Examples GRE Questions®
Analytical Writing
Exercise 1 — Analyze an Issue (claim)
Claim:
“Universities should prioritize the development of transferable skills (critical thinking, communication, problem solving) over discipline-specific technical knowledge.”
Task:
Write a response in which you evaluate this claim and explain the extent to which you agree or disagree. Support your position with specific reasons and concrete examples (academic, professional, or social). Address at least one counterargument and explain why your stance remains persuasive.
Exercise 1 — Analyze an Issue (claim)
Answer targeting Score 2
Universities should focus mainly on transferable skills because those are useful everywhere. Critical thinking and communication help in any job, while technical knowledge changes quickly and becomes outdated. If students learn how to think and solve problems, they can pick up the technical parts later on the job. Also, employers say soft skills are important, so universities should follow that. Technical courses can be confusing and narrow, but skills like teamwork and writing are clear and practical. In short, put most effort into transferable skills and worry less about specific subject content.
Answer targeting Score 4
The statement has merit because the job market changes quickly and graduates often move across roles and industries. Emphasizing transferable skills—analysis, communication, collaboration—can make students adaptable. For example, the ability to read evidence carefully and present it persuasively helps equally in consulting, engineering, or public service. Furthermore, many technical tools have short lifecycles, so teaching only the tool leaves graduates exposed.
However, technical knowledge is not dispensable. Disciplines rest on bodies of theory and method: an economist must understand microeconomic models; a nurse must master clinical procedures. A reasonable approach is to integrate both: ensure basic technical competence and then use projects and writing-intensive courses to cultivate general skills. If universities went too far toward generic skills, graduates might be articulate but shallow. The best outcome is a curriculum that couples disciplinary foundations with repeated practice in reasoning, writing, and problem solving.
Answer targeting Score 6
Universities should prioritize transferable skills, but not at the expense of disciplinary competence. The priority is justified by the pace of technological change and the cross-functional nature of contemporary work. What endures across industries is not a particular software package or laboratory protocol but the capacity to interrogate claims, frame problems, communicate trade-offs, and collaborate with people who do not share one's expertise.
First, transferable skills insure graduates against obsolescence. Tools evolve; core cognitive habits—structuring an argument, evaluating causal explanations, designing a fair test—do not. A graduate who can decompose an ambiguous problem and defend a recommendation will learn new tools quickly and remove old ones without losing effectiveness.
Second, organizations increasingly rely on interdisciplinary teams. A technically excellent analyst who cannot translate findings for non-specialists will be under-leveraged. Systematic training in writing, visual explanation, and audience-aware speaking turns technical work into decisions.
The strongest counterargument is that some fields (eg, chemical engineering, accounting, clinical practice) impose high stakes and strict standards; here, technical error can harm people or destroy value. The rebuttal is not to dilute technical training but to embed transferable skills within it: case-based labs that require written justifications of design choices; code reviews that emphasize clarity; capstones where students defend models under questioning. In other words, the “priority” is curricular design, not time allocation: teach the discipline through tasks that force analysis, communication, and reflection.
Policy implications follow. Early coursework should emphasize reasoning, evidence, and writing common to all fields; majors then deepen technical mastery while continuing to demand explanation, criticism, and collaboration. Assessment should privilege argument quality, not just answer correctness. This integration produces graduates whose expertise is real and whose usefulness scales beyond a single toolchain.
In sum, universities should prioritize transferable skills as the organizing principle of learning, while ensuring robust disciplinary foundations. That hierarchy equips students to remain effective as knowledge changes and problems cross disciplinary boundaries.
Exercise 2 — Analyze an Issue (claim + reason)
Claim:
“Cities should implement fare-free public transportation.”
Reason:
“This policy reduces inequality and pollution more effectively than subsidizing fuels.”
Task:
Write a response in which you analyze both the claim and the stated reason. Indicate whether you agree or disagree, and under what conditions your position would hold. Use evidence, examples, and nuance (eg, fiscal cost, rider behavior, environmental impact, alternatives). Examine assumptions required for the reason to be valid and provide scenarios in which it might fail.
Exercise 2 — Analyze an Issue (claim + reason)
Answer targeting Score 2
Making public transport free is a good idea. If buses and trains cost nothing, more people will use them instead of cars, so there will be less traffic and pollution. Poor people would also travel more easily to jobs and services. Subsidizing fuel helps drivers, not everyone, and keeps cars on the road. Therefore cities should remove fares and make transit free for all.
Answer targeting Score 4
The claim is attractive because fares can be a barrier for low-income residents, while car-oriented fuel subsidies tend to benefit higher-income drivers. Removing fares could therefore improve access to jobs and education and might reduce some car trips, lowering emissions.
Still, the policy is not universally superior. Transit systems face capacity and funding constraints; if fares disappear without stable replacement revenue, service quality may fall—crowding, longer waits—undermining both equity and environmental goals. Furthermore, pollution reductions depend on mode shift: if new trips are mostly people who previously walked or cycled, environmental gains are limited. A more cautious position is to pilot fare-free transit on specific routes or for targeted groups (students, low-income riders) while simultaneously investing in frequency, reliability, and dedicated lanes. In many cities, improving speed and coverage may deliver larger benefits than eliminating fares system-wide.
Answer targeting Score 6
Evaluating both the claim and the reason requires distinguishing price, service quality, and urban form.
On equity, fare elimination directly lowers the cost of access to jobs, schools, and healthcare for households with tight budgets. By contrast, fuel subsidies are typically regressive: they reward driving, which is correlated with higher income and vehicle ownership, and they externalize congestion and pollution. From an equity standpoint, fare-free transit is plausibly superior.
On the environment, the key mechanism is mode shift. Lowering the price of transit can increase ridership, but emissions fall markedly only if riders switch from private cars. That switch depends more on frequency, reliability, and speed than on fares alone. If buses are infrequent and slow, a zero fare mainly induces trips from walkers and cyclists (no environmental gain) or adds discretionary travel. Therefore, the policy reduces pollution when combined with service upgrades and road-space priority (bus lanes, signal priority) that make transit time-competitive.
The policy's success also hinges on funding stability. Fare revenue often supports operations; eliminating it without replacing funds can degrade service and erode the very benefits sought. Dedicated revenue streams—eg, payroll levies, congestion pricing, or parking fees—can align incentives: drivers pay the social cost of road use, while transit becomes both affordable and frequent.
When might the reason fail? In low-density, car-dependent meters with limited transit networks, free fares will not overcome distance and inconvenience; fuel subsidies there might appear politically easier, although they entrench emissions. Likewise, if buses are already overcrowded, removing fares without capacity expansion can worsen reliability and public perception.
A prudent stance is conditional: cities should adopt fare-free transit where (i) sustainable operating funds are secured, (ii) service improvements and priority measures are implemented, and (iii) land-use patterns allow realistic mode shift. Under these conditions, fare-free transit is more equitable and environmentally effective than subsidizing fuel. Otherwise, targeted discounts plus investment in speed and frequency may outperform a blanket zero-fare policy.
Verbal reasoning
Exercise 1 — Text Completion — Easy
Although the professor's lectures were usually ____, today's talk was surprisingly clear.
Choices (choose ONE)
A) opaque
B) scholar
C) exhaustive
D) anodyne
E) whimsical
Exercise 1 — Text Completion — Easy
Signal word: “Although...surprisingly clear.”We need a word that typically contrasts with clear.
opaque = not clear/obscure → perfect contrast.
scholar (well-educated), exhaustive (thorough), anodyne (inoffensive), whimsical (playful) don't cleanly oppose “clear.”
Therefore, opaque best flips against “surprisingly clear.”
Exercise 2 — Text Completion — Moderate
Once hailed as a prodigy, the pianist encountered reviews that were notably ____: critics praised her technical precision yet found her interpretations curiously ____.
Choices
Blank 1: (i) equivocal (ii) effusive (iii) scathing
Blank 2: (i) prosaic (ii) idiosyncratic (iii) sumptuous
Structure cue: “praised … yet found …”—that's mixed feedback.
- For Blank 1, we want “mixed/ambivalent”: equivocal fits. effusive (overly praising) or scathing (harshly negative) would make the overall tone one-sided, contradicting the “yet.”
- For Blank 2, the critics liked her precision but found her interpretations “curiously ____,” implying a negative or at least disappointing quality. prosaic = dull, unimaginative → fits perfectly with “curiously.” idiosyncratic (quirky) and sumptuous (rich/lavish) don't align with that soft negative.
So we get “equivocal” reviews: technical praise but prosaic interpretations.
Exercise 3 — Sentence Equivalence — Hard
Far from being a mere opportunist, the politician proved unexpectedly ____, refusing to temper his position even when doing so would have guaranteed an easy victory.
Choices (choose TWO for the same meaning)
A) capricious
B) obdurate
C) venal
D) steadfast
E) conciliatory
F) intransigent
Core clue: “refusing to temper her position… even when… victory.” Those points to refusal to bend.
- obdurate and intransigent both mean stubbornly unwilling to change—they create the same meaning sentence, satisfying Sentence Equivalence.
- capricious (whimsical/erratic) is the opposite of steady conviction.
- venal (corruptible) contradicts “far from opportunist.”
- conciliatory (seeking commitment) conflicts with “refusing to temper.”
- steadfast is close (firm/loyal) but shades toward principled constancy rather than the unyielding nuance the sentence emphasizes; GRE wants the pair with the tightest semantic overlap, which is obdurate + intransigent.
Exercise 4 — Reading Comprehension — Very Hard (short passage)
Many historians portray the early success of the coastal trading guilds as the inevitable product of geography: deep harbors, prevailing winds, and proximity to river networks ostensibly guaranteed commercial primacy. Yet this account overlooks a puzzling disparity. Several ports with comparable advantages languished, while a few initially disadvantaged towns flourished once they adopted bylaw reforms that standardized weights, broadened membership, and curtailed monopolistic practices. Geography, then, may explain why trade was possible, but not why it was persistent and expanding. The crucial difference, some argue, lay in institutional choices that reduced transaction costs and invited new entrants, thereby making growth less fragile to the accidents of weather and war.
Which statement is most strongly supported by the passage?
A) The geographic advantages of a port are sufficient to ensure sustained commercial dominance.
B) Ports without deep harbors could never achieve commercial primacy.
C) Institutional reforms can transform initially unfavorable conditions into a platform for durable growth.
D) Prevailing winds are more important than river access for long-term trade expansion.
E) Standardized weights were adopted primarily to counteract the effects of war.
What's the author doing? Challenging a geography-only explanation and highlighting the role of institutions in making growth durable.
- The key lines: some “initially disadvantaged towns flourished once they adopted reforms…Geography possibility explains, not persistence and expansion … institutional choices reduced costs and invited entrants.”
- C restates that idea: reforms can offset poor initial conditions and produce durable growth.
Eliminate the rest: - TO contradicts the passage (“sufficient” is too strong; the author argues the opposite).
- B is also too strong (“could never”) and conflicts with “initially disadvantaged towns flourished.”
- D you introduce a comparison the passage doesn't make (winds vs rivers).
- AND misattributes the primary motivate; the passage ties standardization to reducing transaction costs generally, not specifically to war.
Quantitative reasoning
Exercise 1 — Mixtures — Easy
A bottle contains 800 mL of a drink that is 30% juice (the rest is water). You add 200 mL of pure juice. What is the new percentage of juice?
Start by separating “part” and “whole.” The “part” is the amount of juice; the “whole” is the total liquid.
• Initially, juice = 30% of 800 = 0.30 × 800 = 240 mL.
• You pour in 200 mL of pure juice. That increases only the “part” (juice) and also the “whole” (total volume).
– New juice amount = 240 + 200 = 440 mL.
– New total volume = 800 + 200 = 1,000 mL.
• Percentage is part ÷ whole × 100%. So new percentage = 440 ÷ 1,000 × 100% = 44%.
Quick check: If you add a lot of juice to a 30% mixture, the percent must rise above 30%. Landing at 44% is perfectly reasonable.
Answer: 44%
Exercise 2 — Exponents — Moderate
Solve for x: 2ˣ · 4^(x+1) = 64.
When you see different powers, try to express everything with the same base. Here, 4 is 2², and 64 is 2⁶.
• Rewrite 4^(x+1) as (2²)^(x+1) = 2^(2x+2).
• Now the left-hand side becomes 2ˣ · 2^(2x+2) = 2^(3x+2).
• The right-hand side is 64 = 2⁶. If two powers of 2 are equal, their exponents must match:
3x + 2 = 6 ⇒ 3x = 4 ⇒ x = 4 ÷ 3 = 4⁄3.
Sanity check: Plug x = 4⁄3 back quickly.
Left = 2^(4⁄3) · 4^(4⁄3+1) = 2^(4⁄3) · 4^(7⁄3) = 2^(4⁄3) · (2²)^(7⁄3) = 2^(4⁄3) · 2^(14⁄3) = 2^(18⁄3) = 2⁶ = 64. Check out.
Answer: x = 4⁄3
Exercise 3 — Coordinate Geometry — Hard
The circle x² + y² = 25 is intersected by the line y = x + 1. What is the length of the chord formed by their intersection?
A chord is the segment between the two intersection points. So let's find the intersection points and then their distance.
• Substitute y = x + 1 into the circle:
x² + (x + 1)² = 25
⇒ x² + x² + 2x + 1 = 25
⇒ 2x² + 2x − 24 = 0
⇒ divide by 2 → x² + x − 12 = 0
⇒ factor → (x + 4)(x − 3) = 0 → x = −4 or x = 3.
• Use y = x + 1 to get y:
– If x = 3 → y = 4, so P₁(3, 4).
– If x = −4 → y = −3, so P₂(−4, −3).
• Distance between P₁ and P₂:
Δx = 3 − (−4) = 7, Δy = 4 − (−3) = 7.
Length = √(Δx² + Δy²) = √(7² + 7²) = √(49 + 49) = √98 = 7√2.
Faster geometry alternative (nice to know):
Distance from the center (0,0) to the line y = x + 1. In standard form the line is x − y + 1 = 0.
Distance d = |1| ÷ √(1² + (−1)²) = 1 ÷ √2.
Chord length formula: 2√(r² − d²) with r = 5.
Length = 2√(25 − 1⁄2) = 2√(49⁄2) = (2 × 7) ÷ √2 = 14 ÷ √2 = 7√2. Same result, less algebra.
Answer: 7√2
Exercise 4 — Combinatorics — Very Hard
How many four-digit integers greater than 5000 with all distinct digits are divisible by 5?
Divisible by 5 means the last digit is 0 or 5. We'll split into two clean cases. Also, “greater than 5000” means the first digit (thousands place) must be 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9. And “all digits distinct” forbids repeats.
Case A: last digit = 0
• Thousands digit choices: 5 options (5–9).
• Hundreds digit: can be any digit except the chosen thousands digit and 0 → 8 options.
• Tens digit: must avoid both chosen digits → 7 options.
Count_A = 5 × 8 × 7 = 280.
Case B: last digit = 5
Here the thousands digit cannot be 5 (digits must be distinct), but it still must be ≥ 5 to exceed 5000. So thousands digit choices: 6, 7, 8, 9 → 4 options.
• Hundreds digit: from the remaining digits excluding the chosen thousands digit and excluding 5 → 8 options.
• Tens digit: avoid both chosen digits → 7 options.
Count_B = 4 × 8 × 7 = 224.
Total count = 280 + 224 = 504.
Quality checks (what could go wrong?):
• Double-counting? No—cases split by last digit (0 vs 5) are disjoint.
• Leading zero? Impossible here; our thousands digit is always 5–9.
• Distinctness? Enforced at each step by subtracting used digits.
Answer: 504
