Three original Analyze an Issue tasks. The real test gives you one task and 30 minutes. In the real GRE you choose one question and have 30 minutes.
All questions are written by Keiko Study in the official format; they are not official GRE papers.
Write your essay
Choose one question, start the 30-minute timer and write. Your draft is saved in this browser only; it is never sent to Keiko.
0 words · 30:00 left
What a strong answer does
Question 1: Because so much of a literary work's meaning depends on the sound and texture of the language in which it was written, a translation should be regarded as a new work rather than as a version of the original.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Say clearly in your first paragraph where you stand. A precise middle position is fine, for example that the statement holds for poetry and wordplay but much less for a novel's plot or a philosopher's argument, as long as you hold to it throughout.
Do what the instructions ask: show where the statement holds and where it does not, and explain how those cases lead to your position. Kinds of writing whose meaning lives in rhythm, rhyme or puns are a different case from writing whose meaning lies mainly in events, characters or ideas.
Test the reason built into the statement as well as its conclusion. Ask whether 'so much' of most works' meaning really depends on sound, and whether even a big loss in translation is enough to make the result a 'new work'.
Think about what would follow from calling a translation a new work: who deserves the credit, and whether two people who read the same book in different languages have really read the same book.
Build your argument on two or three specific examples that you develop, such as a poem you know in two languages, a novel you read in translation, or the subtitles of a film. Explain what each example shows rather than simply naming it.
In 30 minutes, take a few minutes to plan: an introduction that states your position, body paragraphs that each develop one idea, and a short conclusion. Clear, precise wording and varied sentences matter more than length, so leave a minute or two to reread.
Question 2: People and organizations that make predictions for the public, whether about the weather, the economy, elections or sports, should regularly publish a record of how accurate their past predictions have been.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
State your position on the recommendation early. You might support it fully, reject it, or support it only for certain kinds of prediction, for example forecasts that people rely on to make costly decisions, but say exactly where you draw the line.
Describe specific circumstances, as the instructions require. A weather service whose forecasts farmers or airlines depend on, an adviser who sells investment tips, and a television commentator who predicts election results raise different issues; explain why a published record would or would not help in each.
Take the practical difficulties seriously. Many forecasts are vague or come with a probability (a 70% chance of rain is not 'wrong' on a dry day), a record can be presented selectively, and the rule might discourage bold or honest forecasts.
Consider who would keep and check the records, and whether audiences would actually use them. A recommendation can be sound in principle and still achieve little in practice.
Let your examples shape your conclusion. Explain how the cases you discussed lead to your position, rather than listing advantages and disadvantages and stopping there.
Organize the response so that each paragraph has one clear job, and write in precise, varied sentences. Save a minute or two at the end to correct errors.
Question 3: Claim: What people do reveals their values more reliably than what they say.
Reason: Words cost nothing, but every real choice means giving something up.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
Deal with both the claim and the reason, and with the link between them. You might accept the claim but doubt the reason, or accept the reason but argue that it does not fully support the claim. Say which, and why.
Question the reason directly. Words are not always free: a public promise, an apology or an unpopular opinion can carry a real cost. If some words are costly, consider what that does to the argument.
Test the claim against cases where actions may mislead. People often act under pressure from money, fear, law or the expectations of others, and habits can reflect convenience rather than values. A single action can also be read in more than one way.
Test it against cases where it clearly holds, such as a company that says it cares about the environment while its choices show otherwise, or a person who says family comes first but rarely makes time for family. Specific, well-developed examples are more persuasive than general statements.
Be clear about what you mean by 'values' and 'reliably'. Your position may depend on whether you are judging one action or a long pattern of choices.
Plan briefly before you write, keep each paragraph focused on one point, and finish with a conclusion that follows from your reasoning. Clear, precise language and few errors matter more than length.