Last updated July 07, 2026 · Reviewed by the AnvayaPrep team
Introduction
The Argument Essay (also called the Analyze an Argument task) is the second essay in the GRE Analytical Writing section and accounts for 50% of the Analytical Writing score. Unlike the Issue task, which asks the test-taker to build and defend a position, the Argument task presents a 100-to-150-word passage containing a conclusion supported by evidence and reasoning, and asks the test-taker to critique how well the evidence supports the conclusion. The test-taker's job is not to agree or disagree with the conclusion -- it is to identify the logical weaknesses in the reasoning.
The Argument task is one of the most learnable tasks on the GRE because the GRE reuses a small set of logical flaw patterns across different argument topics. Test-takers who learn to recognize these patterns -- causal assumptions, representativeness assumptions, feasibility assumptions, comparison assumptions, and temporal assumptions -- can efficiently identify 3 to 5 flaws in any argument they encounter and produce a well-organized critique within 30 minutes.
This unit spans 17 topics covering the task structure and format, the five recurring assumption categories, evidence evaluation techniques, essay structure, thesis construction, body paragraph development, alternative explanations, conclusion strategy, timing, and scoring criteria. Mastery of the argument critique structure transfers directly to graduate-level skills: evaluating research methodologies, identifying confounding variables, and assessing whether evidence supports conclusions.
Learning Objectives
- Identify the conclusion, premises, and unstated assumptions in any GRE argument passage
- Classify assumptions into the five recurring categories: causal, representativeness, feasibility, comparison, and temporal
- Evaluate evidence quality by assessing relevance, sufficiency, and representativeness
- Generate alternative explanations for any evidence-to-conclusion claim in the passage
- Apply the five-paragraph critique structure: introduction (thesis that the argument is flawed) + three body paragraphs (one flaw each) + conclusion
- Write each body paragraph using the four-step pattern: identify the assumption, explain why it may not hold, illustrate with a scenario where it fails, specify what evidence would address it
- Manage time using the 5-minute planning / 22-minute writing / 3-minute revision model
- Recognize when never to state a personal opinion on the argument's conclusion
High-Yield Concepts
The Five Recurring Assumption Categories
The GRE recycles the same logical flaw types across different argument topics. Recognizing these patterns accelerates analysis.
| Assumption Category | What the Argument Takes for Granted | How to Identify It |
|---|---|---|
| Causal | Correlation implies causation; no other factor caused the outcome | "X happened after Y, therefore Y caused X" |
| Representativeness | A sample or group reflects a broader population | Survey, poll, or sample results generalized to all |
| Feasibility | A proposed plan can be implemented as described | "Should do X" without addressing obstacles |
| Comparison | Two different situations are similar enough to compare | "City A did X successfully, so City B should too" |
| Temporal | Past or current conditions will persist into the future | "Sales have been increasing, so they will continue" |
A single argument passage typically contains two to four of these assumption types. Planning should involve scanning the passage to identify which categories are present before writing.
Treat every GRE argument as deliberately flawed -- because it is. ETS only presents arguments that contain identifiable weaknesses. Your job is not to determine whether the argument might be correct; it is to identify which logical gaps exist. Start reading with the question "what must be true for this reasoning to work?" and the assumptions emerge quickly.
The Critique Structure
A high-scoring Argument Essay follows a five-paragraph structure:
Introduction (3 to 5 sentences): Briefly paraphrase the argument's conclusion and key evidence. State the thesis: the argument relies on questionable assumptions and lacks sufficient evidence to be convincing. Do not agree or disagree with the conclusion.
Body paragraphs (3 paragraphs, 5 to 7 sentences each): Each paragraph addresses one major logical flaw. The internal structure of each paragraph follows four steps:
- Identify the assumption (state what the argument takes for granted).
- Explain why it may not hold (why the assumption might be false).
- Illustrate a failure scenario (a specific situation where the assumption breaks down).
- Specify what evidence would address the weakness.
Conclusion (3 to 4 sentences): Synthesize the critique. State that the argument would be more convincing if it addressed the identified gaps. Do not introduce new flaws.
| Essay Section | Length | Primary Job |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction | 75-100 words | Paraphrase argument; state it is flawed |
| Body paragraph 1 | 100-130 words | One assumption, fully analyzed |
| Body paragraph 2 | 100-130 words | Second assumption, fully analyzed |
| Body paragraph 3 | 100-130 words | Third assumption or evidence weakness |
| Conclusion | 50-75 words | Synthesize; list what would strengthen the argument |
Identifying Assumptions: The Bridge Question
The most efficient method for finding assumptions is the bridge question: "What must be true for this evidence to support this conclusion?" The answer is the assumption.
Example argument: "Sales at our downtown restaurant increased by 20% after we renovated the dining room. We should therefore renovate all our locations."
Bridge questions and the assumptions they reveal:
- What must be true for the renovation to explain the sales increase? (Causal assumption: no other factor -- seasonal change, competitor closing, improved menu -- caused the increase.)
- What must be true for the downtown results to apply to all locations? (Comparison assumption: the locations are similar in customer base, demographics, and physical condition.)
- What must be true for renovation to be a viable recommendation? (Feasibility assumption: the other locations can be renovated at comparable cost and disruption.)
A common error is writing that you disagree with the argument's conclusion. The Argument task is not a debate -- you do not state a personal opinion on whether the recommendation is a good idea. You evaluate only whether the reasoning adequately supports the conclusion. Even if you believe the conclusion is correct, your essay critiques the logical quality of the evidence provided.
Alternative Explanations
For any evidence-to-conclusion claim in the argument, generating alternative explanations is one of the most effective analytical moves. Alternative explanations reveal why correlation does not prove causation, which is the most frequently tested assumption category.
Pattern: "The evidence (X occurred after Y) is equally consistent with the alternative explanation (Z), which the argument does not rule out."
If an argument claims a policy caused a positive outcome, alternative explanations include: unrelated external factors (economic conditions, population changes), pre-existing trends that would have continued regardless, or placebo effects from the announcement of the policy rather than its implementation.
For every causal claim in an argument, generate three alternatives: (1) a confounding variable, (2) reverse causation, (3) coincidence or pre-existing trend. This three-alternative habit prevents shallow causal analysis and fills body paragraphs efficiently.
Study Strategy
Begin with the argument-task-overview and argument-essay-structure topics. These establish the format, the structural template, and the fundamental distinction between critiquing reasoning and expressing a personal opinion.
Study identifying-assumptions next. This is the core analytical skill of the entire unit. Practice reading short passages and generating bridge questions before studying any other topic.
Study the five assumption categories -- causal assumptions, sampling assumptions, survey assumptions, comparison assumptions (flawed comparisons), and feasibility-related topics (missing information, alternative explanations) -- as a cluster. These topics each cover one recurring flaw type in depth.
Study argument-essay-thesis and argument-essay-timing together, as these address the operational mechanics of producing a complete, well-structured essay under time pressure.
Finish with evaluating-evidence and evaluating-conclusion-strength. These topics address evidence quality analysis, which overlaps with assumption identification but covers different failure modes (vague statistics, outdated data, biased sources).
Common Mistakes
Stating a personal opinion on the conclusion. The task is to critique the reasoning, not to advocate for or against the conclusion. Essays that spend sentences arguing that the recommendation is wrong (rather than that the reasoning is flawed) lose focus and score lower.
Identifying only one flaw. A one-flaw essay with a single developed body paragraph scores in the 3 range regardless of how well that flaw is analyzed. Three distinct flaws -- each in its own paragraph -- are required for a score of 4 or above.
Repeating the same assumption with different wording. Three paragraphs that all address variations of "we do not know if the evidence is representative" are treated as one analytical point. Each body paragraph must address a structurally distinct flaw category.
Describing the argument rather than critiquing it. Restating what the argument says without identifying why it is logically weak produces a descriptive essay, not an analytical one. Every paragraph must include an explanation of the logical problem, not just a summary of the evidence.
Skipping the "what evidence would help" step. The instruction specifically asks for what additional information or evidence would strengthen or weaken the argument. Omitting this element in body paragraphs leaves the critique incomplete.
Exam Tips
Read the argument twice before planning: once to understand the conclusion and evidence, once to identify the logical gaps. On the second reading, mark the assumption type for each gap directly on scratch paper.
Prioritize flaws that are easiest to develop fully over flaws that are technically interesting but hard to explain. An assumption you can illustrate with a concrete failure scenario scores higher than one you can only state abstractly.
In the conclusion, list specifically what evidence would make the argument more convincing. This directly addresses the instruction and demonstrates that you understand what is missing, not just what is wrong.
Avoid any language that implies you agree with the conclusion. The safest phrasing is "the argument would be more convincing if it demonstrated..." rather than "the author is correct that..." or "while the recommendation makes sense..."