# Gre Issue Essay > Draft, score, and improve GRE Analytical Writing "Analyze an Issue" essays against the 0–6 rubric. Use this skill whenever the user shares a GRE Issue prompt or essay ("score my GRE essay", "AWA feedback", "how do I structure the Issue task", "what does a 5.0 essay need that a 4.0 doesn't"), wants a model essay, asks about the 30-minute timing, or wants targeted practice on position-taking, examples, or counterargument handling. Covers all six official instruction variants (agree/disagree, recommendation, claim-with-reason, two views, consequences). For IELTS essays use ielts-writing-task2; for auditing whether an argument's logic actually holds use argument-audit; for SOP/application essays use apply-sop-writer. - Skill: `jurgendn/gre-issue-essay` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add jurgendn/gre-issue-essay` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/jurgendn/gre-issue-essay/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: jurgendn (https://skillmd.com/u/jurgendn) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/jurgendn/gre-issue-essay --- # GRE Issue Essay Coach (Analytical Writing) The Issue task gives 30 minutes to take a position on a general-interest claim and defend it with reasons and examples. Since the Sept 2023 shortened GRE it is the *only* essay (the "Analyze an Argument" task was removed). It is scored 0–6 in half-points by a human rater plus ETS's automated scorer; what separates 4 from 5 from 6 is depth of position and quality of development, not vocabulary display. ## Use this when - The user shares an Issue prompt and wants a plan, a model essay, or a timed-practice setup. - The user shares their essay and wants a score estimate with rubric-anchored feedback. - The user asks about structure, examples, counterarguments, or the 30-minute clock. ## Do not use this when - The essay is IELTS — use `ielts-writing-task2` (different rubric, different task logic). - The user wants their own real argument checked for validity — use `argument-audit`. - The essay is a statement of purpose or application essay — use `apply-sop-writer`. --- ## Task facts - 30 minutes, one prompt, typed in a plain editor (no spellcheck). No minimum length, but scored essays at 5+ are almost always ≥ 500 words because development takes space — length is a byproduct of development, never the goal. - Every possible prompt is in the published ETS Issue pool (searchable on ets.org) — practice from the real pool. - Each prompt carries one of six standard instruction stems. **The stem changes what a complete response is** — ignoring it caps the score: | Stem asks for | A complete response must | |---------------|--------------------------| | Agree/disagree with a statement | Take a position AND consider ways the statement might or might not hold | | Agree/disagree with a recommendation | Discuss specific circumstances where adopting it would or wouldn't be advantageous | | Which of two views aligns with yours | Choose one AND address both views | | Claim + underlying reason | Evaluate the claim AND the reason offered for it | | Consequences of adopting a policy | Argue from predicted outcomes | | Statement with a qualification | Discuss when it holds and when it doesn't | > Score anchors: [`references/awa-scoring-rubric.md`](references/awa-scoring-rubric.md) — the 0–6 levels in compact form with the official-source pointer. Consult it before assigning any score so feedback stays anchored to the rubric, not impression. --- ## What actually moves the score The 4→5→6 gradient, in order of leverage: 1. **A position with texture.** A 4 asserts a side; a 5–6 stakes a claim *and* marks its limits ("X is generally true, but fails precisely when…"). The instruction stems explicitly invite this — the qualification IS the response to "consider ways it might not hold". 2. **Developed reasons, few in number.** Two or three reasons argued deeply beat five asserted. Each body paragraph: claim → reasoning → *specific* example → link back to the thesis. "Many historical figures show that…" is a 4; a named case examined in two or three sentences is a 5–6. Examples may come from history, science, current events, literature, or well-drawn hypotheticals — specificity matters, domain doesn't, and invented statistics are unnecessary risk. 3. **An honest counterargument.** One paragraph that states the strongest opposing consideration and *answers* it (concede scope, then show why the thesis survives). Straw men read as a 4. 4. **Organization that carries the logic.** Paragraph order should be an argument, not a list; transitions signal logical relation ("this holds even when…", "the deeper problem is…") rather than enumeration ("Secondly…"). 5. **Language: varied, precise, and controlled.** Errors matter only when frequent enough to obscure meaning; thesaurus decoration lowers precision and reads as a weaker essay. Fix clarity before fanciness. ## The 30-minute protocol | Minutes | Do | |---------|-----| | 0–4 | Read the stem twice. Brainstorm both sides (fastest route to a nuanced thesis and a real counterargument). Pick position, jot 2–3 reasons + one example each + the counterargument. | | 4–26 | Write: intro (context sentence + thesis with its qualification) → 2–3 reason paragraphs → counterargument paragraph → short conclusion that restates the qualified thesis. Intro and conclusion stay short; the middle is where points live. | | 26–30 | Proofread for typos, dropped words, sentence boundaries. No restructuring. | If time collapses: a complete essay with a conclusion outscores a longer torso that stops mid-thought — always land the ending. --- ## Workflow ### Scoring a user's essay 1. Identify the prompt's instruction stem and check the essay answered *that* task — stem-mismatch is the first thing to flag, before any prose feedback. 2. Read against the rubric reference and assign a half-point score with a one-line justification per rubric dimension (position, development, organization, language). 3. Give feedback in leverage order (the list above): the 1–2 changes worth the most points first, each illustrated by quoting the user's own sentences and showing the upgraded version. 4. End with: ``` Estimated score: X.X / 6 Biggest lever: Next drill: ``` Calibration honesty: text-only scoring can't see the timed conditions; say the estimate assumes the essay was written in 30 minutes without tools, and ask if it wasn't. ### Producing a model essay or plan - Under timed-realistic constraints: ~500–650 words, achievable structure, no encyclopedic examples the user couldn't produce live. - Label the parts (thesis, reasons, counterargument) and annotate *why* each paragraph earns its keep, so the user learns the skeleton, not the specific essay. ### Timed practice Offer prompts from Issue-pool themes (society, education, technology, government, intellectual life), enforce 30 minutes, then score as above. Track scores and recurring feedback across sessions; recurring grammar-level issues in a Vietnamese-L1 user can be drilled with `ielts-grammar-coach`'s general-English mode.