conclusion; injecting your own views is off-task and lowers the score.

When 'Evaluating the Argument,' what does the standard instruction typically ask you to discuss?

Common versions ask you to: state what evidence is needed to evaluate the argument; state what questions must be answered before accepting the recommendation; examine the stated and unstated assumptions and what follows if they are unwarranted; or state what additional evidence would strengthen or weaken the argument.

Define the logical fallacy of 'hasty generalization' and how it appears in GRE arguments.

Drawing a broad conclusion from an unrepresentative or too-small sample. In GRE arguments it appears when a survey of a few people, one location, or one time period is used to conclude something about a whole population.

Define the 'correlation ≠ causation' flaw (false cause) common in GRE arguments.

Assuming that because two events occur together or in sequence, one caused the other. The argument ignores that the correlation may be coincidental, reversed, or due to a third confounding variable.

Explain the 'sampling/survey' flaw to watch for when evaluating a GRE argument.

The argument relies on a survey that may be unrepresentative, biased, based on a low response rate, self-selected respondents, leading questions, or too small a sample to support the conclusion.

Explain the 'false analogy' flaw in a GRE argument.

The argument assumes two things (e.g., two cities, companies, or time periods) are alike in relevant respects when they may differ in ways that undermine the comparison, so what worked for one may not work for the other.

What is the 'gap between evidence and conclusion' technique for evaluating an argument?

Pinpoint precisely what the evidence establishes versus what the conclusion claims; the argument's weakness lies in the unstated assumptions bridging that gap. Attack those assumptions.

Name the fallacy: an argument concludes that because a plan succeeded/failed elsewhere, it will do the same here.

False analogy (unwarranted comparison / assuming transferability), because the two situations may differ in relevant conditions.

Name the fallacy: assuming a past trend will simply continue into the future without change.

Unwarranted extrapolation / faulty assumption of continuity (the argument assumes conditions remain constant when they may change).

What is 'equivocation' as a reasoning flaw?

Using the same word or phrase in two different senses within an argument, so the conclusion seems to follow but actually relies on a shifted meaning of a key term.

What is the 'either/or' (false dilemma) flaw in a GRE argument?

Presenting only two options as if they were the only possibilities when other alternatives exist, forcing an unjustified conclusion.

For an argument that recommends an action to solve a problem, what assumptions should you evaluate?

That the stated cause is the real cause, that the proposed action addresses that cause, that no significant side effects or obstacles will occur, and that no better alternative exists—and whether the plan is feasible.

When evaluating a GRE argument, what does 'what additional evidence is needed' usually target?

Data that would confirm or refute the argument's key assumptions—e.g., representative statistics, control comparisons, information on other causes, feasibility studies, or evidence that past results will recur.

What is the recommended organizational structure for an Argument-critique essay?

Introduction restating the argument and noting it is flawed; body paragraphs each isolating one assumption/flaw, explaining why it weakens the argument, and describing evidence needed to evaluate it; conclusion summarizing the flaws and what would strengthen the argument.

Why should an Argument-critique conclusion mention how the argument could be strengthened?

It demonstrates full evaluative insight—showing not only that the argument is flawed but exactly what evidence or reasoning would make it valid—which the rubric rewards.

What is a 'straw man' fallacy?

Misrepresenting or oversimplifying an opposing position so it is easier to attack, then refuting the distorted version rather than the actual position.

What is 'circular reasoning' (begging the question)?

An argument in which the conclusion is assumed within one of its own premises, so the reasoning provides no independent support for the claim.

What does the term 'confounding variable' mean when critiquing a causal claim?

An unaccounted-for third factor that influences both the supposed cause and the effect, offering an alternative explanation that the argument overlooks.

Compare the thesis requirements of the Issue task versus the Argument task.

Issue task: your thesis states your own position on the claim. Argument task: your 'thesis' states that the given argument is logically flawed/unconvincing (as presented), never your opinion on the topic itself.

What is the ideal introductory-paragraph function in both GRE writing tasks?

To orient the reader: briefly frame the issue/argument and clearly present the central claim (your position, or your assessment that the argument is flawed) that the essay will develop.

Roughly how should you budget the 30 minutes on a GRE writing task?

About 3-5 minutes planning/outlining, ~20-22 minutes writing, and ~3-5 minutes proofreading and revising for clarity and grammar.

What is the 'so what?' test for strengthening body paragraphs in an Issue essay?

After each example, ask 'so what?'—forcing an explicit link showing how the example supports the reason and how the reason supports the thesis, ensuring analysis rather than mere description.

Define 'ad hominem' fallacy.

Attacking the person making an argument (their character or motives) rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.

When an argument cites an authority or study, what should you evaluate?

Whether the authority/source is relevant, unbiased, and qualified on this specific topic; whether the study was well-designed and representative; and whether its findings actually support the conclusion drawn.

What does 'address the most compelling reasons or examples that could challenge your position' require you to do on an Issue essay?

Take a position AND explicitly raise the strongest counterexamples/objections against it, then respond to them—demonstrating you have anticipated and can rebut opposition.

What common flaw occurs when an argument assumes profits/results will follow simply from an action (e.g., cutting costs will raise profits)?

It ignores other variables—the assumption that revenue, demand, quality, or other factors remain unchanged. Cutting costs could reduce quality and lower sales, so the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.

What percentage-vs-absolute-number flaw should you watch for in GRE arguments?

An argument may cite a change in percentage without absolute numbers (or vice versa); a rising percentage can coexist with a falling total, so the statistic may not support the conclusion. Formally, a proportion $p=\frac{\text{part}}{\text{whole}}$ can increase even as the 'part' decreases if the 'whole' decreases faster.

Summarize the key mindset difference: what is being 'argued' by the writer in Issue vs. Argument tasks?

In the Issue task, YOU build a persuasive argument for a position. In the Argument task, you DECONSTRUCT someone else's argument by exposing its assumptions and logical gaps—you evaluate, not persuade about the topic.