GRE Sample Essay 9

GRE General and Subject Tests

GRE Sample Essay 9

An essential milestone for students targeting top-tier graduate programs worldwide is mastering the GRE (Graduate Record Examination). Specifically, the Analytical Writing Measure (AWM)—commonly referred to as the GRE Essay—evaluates your ability to articulate complex ideas clearly, sustain a coherent argument, and support your claims with relevant evidence.

For many candidates, looking at a high-scoring sample essay is the best way to understand the pacing, structure, and depth required to secure a perfect 6.0 score.

Below is a comprehensive guide featuring GRE Sample Essay 9, structured around an “Analyze an Issue” prompt. This guide includes the prompt, a 6.0-level sample response, a detailed breakdown of why it succeeds, and actionable strategies to help you excel.

Understanding the GRE “Issue” Task

In the Analyze an Issue task, you are presented with a broad opinion on a topic of general interest and given instructions on how to respond. You must evaluate the issue, develop your own position, and support it with logical reasons and examples drawn from history, science, literature, politics, or personal experience.

GRE Sample Essay Prompt (Topic 9)

Prompt:

“Governments should focus more on solving immediate, practical problems than on funding research that has no clear, short-term practical application.”

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, you should consider ways in which the recommendation might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

6.0 Sample Essay Response

Introduction

In an era characterized by immediate socio-economic pressures, from public health crises to infrastructure deficits, the allure of pragmatic governance is undeniable. The recommendation that governments prioritize immediate, practical problems over abstract, basic scientific research appeals to a utilitarian ideal: using finite public resources to solve tangible, current issues. However, this short-sighted perspective fails to recognize that today’s immediate solutions are built upon the foundation of yesterday’s theoretical curiosity. While governments must inevitably allocate resources to address pressing contemporary dilemmas, they must simultaneously safeguard funding for speculative, non-applied research. Neglecting long-term, theoretical pursuits eventually starves future generations of the very innovations required to solve tomorrow’s “immediate” problems.

Body Paragraph 1: The Foundations of Modern Innovation

To argue that research should only be funded when its practical applications are immediately clear is to misunderstand the very nature of scientific discovery. Many of humanity’s most transformative advancements emerged from purely speculative endeavors. For instance, when James Clerk Maxwell formulated the equations governing electromagnetism in the 19th century, he did so to solve a theoretical riddle, not to invent the radio, television, or wireless internet. Similarly, the development of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century was regarded by many as an abstract, philosophical playground for physicists. Yet, without quantum mechanics, the modern silicon microchip—and by extension, the entire global digital economy—would not exist. If governments of past eras had restricted funding to purely “practical” concerns like agricultural output or steam engine refinement, the foundational breakthroughs that birthed the modern digital age would have been delayed, if not entirely lost.

Body Paragraph 2: Serendipity in Basic Research

Furthermore, fundamental research often yields serendipitous benefits that could never have been anticipated by bureaucratic funding panels. The story of CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology illustrates this perfectly. The discovery of CRISPR began with researchers studying the obscure immune systems of bacteria in salt marshes—a pursuit with zero obvious clinical or economic utility at the time. Today, CRISPR is hailed as one of the most revolutionary breakthroughs in biotechnology, offering potential cures for genetic diseases, advancements in agricultural resilience, and novel ways to combat pandemics. Had funding been strictly funneled into immediate clinical trials for existing diseases instead of basic microbiological curiosity, this transformative tool might remain undiscovered.

Body Paragraph 3: Addressing the Counter-Argument (The Pragmatic Balance)

Admittedly, governments do not possess unlimited capital. In times of severe economic recession, war, or public health emergencies, leaders face the moral imperative to prioritize immediate humanitarian relief and critical infrastructure. It would be irresponsible, for instance, to let a city’s water treatment facilities collapse in order to fund a theoretical astrophysics project. However, the solution is not an “either/or” dichotomy but rather a balanced portfolio. Just as a prudent financial investor diversifies their assets between stable, low-yield short-term bonds and high-risk, high-reward long-term stocks, a state must diversify its intellectual investments. A portion of the national budget must always be partitioned off as “protected venture capital” for speculative research, insulated from the shifting winds of political expediency.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the dichotomy between solving immediate practical problems and funding basic, long-term research is a false one. They are not opposing forces, but rather two halves of the same cycle of progress. Immediate problems must be addressed to ensure societal stability in the present, but fundamental research must be funded to guarantee our survival and prosperity in the future. By maintaining a robust commitment to theoretical research with no immediate applications, governments do not ignore practical problems; rather, they invest in the intellectual infrastructure that will resolve the unforeseen challenges of tomorrow.

Detailed Analysis: Why This Essay Earns a 6.0

  1. Complex and Nuanced Thesis: Rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing, the essay takes a balanced stance. It acknowledges the validity of the prompt’s focus on immediate problems (the concession in Body Paragraph 3) while forcefully defending the necessity of theoretical research.

  2. Superb Structural Organization: The essay transitions smoothly from the introduction to theoretical foundations (historical), to serendipity (modern scientific), to a practical counter-argument (economic reality), and finally to a synthesizing conclusion.

  3. Specific, High-Impact Evidence: The writer doesn’t use vague generalizations. They cite concrete historical and scientific examples—Maxwell’s equations, quantum mechanics, and CRISPR-Cas9—to anchor their arguments in reality.

  4. Sophisticated Vocabulary and Sentence Variety: Words like utilitarian, serendipitous, expediency, and dichotomy are used naturally and correctly. The writer varies sentence structures, combining long, complex clauses with punchy, direct statements to maintain reader interest.

How to Apply This to Your GRE Prep

To duplicate this level of writing on your exam, consider incorporating these habits into your preparation routine:

  • Build an “Example Bank”: Collect 10–15 versatile examples across history, science, technology, and literature that can be adapted to various prompts (e.g., Galileo, the space race, the invention of the internet, or environmental policies).

  • Practice Outline Writing: Spend the first 3 to 5 minutes of your practice tests outlining your thesis, your main body points, and your counter-arguments. A strong blueprint prevents your essay from meandering.

  • Keep an Eye on the Clock: The 30-minute limit passes quickly. Train yourself to write quickly while maintaining logical transitions between paragraphs.

For more resources on test preparation, graduate admissions, and academic success, explore the comprehensive guides available on Wealthinfo. To learn more about funding your studies through scholarships, check out Scholarship Opportunities, or read our tips on Preparing for International Exams to boost your score.

Claim: Major policy decisions should always be left to politicians and other government experts.

Reason: Politicians and other government experts are more informed and thus have better judgment and perspective than do members of the general public.

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.

Response for GRE Sample Essay 9

The aforesaid claim is quite debatable. Although it is true that politicians and governmental experts are aware of the know-how of making a policy process and constitutional procedures. The policy is implemented on the general public, so it must be made a part of the decision-making process. If the general public is in collaboration with the government in policy formation, this will make the system more transparent and efficient.

We all live in a democratic system. A democratic system is for the people, by the people & of the people. Thus public’s say in policies that affect the masses is necessary. It is not always true that politicians are aware of the local issues that people are facing. Only the wearer knows where the shoe hurts. The government might implement a policy that is impractical at the ground level.

For example, a politician decides online registration of documents in a place with no internet access. The decision is made to reduce the hassles of the people. But when implemented, it results in people going to far-off places to get their documents registered. The locals of that place have to face such avoidable hassles due to the ignorance of the politician. If the local public’s opinion were taken into account, then such inconvenience could have been avoided.

Further, politicians don’t always work in the best interests of people. It is seen in many developed countries that politicians’ decisions are impacted by industrialists for their own benefits. Such decisions impact the livelihood of hundreds of people in a very dreadful way. If public views are incorporated then such decisions can be avoided thus resulting in transparent and efficient governance.

 You may also like:

 

If policies are decided mostly by the government without considering public opinion, people tend to lose confidence in the government. For example, there were some decisions like building a third runway at London’s Heathrow Airport which led to millions of pounds spent on that project. That runway lay unused causing a huge waste of funds. This amount could have been used for another purpose. If public opinion was taken into account such ineffective policymaking could have been easily avoided.

Riots can be avoided in certain cases if public opinion is considered prior to the implementation of certain policies. In a case, it was seen that setting up of industries in rural areas resulted in the loss of agricultural land leading to unemployment. Since the masses were unhappy it led to riots resulting in loss of public property. In such cases, public opinion becomes necessary.

Public views also help in improvement in areas that were not brought to government attention previously. Public opinion could also help set a particular pace for reform. Some governments like the Australian & British governments have set a timetable that decides the pace of policy according to public opinion.

Thus adding informed citizens’ views leads to more effective and legitimate policymaking. Legitimacy depends on a strong link between public opinion, policies, and public office holders a.k.a. politicians. The strong link helps more people put their faith in the government system. If governments collaborate with the citizens, policies implemented will help in the growth of the country exponentially. Hence bilateral decision-making is more beneficial for society than unilateral decisions by the government.

GRE Essay Score

This article scores a 5 because:

The analysis is well-structured and shows a cogent flow of points to be analyzed. The lack of information about a patient’s medical history is an important observation that shows good analytical competence. The main idea of the analysis is well-articulated and is put forth coherently. For more topics, visit: GRE Essay Topics with Answers

 

Related Posts:

Related posts

Leave a Comment