Use these 200 GRE Analyze an Issue vocabulary words to qualify a position, test an example and explain when a claim holds. Each word has a plain-English meaning and a usage example for analytical writing.
ETS currently gives one 30-minute Analyze an Issue task in the GRE General Test’s Analytical Writing measure. Read the statement and its specific instructions, take a position, and develop it with relevant reasons and examples.
The 200-word list
1–20 Testing an issue and its boundaries · 21–40 Taking a position · 41–60 Using evidence and reasoning · 61–80 Connecting ideas · 81–100 Explaining cause and effect · 101–120 Synthesising sources · 121–140 Building commentary and argument · 141–160 Weighing competing priorities · 161–180 Describing scale and change · 181–200 Evaluating limits and assumptions
Exam requirements · Worked response · Model analysis · Fencing Method · Practice and FAQs · Ten focused practice drills
1–20 Testing an issue and its boundaries
- absolutist — treating a rule or claim as admitting no exception. an absolutist reading of the recommendation.
- generalisability — the extent to which a finding applies beyond its original setting. test the generalisability of a pilot result.
- necessary — required for a result or condition. a necessary condition for participation.
- sufficiency — the quality of being enough to establish or achieve something. question the sufficiency of one example.
- counterfactual — a reasoned account of what might happen under different conditions. consider a counterfactual without the policy.
- falsifiable — capable in principle of being shown false by evidence. a falsifiable claim about participation.
- confound — make the effect of one factor hard to separate from another. age may confound the comparison.
- causal — concerned with a relationship in which one thing produces an effect. a causal explanation of the decline.
- conditional — true or applicable only when a requirement is met. conditional support for a public subsidy.
- contingent — dependent on a particular circumstance. the benefit is contingent on consistent access.
- generalise — draw a conclusion that covers cases beyond those observed. generalise cautiously from a local trial.
- speculative — based on possibilities that have yet to be established. a speculative prediction about behaviour.
- prescriptive — setting out what people should do. a prescriptive claim about public spending.
- descriptive — stating what is observed or claimed to happen. a descriptive statement about current practice.
- presume — take something to be true as a starting point. presume that users have reliable internet.
- necessitate — make an action or condition necessary. a larger intake may necessitate extra staff.
- invalidate — make a claim or inference no longer valid. one error can invalidate the comparison.
- indeterminate — not settled or precisely known. the long-term effect remains indeterminate.
- unwarranted — unsupported by sufficient reason or evidence. an unwarranted inference about demand.
- tenability — the ability of a view to withstand reasonable criticism. test the tenability of a broad claim.
21–40 Taking a position
- claim — a statement you want the reader to accept. make a claim.
- stance — your position on a question. take a clear stance.
- thesis — the central position or interpretation your response develops. support the thesis.
- premise — an idea the argument starts from. question the premise.
- assumption — something treated as true without being established. test the assumption.
- assert — state a position firmly. assert that access matters.
- argue — give reasons in support of a position. argue for a trial.
- maintain — continue to hold or defend a view. maintain that the policy is fair.
- contend — put forward a position that can be challenged. contend that the proposal is workable.
- justify — give sufficient reasons for a decision or judgement. justify the expense.
- advocate — publicly support an action or change. advocate for reform.
- defend — answer criticism of a view or choice. defend a decision.
- qualify — limit a statement so it applies only where warranted. qualify the conclusion.
- concede — acknowledge a valid point made by the other side. concede that costs may rise.
- rebut — answer an opposing claim with reasoning or evidence. rebut the objection.
- counterargument — a reasoned objection to a position. address a counterargument.
- reservation — a concern that makes agreement incomplete. express a reservation.
- distinguish — show what makes two things different. distinguish cost from value.
- criteria — standards used to judge something. agree on the criteria.
- verdict — a final judgement reached after consideration. reach a verdict.
41–60 Using evidence and reasoning
- evidence — information that helps establish a claim. draw on evidence.
- example — a specific case that makes a general point clearer. give a concrete example.
- illustrate — make an idea clearer through a case or detail. illustrate the difficulty.
- demonstrate — show how or why something is true. demonstrate a connection.
- substantiate — support a claim with convincing information. substantiate the allegation.
- corroborate — provide independent support for an existing account. corroborate the witness’s account.
- infer — draw a conclusion from available clues. infer a motive from the wording.
- imply — suggest a meaning without saying it directly. imply that change is possible.
- interpret — explain what something means in context. interpret a figure in context.
- analyse — examine how parts work together. analyse the writer’s choices.
- evaluate — judge the strength, quality or value of something. evaluate the proposal.
- plausible — reasonable enough to believe given what is known. a plausible explanation.
- credible — worthy of belief or trust. a credible source.
- relevant — directly connected to the issue being considered. relevant to the question.
- sufficient — enough for the purpose or conclusion at hand. sufficient for a limited trial.
- representative — typical enough to reflect a larger group. a representative sample.
- anecdote — a brief account of a particular incident. open with an anecdote.
- limitation — something that restricts what a method or claim can establish. acknowledge a limitation.
- contradict — state or show something incompatible with another claim. contradict the earlier finding.
- synthesise — combine ideas from separate sources into a new account. synthesise competing accounts.
61–80 Connecting ideas
- whereas — introduces a clause that contrasts with another. whereas the first option costs less.
- although — introduces a fact that qualifies the main statement. although demand may rise.
- however — signals a contrast or change in direction. however, costs remain uncertain.
- nevertheless — signals that a point still holds despite a difficulty. nevertheless, the trial could go ahead.
- conversely — introduces a contrasting relationship in the reverse direction. conversely, lower demand can free capacity.
- similarly — points out a meaningful likeness. similarly, smaller groups need space.
- likewise — shows that a similar point applies elsewhere. likewise, evening users need lighting.
- consequently — introduces a result of what came before. consequently, the queue grew.
- therefore — introduces a conclusion or result that follows. therefore, a trial is justified.
- furthermore — adds a supporting point. furthermore, the existing room is free.
- specifically — narrows the discussion to a precise detail. specifically, the plan would add two sessions.
- instead — signals a replacement or different choice. instead, use the current building.
- alternatively — introduces another option. alternatively, change the timetable.
- otherwise — indicates what happens under different conditions. book early, otherwise places may fill.
- provided — introduces a condition when used with a following clause. provided that staffing is adequate.
- despite — introduces something that fails to prevent the main outcome. despite the delay.
- unlike — marks a difference between two things. unlike the previous scheme.
- respectively — matches items with values in the same stated order. costs were $5 and $8, respectively.
- overall — signals a judgement about the whole picture. overall, the benefits are modest.
- ultimately — identifies what matters after other factors are considered. ultimately, the decision depends on demand.
81–100 Explaining cause and effect
- cause — produce or bring about an outcome. cause avoidable delays.
- contribute — play a part in bringing about an outcome. contribute to overcrowding.
- trigger — set a process or reaction in motion. trigger a review.
- accelerate — make a process happen faster. accelerate the transition.
- intensify — make something stronger or more severe. intensify competition.
- exacerbate — make an existing problem worse. exacerbate existing inequalities.
- mitigate — reduce the severity or harmful effect of something. mitigate the harm.
- prevent — stop something from happening. prevent further damage.
- deter — discourage someone from taking an action. deter people from taking risks.
- enable — make an action possible. enable students to attend.
- facilitate — make an action or process easier. facilitate access to training.
- reinforce — strengthen an effect, belief or behaviour. reinforce an existing pattern.
- undermine — weaken something, often gradually. undermine public trust.
- sustain — keep something going over time. sustain the improvement.
- displace — push something or someone out of an existing place or role. displace smaller operators.
- redistribute — change how something is shared. redistribute public funds.
- consequence — an outcome that follows an action or event. an unintended consequence.
- mechanism — the process through which an effect occurs. identify the mechanism.
- correlation — a pattern in which two things vary together. observe a correlation.
- constraint — a condition that limits what can be done. work within a budget constraint.
101–120 Synthesising sources
- attribute — identify where an idea or quotation comes from. attribute the statistic to Source A.
- cite — identify the source of material used in an argument. cite the survey in Source B.
- paraphrase — restate a source’s meaning in your own words and structure. paraphrase the author’s reasoning.
- excerpt — a passage taken from a longer work. an excerpt from a public address.
- provenance — the origin and history of a piece of material. check the provenance of a photograph.
- testimony — a person’s account offered as evidence. testimony from residents.
- dataset — an organised collection of data. a dataset on bus ridership.
- sample — a subset examined to learn about a larger group. a sample of city schools.
- metric — a defined quantity used to measure performance or change. an attendance metric.
- variable — a factor that may vary or be deliberately changed. control for a confounding variable.
- baseline — a reference point used to judge later differences. measure change against the baseline.
- methodology — the overall system of methods used to investigate a question. question the study’s methodology.
- outlier — a result far from the others in a set. identify an outlier.
- independent — arising separately from the source or factor under discussion. an independent source.
- convergence — movement towards agreement or a shared conclusion. convergence between findings.
- divergence — movement apart or difference between results or views. divergence between local and national data.
- complement — add a missing part or strength to something else. complement the survey with testimony.
- complicate — show that a simple explanation leaves important things out. complicate the initial conclusion.
- reconcile — explain how apparently conflicting claims can fit together. reconcile the two findings.
- triangulate — check a claim by comparing different independent sources or methods. triangulate claims across three sources.
121–140 Building commentary and argument
- commentary — reasoning that explains how evidence supports a claim. develop the commentary after a quotation.
- warrant — the reasoning that connects evidence to a claim. explain the warrant for the claim.
- grounds — the basis or reasons for holding a position. give grounds for a limited trial.
- scope — the range of cases a statement or argument covers. limit the scope of the argument.
- inference — a conclusion reached from available evidence. draw an inference from the pattern.
- deduction — reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from its premises. reach the conclusion by deduction.
- generalization — a broad statement drawn from specific cases. a generalization from a narrow sample.
- analogue — a comparable case with a similar structure or function. an analogue from a neighboring district.
- precedent — an earlier case used as a guide for a later one. cite a legal precedent.
- exception — a case to which a rule or pattern does not apply. allow for an exception.
- criterion — a single standard for judging something. use reliability as one criterion.
- condition — a circumstance required for a claim or proposal to hold. state a condition for success.
- implication — what follows from a statement even when left unstated. consider the implication for families.
- counterexample — a case that shows a general claim does not always hold. offer a counterexample to an absolute claim.
- oversimplification — an explanation that drops important complexity. avoid oversimplification.
- falsehood — a statement that is untrue. identify a falsehood in a source.
- equivocation — a shift between meanings of a term within a line of reasoning. detect equivocation over the meaning of freedom.
- leverage — use a resource or advantage to achieve a result. leverage existing community networks.
- tentative — held provisionally pending stronger evidence. a tentative explanation.
- defensible — capable of being supported with sound reasons. a defensible thesis.
141–160 Weighing competing priorities
- trade-off — a choice in which obtaining one benefit comes with a loss elsewhere. a trade-off between privacy and convenience.
- proportionate — appropriate in scale to the problem or objective. a proportionate response to a risk.
- equitable — fair in view of different needs or starting points. equitable access to public services.
- discretion — freedom to exercise judgement within a role or set of rules. give teachers discretion.
- autonomy — the ability or right to make one’s own decisions. protect personal autonomy.
- accountability — responsibility to explain and answer for decisions. increase public accountability.
- consensus — broad agreement among a group. build consensus over priorities.
- dissent — expressed disagreement with a prevailing view. allow space for dissent.
- compliance — acting according to a rule or requirement. monitor compliance with the rule.
- enforcement — steps taken to make a rule operate in practice. the cost of enforcement.
- disparity — a noticeable difference between groups or outcomes. a disparity in participation.
- burden — a cost, duty or difficulty borne by someone. reduce the burden on families.
- incentive — a feature that encourages someone to act. create an incentive to volunteer.
- deterrent — something that discourages an action. a deterrent to unsafe driving.
- feasibility — whether a proposal can be carried out in practice. assess the feasibility of a pilot.
- viability — whether a proposal can work or continue successfully. question the long-term viability.
- allocation — distribution of limited resources among possible uses. the allocation of public funds.
- reciprocity — mutual exchange of benefits, help or obligations. a relationship based on reciprocity.
- compromise — a settlement in which competing parties accept some limits. reach a compromise.
- safeguard — a measure designed to protect against a risk. build in a safeguard for applicants.
161–180 Describing scale and change
- widespread — present across many places or groups. widespread smartphone use.
- prevalent — common in a particular group or setting. prevalent among younger adults.
- persistent — continuing over a period despite efforts or change. a persistent shortage.
- gradual — happening in small steps over time. a gradual decline.
- incremental — proceeding through successive small additions or changes. incremental improvements.
- temporary — lasting for a limited period. a temporary measure.
- permanent — intended or expected to continue indefinitely. a permanent change.
- systemic — rooted in the workings of a whole system. a systemic failure.
- structural — arising from the organisation of institutions or systems. structural barriers to employment.
- localised — limited to a particular area or group. a localised shortage.
- uneven — distributed or developing differently across a group. uneven growth across regions.
- disproportionate — too large or too small relative to a comparison. a disproportionate burden.
- unintended — occurring without being planned. an unintended effect.
- preventable — capable of being stopped before it happens. preventable injuries.
- measurable — able to be assessed in observable terms. a measurable improvement.
- threshold — a point at which a rule, effect or condition begins to apply. reach a minimum threshold.
- trajectory — the direction in which change is moving over time. alter the long-term trajectory.
- fluctuate — rise and fall irregularly. prices fluctuate over time.
- stabilise — become or make something more steady. stabilise demand.
- reverse — change an earlier direction or outcome. reverse the decline.
181–200 Evaluating limits and assumptions
- presuppose — treat something as already true before arguing. presuppose that demand is fixed.
- conflate — treat distinct things as if they were the same. conflate availability with accessibility.
- elide — leave out or pass over a distinction or detail. elide the difference between choice and constraint.
- overgeneralise — draw a conclusion that covers more cases than the evidence allows. overgeneralise from one institution.
- extrapolate — extend an observed pattern beyond the data available. extrapolate from a small pilot.
- circumscribe — limit something to a defined range. circumscribe the policy’s application.
- predicate — base a claim or decision on a condition. predicate success on continued funding.
- reductive — simplifying a subject in a way that loses important detail. a reductive account of motivation.
- tenable — capable of being maintained under criticism. a tenable explanation of the discrepancy.
- fallacious — based on faulty reasoning. a fallacious comparison between unlike cases.
- ambivalent — having mixed or opposing feelings about something. an ambivalent response to regulation.
- normative — concerned with what ought to be done or valued. a normative claim about fairness.
- empirical — based on observation or evidence from experience. empirical evidence on take-up.
- asymmetry — a significant difference between two sides that are compared. an asymmetry in bargaining power.
- contention — a claim presented as part of an argument. the contention that access is universal.
- caveat — a warning or limitation attached to a statement. accept the proposal with a caveat.
- paradox — an apparently contradictory situation or statement. the paradox of choice without access.
- compatibility — ability to work or coexist together. compatibility with local practice.
- salience — importance or prominence in a particular context. the salience of cost in the debate.
- commensurate — matching another thing in size or degree. support commensurate with need.
What the GRE Issue essay asks you to do
The statement tells you the issue. The separate directions determine the job. One task might ask you to weigh the strongest objection to your own position. Another might ask which of two views better matches your judgement, or whether you accept both a claim and its stated reason. A practice plan should begin by identifying that second instruction.
ETS evaluates how clearly you articulate and develop an analysis, how well the evidence supports it and how effectively you communicate it. The task draws on reasoning about issues of general interest. You can illustrate a point with a hypothetical case when you signal that it is hypothetical. The test word processor provides basic editing tools. Practise reviewing your own language because spelling and grammar checkers are unavailable.
ETS Analytical Writing overview · ETS Analyze an Issue instructions · ETS Analytical Writing scoring guide
Worked GRE Issue essay
Original practice task. Public institutions should replace face-to-face appointments with online services whenever possible. Discuss how far you agree and explain circumstances in which the recommendation would or would not be advantageous.
Public institutions should move routine transactions online when doing so makes them easier to complete. A digital process can also free staff time for harder cases. However, the fact that a transaction can technically be completed online is an insufficient reason to remove the in-person option. The decision should depend on how much judgement the task requires and whether the people it serves can use the new process.
Online services are most useful when people already know what to do and need a convenient way to do it. A library member renewing a book, for example, can usually confirm the transaction without help. Offering renewal outside opening hours can remove the cost of an unnecessary journey. In such cases the user gains flexibility, and staff can devote time to work that requires conversation.
The case is weaker when a decision depends on understanding rules or explaining an unusual situation. Imagine a resident applying for emergency housing support after moving several times. A form may ask for a permanent address or evidence the resident cannot easily supply. An adviser could identify the relevant exception and explain what documents would work. The online process may be available in a technical sense while the service remains inaccessible in practice.
Maintaining both channels has a cost, so an institution should distinguish the two kinds of work. It can put standard renewals online while retaining appointments for exceptional or complex cases. It should then check whether users complete their applications, whether they need repeated help and which groups are excluded. If the online route is reliable and widely usable, the institution can expand it. Where mistakes would leave someone without urgent support, an alternative route remains justified.
Word list · Exam requirements · Model analysis
How the model responds to the instruction
The opening names two circumstances that decide whether moving online is advantageous. The renewal example tests convenience for a routine task. The housing example tests what happens when a rule has exceptions. The final paragraph weighs a reasonable concern about cost and explains when the policy should expand. Each example changes how far the position extends.
If the instruction instead asks you to address the strongest challenge to your view, devote more space to explaining why an institution might need to close one channel. If it asks you to assess a claim and a reason, separate your judgement of the action from your judgement of the proposed justification. The same topic can therefore call for different essays.
Word list · Worked response · Fencing Method
How to fence a GRE argument word
1. Base. The recommendation is conditional. 2. Detail. The recommendation is conditional on users having internet access. 3. Tone. Support for online-only renewal should be conditional on reliable access. 4. Logic. Reliable access is a necessary condition for the policy because the service is otherwise unavailable to some users. 5. Transfer. Support for compulsory training is conditional on workers having time to complete it.
Now test necessary against sufficient. Internet access may be necessary for online renewal. It may still be insufficient if the site cannot be used with assistive technology. Write one sentence for each term and name the condition that would change your conclusion.
The eduKate Fencing Method for Vocabulary
Word list · Model analysis · Practice and FAQs
Timed practice and FAQs
Does ETS require agreement? You choose the position and support it according to the instructions. Is this a specialist knowledge test? ETS describes it as an assessment of analytical writing and reasoning. How many tasks are there in the current format? One 30-minute Issue task.
Try an original claim about requiring universities to teach financial literacy. Write one circumstance in which the requirement would be worthwhile and one in which another approach would work better. Then change the instructions so the task asks for the strongest objection to your own position. Rearrange your plan to make the objection central.
After drafting, trace each topic sentence back to the position and the instructions. Check that your evidence does more than make an illustration vivid. It should show why a rule applies, where it stops or which consequence deserves more weight. Fix the weakest reasoning before replacing words for variety.
Ten focused practice drills
1. Underline the instruction separately from the issue statement. If asked to assess both a claim and its reason, write two provisional judgments. You may accept the conclusion for a different reason or reject the proposed explanation while finding the recommendation worthwhile in some cases.
2. Rewrite an absolute claim as a conditional one. Begin with the broad proposition, identify a setting where it works and specify a condition. Then find a setting where the condition fails. This gives you a way to explain scope without making the thesis vague.
3. Separate a condition from a result. Reliable internet may be necessary for an online service, yet completion also depends on the design of the form. State whether the condition is required, sufficient or simply helpful. Give an example that tests your choice.
4. Use therefore only if the conclusion follows from the previous point. If a passage says a proposal is inexpensive and then calls it fair, identify the missing connection. Low cost may help a budget without establishing who can access the service.
5. Describe a counterfactual in plain language. Ask what the institution would likely do without the proposal. Comparing a policy with a realistic existing route can show whether the claimed benefit is new or whether the same result could be achieved with a smaller change.
6. Use one concrete example to illustrate a mechanism. An online booking page reduces some trips because users can see available appointments before leaving home. That example explains a process. A general statement about modernisation leaves the link between the action and the result unstated.
7. Turn an objection into a test. If critics say a hybrid service is too costly, compare the costs with the errors or repeat visits it could avoid. Explain which circumstances make the objection decisive. Your answer may change the scope of the proposal.
8. Check how a policy affects groups with different options. A decision that saves time for routine users may impose extra work on people with unusual cases. Give a brief example of each and explain which trade-off matters most to your final judgment.
9. Calibrate certainty. An observed increase during a short trial may suggest demand, while a sustained increase across different sites may support a broader conclusion. Use tentative, persistent or representative only when the evidence justifies the description.
10. Read the final paragraph beside the question. A conclusion should answer how far you agree or what circumstances shape your position. If it only repeats a general preference, bring forward one of the conditions you have already defended.
Practise the same issue with different directions
Try an original statement claiming that universities should replace most large lectures with recorded lessons. One set of directions asks when the recommendation would be advantageous. A second asks you to address the strongest reason someone could use to challenge your position. Write a distinct opening for each response.
For the circumstances version, contrast a lecture explaining basic background with a session where students need feedback during the explanation. Recordings can make the first easy to revisit, while the second may lose an opportunity to notice confusion. Explain which condition changes the judgment. A flexible argument could support recordings for preparation while preserving interactive sessions for difficult material.
For the challenge version, develop the strongest practical objection. A university may lack rooms or staff for frequent live sessions. Give that objection a concrete setting. Then explain whether it justifies replacing most lectures, changing the format for particular topics or adding recorded preparation to a smaller number of meetings. The detail should shape the degree of agreement.
Separate the question of how easily an institution can make a change from the question of whether the change improves education. Each concern can be valid. The essay needs a principle for deciding when one outweighs the other. State that principle in the conclusion if the previous paragraphs have shown why it applies.
A fast review of evidence and wording
After a timed attempt, mark the strongest evidence and write what it actually establishes in a few words. A hypothetical example can make a claim plausible. A verified example can give it firmer support, provided the comparison fits. Check any broad conclusion against the evidence you gave.
Finally, read the essay for words that overstate certainty. If you wrote always, see whether you gave an exception. If you wrote proves, consider whether the example supports only a possibility. Repair these choices before looking for synonyms. The right degree of certainty is part of the reasoning.
Next reading
EIKEN Grade 1 · EIKEN Grade Pre-1 · IB English A: Literature
IB English A: Language and Literature essay vocabulary · ACT Writing essay vocabulary · Back to the 200-word list