> Important: Analyze an Argument was removed from the GRE on September 22, 2023. These examples are for older GRE materials, legacy score interpretation, and general argument-analysis practice—not preparation for the current GRE essay.
If you found these GRE Analyze an Argument examples while preparing for the current test, focus your essay preparation on Analyze an Issue instead. The examples below still offer useful practice in finding assumptions, weak comparisons, and causal mistakes. Each includes the former task instruction, a model response, and notes on the specific flaws involved.
What a strong legacy Analyze an Argument response does
The former task did not ask you to decide whether the conclusion was true. It asked you to examine whether the evidence actually justified that conclusion.
A reliable paragraph pattern is:
- Identify the assumption or reasoning gap.
- Give a plausible alternative explanation.
- Explain how that alternative weakens the conclusion.
- Name the evidence needed to resolve the problem.
Use this adaptable sentence frame:
> The argument assumes that ____. However, it is possible that ____. If so, the evidence does not establish that ____. To evaluate the claim, we would need to know ____.
Labels such as “hasty generalization” or “false cause” can help you organize your thinking. They do not replace explanation. The important part is showing exactly why the evidence falls short.
Example 1: A survey does not prove a cause
Practice argument
> A city recreation department surveyed visitors to Lakeview Park. Eighty percent said they enjoyed the new walking trail. Since park attendance rose after the trail opened, the department should build similar trails in every city park to increase attendance.
Former GRE task instruction
> Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
Sample essay
The recreation department’s recommendation is not yet justified because its evidence does not show that the new trail caused the increase in attendance.
First, the survey may not represent all park visitors. The department surveyed people who were already visiting Lakeview Park, and many of them may have used the new trail. People who dislike trails, avoid the park, or visit at different times may not have been included. Thus, approval from surveyed visitors does not establish that most potential visitors would value similar trails elsewhere. The department would need information about how respondents were selected and whether their views reflect those of the broader community.
Second, the argument treats a change that occurred after the trail opened as proof that the trail produced the change. Attendance may have risen for unrelated reasons, such as favorable weather, a nearby event, improved public transit, or a temporary closure of another park. If one of these factors explains the rise, constructing new trails may not increase attendance. Attendance figures from comparable parks over the same period would help evaluate the claim.
Finally, the argument assumes that every city park resembles Lakeview Park in relevant ways. Some parks may lack space for trails, serve visitors with different preferences, or already have features that attract walkers. A trail that works at Lakeview may be unnecessary or costly at another location. The department would need to compare each park’s conditions, visitor needs, and construction costs before extending the plan citywide.
Therefore, the evidence suggests that Lakeview’s trail may be popular, but it does not adequately support the recommendation to build trails in every city park.
Flaw notes and rubric-based estimate
| Argument move | Logical flaw | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| “Visitors liked it” | Unrepresentative sample | Current visitors may not reflect people the park hopes to attract. |
| “Attendance rose after it opened” | False cause | Events occurring in sequence do not prove causation. |
| “It worked here, so do it everywhere” | Hasty generalization | Other parks may differ in relevant ways. |
Using the former GRE rubric only as a rough guide, this response could fall around the 4–5 range. It develops several distinct weaknesses and asks for relevant evidence. It is not an official score or rater evaluation.
Example 2: Higher sales can have several explanations
Practice argument
> Last month, BrightCup Café began playing classical music during the afternoon. Its afternoon sales were higher this month than last month. Therefore, classical music makes customers spend more, and every BrightCup location should adopt this policy immediately.
Former GRE task instruction
> Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
Sample essay
BrightCup Café’s conclusion rests on several unsupported assumptions.
To begin with, the comparison between this month and last month does not isolate the effect of music. Afternoon sales may have increased because of seasonal changes, a new menu item, local foot traffic, or a promotion during the later period. The argument provides no evidence that these conditions remained the same. Without comparing similar days or using a location that did not play classical music, the café cannot determine whether music caused the increase.
The argument also assumes that higher sales mean individual customers spent more. That need not be true. The café may simply have served more customers, while each customer spent the same amount or less. Data on customer counts and average transaction value would show what actually changed. If transaction values did not rise, the claim that music caused customers to spend more would be weakened.
In addition, one location’s experience may not predict results at every BrightCup branch. A café near offices may serve a different group from one near a university or shopping district. Customers at some locations might dislike classical music, while other stores may have noise levels that make music ineffective. Before requiring a chainwide policy, BrightCup would need results from several representative locations.
The available sales figures are insufficient to show either that classical music increased spending or that every location should adopt it.
Flaw notes and rubric-based estimate
The central flaw is a causal leap: a sales increase after a policy change does not establish that the policy caused it. The argument also relies on ambiguous evidence because “higher sales” could reflect more customers rather than larger purchases.
A response like this could plausibly receive a solid middle-to-upper score under the former rubric because it explains the gaps rather than merely naming them. A stronger version would examine whether the same weekdays, prices, and promotions were compared.
Example 3: An optional program creates selection bias
Practice argument
> After Northside High introduced an optional after-school logic workshop, the average score on a reasoning assessment increased. The workshop must have improved students’ reasoning ability. The school should require all students to attend the workshop next year.
Former GRE task instruction
> Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
Sample essay
The school has not demonstrated that its optional logic workshop caused the higher assessment scores or that mandatory attendance is warranted.
The central problem is self-selection. Because the workshop was optional, students who chose to attend may already have been more motivated, more confident with reasoning questions, or more likely to study outside school. If these students disproportionately contributed to the higher average score, the improvement cannot be attributed solely to the workshop. The school would need to compare the progress of attendees with similar non-attendees.
Moreover, the argument does not establish that the two assessment results are comparable. The later test may have been easier, students may have had more time to prepare, or the group taking the test may have differed from the earlier group. Even a real increase in scores would be difficult to interpret without knowing whether the tests had equivalent difficulty and whether the same students were assessed.
The recommendation also overlooks practical differences among students. Some may have work, family, transportation, or other academic commitments after school. If mandatory participation creates serious conflicts, the policy may not be justified even if the workshop helps some students. Information about attendance patterns and students’ schedules would help assess the recommendation.
Thus, the score increase is promising but does not prove the workshop caused the improvement or justify requiring every student to attend.
Flaw notes and rubric-based estimate
This example catches selection bias, a flaw that is easy to miss. Participants in an optional program are not automatically comparable with nonparticipants.
It also separates two conclusions:
- The workshop improved reasoning ability.
- Every student should be required to attend.
Under the former scoring approach, that separation would likely strengthen a response because each conclusion needs its own evidence. No numerical estimate can substitute for an actual evaluation by trained raters.
A walkthrough for analyzing any argument
When practicing with a legacy prompt or a general reasoning exercise, mark the conclusion first. Then ask:
- Is the sample representative, or did people select themselves?
- Does the evidence show causation, or only a pattern?
- Has one location, group, or time period been treated as representative of another?
- Are key terms vague, such as “successful,” “better,” or “more popular”?
- Does the recommendation go further than the evidence supports?
Choose two or three flaws that you can explain fully. For each one, write the assumption, the alternative possibility, and the missing evidence. A logical-fallacy or cognitive-bias quiz can be useful here: it trains you to recognize the pattern quickly, then your written analysis can focus on consequences.
FAQ
Is Analyze an Argument still on the GRE?
No. Analyze an Argument was removed from the GRE on September 22, 2023. Current GRE essay preparation should focus on Analyze an Issue.
Why study these GRE Analyze an Argument examples now?
They can help with older GRE materials, general critical-thinking practice, and other tasks that require you to evaluate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations.
How many flaws should a former Analyze an Argument response discuss?
Two or three well-developed flaws were generally more useful than a long list of labels. Each point needed explanation and relevant missing evidence.
Should I argue against the author’s conclusion?
Not necessarily. The goal is to show that the conclusion has not been adequately supported. You may use an alternative explanation to expose a gap without claiming that the opposite conclusion is true.
Can I use terms such as “correlation is not causation”?
Yes, if you explain the specific alternative causes that could account for the evidence. A label alone does little analytical work.
Conclusion
These GRE Analyze an Argument examples are legacy practice, not guidance for the current GRE essay. Their lasting value is the reasoning habit behind them: identify the assumption, test an alternative explanation, and ask for the evidence that would make the conclusion credible.