# GRE Issue Essay: Examples and Counterarguments | topin

On this page

## What developed support looks like in the official rubric

ETS’s Issue scoring guide evaluates a position, its support, organisation and language in response to the specific task. At the stronger levels, reasons and examples do more than repeat the claim. This does not establish a required number of examples, paragraphs or words. ETS’s task guidance expressly allows different structures and both real and hypothetical illustrations.

Use that flexibility to select a situation you can explain precisely. You do not need a famous historical event for every paragraph. An invented classroom scenario can expose a policy’s consequences clearly, provided you present it as hypothetical. The argument must show what the situation demonstrates rather than hope that the examiner will supply the connection.

Our development test has four parts: identify the situation, show the mechanism, explain the implication and state the boundary. A paragraph about teamwork, for instance, should explain how shared responsibilities change the assessment of individual learning. Saying that teamwork is important three different ways does not add evidence.

The [Issue task guide](/gre/analytical-writing/analyze-an-issue) covers the basic timed structure. This page focuses on strengthening the body of the argument. All prompts, model paragraphs and revisions below are original teaching examples. They are not official ETS questions or officially scored essays, and we do not assign them a promised test-day score.

## Choose a claim narrow enough to defend

Original practice claim: Universities should assess every course solely through group projects. Practice instruction: Discuss how far you agree, and consider circumstances in which the proposed policy would help or hinder the assessment of learning. This is an original exercise written for this guide; use the actual instruction supplied in any official practice task.

A defensible thesis is: Group projects should be a substantial part of courses where collaboration is a learning goal, but they should not be the sole assessment method when individual understanding must also be demonstrated. This thesis does three jobs. It grants a relevant benefit, rejects the universal policy and names a condition under which the balance changes.

Contrast it with Group projects have advantages and disadvantages. That statement announces a topic but gives no decision rule. Also avoid Group projects are always unfair. One well-designed project with individual accountability would challenge that universal assertion. Your thesis should leave room to acknowledge the strongest opposing case without collapsing into indecision.

Before writing, prepare two examples: a design course where coordination is part of the intended skill, and an introductory statistics course where individual understanding can remain hidden. Then prepare the strongest objection: workplace tasks are collaborative, so a university should assess collaboration throughout. Your response can accept that premise while disputing the claim that collaboration must be the only assessment.

__Original outline: each example has a different argumentative job__
| Paragraph                | Situation                                       | What it must show                                          |
| ------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |
| Support for projects     | A design team integrates several components     | Collaboration can itself be a course outcome               |
| Limit on sole assessment | A statistics team submits one correct analysis  | A group result can hide uneven individual understanding    |
| Strong objection         | Employers expect work in teams                  | Authenticity supports projects without proving exclusivity |
| Qualified conclusion     | Combine team output with individual explanation | The assessment method should match the learning goal       |

## An original extended example, with its limits visible

Here is an original model argument for the practice claim. Its examples are hypothetical and its purpose is to show development. It is not a factual account of any named university or a submission to memorise. Notice how the same decision rule appears in different situations without repeating identical sentences.

A university should use group projects where collaboration forms part of what students are meant to learn, but assessment should also reveal what each student understands. A single method applied to every course would confuse the quality of a shared product with the knowledge of every person who contributed to it. The better policy is to match assessment to the course’s learning goals.

Consider a hypothetical design course in which a team must produce a working device. One student designs the structure, another the control system and a third tests the assembled product. Each component can be sound on its own while the device fails because the parts were never integrated. A group project can therefore expose an important skill that isolated exercises may miss: negotiating decisions across connected responsibilities. If integration is an explicit course goal, assessing the team’s final device makes educational sense.

The same approach becomes less reliable if it is the sole assessment in an introductory statistics course. Suppose a team submits a correct analysis, but one member chose the method and interpreted the results while another only arranged the slides. The finished presentation does not establish that both can select a suitable analysis independently. An individual explanation or short separate task could reveal that difference. Requiring such evidence does not reject collaboration; it checks a different outcome that the group product cannot reliably demonstrate.

The strongest defence of exclusive group assessment is that professional work rarely happens in isolation. Students should practise managing disagreement, deadlines and shared responsibility before entering employment. This is a substantial reason to include projects. Yet it does not show that every assessment must use them. A colleague who cannot explain the assumptions behind a shared analysis can weaken the team’s future decisions. Checking individual understanding can therefore support professional collaboration rather than oppose it.

The balance should vary with the course. A capstone project whose main goal is integration may place substantial weight on a team output, while a foundational course may need more individual evidence. Even the capstone can include a short explanation of each member’s contribution and reasoning. The university should preserve group projects as a valuable tool while rejecting the claim that one shared product can answer every question about student learning.

The model keeps its hypothetical status explicit and avoids invented statistics. Its first example explains a mechanism: connected responsibilities make integration observable. Its second identifies a measurement problem: one product can conceal different knowledge. The objection is plausible, and the reply explains why its premise does not prove the universal policy.

## Turn a thin example into a reasoned paragraph

Weak version: Group projects are good because students learn teamwork. For example, engineering students work together and gain useful skills. This is relevant, but the example mostly repeats the claim. It leaves unanswered what the students must coordinate and why that changes the value of the assessment.

Stronger version: In a hypothetical engineering design course, separately functional components may fail when assembled because their dimensions, power needs or control assumptions conflict. A team project makes those integration decisions visible. If the course aims to teach coordination between disciplines, assessing a shared product can capture an intended skill that separate exercises would miss.

The revision adds a causal mechanism and a condition. It does not become stronger by inserting a famous university name or an unsupported percentage of employers. It explains how a specific situation supports a limited claim. That kind of precision is available even when you do not remember a historical date or statistic.

Now apply the same edit to an opposing paragraph. Weak version: Group projects are unfair because some people do nothing. Better: If only the final team report is graded, a correct analysis can conceal that one student understands the method while another does not. An individual explanation would reveal knowledge the shared report cannot establish. This revision focuses on the assessment problem rather than an unsupported claim that every team contains an idle member.

## Answer the strongest objection without undoing your thesis

An objection should challenge the actual reason you gave. If your position favours individual checks, the strongest opposing point may be that assessment should mirror collaborative professional work. A weak objection such as some students dislike projects is easier to dismiss but contributes little to the argument. Choose a point a thoughtful supporter of the policy might make.

Use three moves: concede what is valid, distinguish the unanswered question and refine the conclusion. In this example, concede that professional collaboration matters. Distinguish practising collaboration from verifying individual understanding. Then refine your policy: include team assessment and targeted individual evidence, with weighting guided by course goals.

Do not write an objection paragraph that simply reverses your view and leaves the reader unsure which argument you endorse. A concession is compatible with a position when you explain its effect. The phrase this is a good point needs a follow-up: does it change your recommendation, limit it to particular courses or require a safeguard?

ETS asks writers to address specific instructions, which can include circumstances, objections or policy consequences. Make the requested work visible. If the instruction asks about consequences, explain the consequences of the policy; do not merely paste a paragraph beginning however. The original model’s final rule emerges from its examples, so the counterargument changes the reasoning rather than serving as a compulsory decorative paragraph.

## Practise development inside the 30-minute task

Try a ten-minute paragraph exercise before writing another complete essay. Spend two minutes identifying the claim and a boundary, five developing one situation and three revising the causal link. This is our suggested drill, not an official ETS time allocation. A short exercise can reveal whether your body paragraphs lack specific mechanisms before a full timer obscures the problem.

Then write a fresh full response in the official thirty-minute limit. Use a flexible budget such as four minutes planning, twenty-three writing and three checking. If planning regularly expands, reduce the number of examples rather than erase the review time. One developed example can be more useful than several named examples whose connection to the claim is left unexplained.

Use [topin’s free GRE mock](/gre/practice-test), marked on the official scale, to practise writing before the reasoning sections. Keep preparation feedback distinct from an official score, and compare your work with ETS’s rubric and sample commentary. Inspect whether the feedback identifies a specific missing link you can revise, rather than relying only on a number.

Record the first repair in a short review note: example not tied to claim, objection misrepresented, condition missing or paragraph repeated thesis. The [diagnostic and error-log method](/articles/gre-diagnostic-service-error-log) explains how to keep next actions concrete, although the official diagnostic service covers Verbal and Quant rather than essay details. Re-write one paragraph, then test the same skill on a new prompt.

## Try a full GRE mock free

Timed like test day, every section scored, every answer explained.

[Take the free mock ](/gre/login)

## FAQs

Can I use hypothetical examples in a GRE Issue essay?

Yes. ETS’s Issue guidance allows real or hypothetical examples. Make the situation specific, identify it as hypothetical and explain how it supports your reasoning.

How many examples do I need?

ETS sets no required number. Its guidance allows one extended example or multiple examples; clear development matters more than a quota.

Do I always need a counterargument paragraph?

Follow the actual instruction. An objection can strengthen a qualified position, but there is no universal required paragraph structure.

Should I memorise famous historical examples?

Only use examples you can explain accurately and connect to the claim. A precise original hypothetical scenario is preferable to an invented factual account.

Does this model essay have an official GRE score?

No. It is an original teaching model with commentary, not an ETS-rated response. Use the official rubric to assess its reasoning without treating it as a score guarantee.

## Sources (checked 5 October 2026)

* [ETS: Issue task instructions and example guidance — checked 5 October 2026](https://www.ets.org/gre/test-takers/general-test/prepare/content/analytical-writing/issue.html)
* [ETS: Analytical Writing scoring guide — checked 5 October 2026](https://www.ets.org/gre/test-takers/general-test/prepare/content/analytical-writing/scoring.html)
* [ETS: General Test structure and adaptation — checked 5 October 2026](https://www.ets.org/gre/test-takers/general-test/prepare/test-structure.html)
* [ETS: Analytical Writing overview and editor — checked 5 October 2026](https://www.ets.org/gre/test-takers/general-test/prepare/content/analytical-writing.html)

## Related articles

[All GRE study guides ](/gre)

* [GREStudy plans & strategyGRE percentages and ratios: solve the right baseLearn GRE percentages and ratios with original worked questions, changing bases, reverse percentages and ratio changes, plus a practical checking routine.Updated 5 Oct 2026](/articles/gre-percentages-ratios-word-problems)
* [GREStudy plans & strategyGRE weighted averages and mixtures: totals firstSolve GRE weighted averages and mixtures with original questions on unequal groups, missing means, concentration and replacement, with checks for every model.Updated 5 Oct 2026](/articles/gre-weighted-averages-mixtures)
* [GREStudy plans & strategyGRE probability without replacement: update each drawWork through GRE probability without replacement using original questions on ordered draws, either order, complements and combinations, with exact fractions.Updated 5 Oct 2026](/articles/gre-probability-without-replacement)
* [GREStudy plans & strategyGRE combinations and permutations: does order matter?Choose combinations or permutations on GRE Quant with original worked problems on committees, roles, repeated letters and restrictions, plus counting checks.Updated 5 Oct 2026](/articles/gre-combinations-permutations)