The GED Essay: Analyze Arguments and Use Evidence

What the essay really asks

The prompt is almost always worded like this: "Analyze both positions presented in the texts to determine which one is better supported. Use relevant and specific evidence from both texts to support your response."

Three things follow from that wording:

1. Your opinion on the issue does not count. Graders score how well you judge the arguments.
2. You must take a side. "Both texts have good points" does not answer the prompt clearly and usually scores lower. Pick the text with stronger support.
3. You must use both texts. Show why one text's evidence is strong and why the other's is weaker.

What graders look for in Trait 1 (2 points):

A response that is blank, completely off topic, not in English, or copied entirely from the texts gets 0 on all three traits.

The key word is explains. Quoting is only half the job. After every quote, tell the reader what it proves and how reliable it is.

How to judge evidence: strong vs. weak

In most GED pairs, one text is clearly better supported. Sort each author's support into "strong" and "weak."

Common faulty reasoning to name in plain words:

• Hasty generalization: one case used to prove a rule. "If it works in Carver County, it will work here."
• Slippery slope: one step will "surely" cause a chain of extreme steps. "Age 18 today, 21 next year..."
• False choice (either/or): only two options are offered when more exist. "Either we build the stadium, or downtown dies."
• Attack on the person: insulting opponents instead of answering them.
• Appeal to emotion: feelings in place of proof. "Our children deserve..."

You do not need the Latin names. "Text 1 relies on one teacher's story, which cannot prove the plan will work for a whole district" earns full credit.

Check every number. If a text says savings will be large, see whether the other text does the math.

The step-by-step method (45 minutes)

Step 1 — Read the prompt (1 min). Know your task before you read: which argument is better supported?

Step 2 — Read and mark both texts (8 min). For each text, jot down:

• the claim, in your own words;
• each piece of evidence, with its paragraph number, marked S (strong: data, research, results) or W (weak: anecdote, opinion, prediction, insult);
• any answer to the other side.

Step 3 — Decide and write your thesis (1 min). Count the S's. Use this formula:

Text __ is better supported because it ___, while Text __ ___.

Step 4 — Outline (2 min). Intro → two or three body paragraphs (each with one main point and evidence from both texts) → a short counterargument/concession → conclusion.

Step 5 — Write (25–28 min). In each body paragraph, follow C-E-E:

• Claim: a topic sentence that supports your thesis.
• Evidence: a short quote or number, with its source ("Text 2 reports that...").
• Explanation: why the evidence is strong, or why the other text's is weak ("Because this study followed students for years, it is far more reliable than one teacher's opinion").

Step 6 — Proofread (4–5 min). Fix missing words, run-ons and misspellings.

Length: most 6/6 essays are 4–6 paragraphs and about 350–500 words. Quality beats length, but one short paragraph cannot show enough analysis.

A complete 6/6 model essay, annotated

The texts (summarized): Text 1, by a city planner, argues that Oak Street should get protected bike lanes. In a city pilot, injury crashes on a similar street fell 40 percent in two years, and a merchants' group found that sales rose 6 percent. Text 2, by a driver, argues against the lanes. He says traffic "will be a nightmare," that "nobody bikes in winter," and that his friend's shop lost customers when another street got lanes.

[Intro: topic, both positions, thesis] Oak Street may soon get protected bike lanes. A city planner argues in Text 1 that the lanes would make the street safer and help businesses, while a local driver argues in Text 2 that they would cause traffic problems. Text 1 is better supported because it relies on measured results from a city pilot, while Text 2 relies on predictions and a single story.

[Body 1: Claim → Evidence → Explanation] Text 1's strongest evidence is safety data. After a similar street received lanes, injury crashes "fell 40 percent in two years." Because this number comes from a real test on a comparable street, it shows what is likely to happen on Oak Street, not just what the author hopes.

[Body 2: compares the business evidence from both texts] The two texts also disagree about businesses. Text 1 cites a merchants' group that found sales "rose 6 percent." Text 2 answers only with a friend's shop that lost customers. One shop's experience cannot outweigh a survey of many businesses, and the shop may have lost customers for other reasons.

[Body 3: evaluates the weaker text's reasoning] Text 2's other claims are predictions without support. The author warns that traffic "will be a nightmare," but he offers no traffic counts or studies. His statement that "nobody bikes in winter" is an absolute claim he never proves, and even if winter riding drops, the safety benefits would continue the rest of the year.

[Concession and response] To be fair, Text 2 raises a real concern: drivers need to get where they are going. However, Text 1's pilot showed safer streets and stronger sales, so the evidence suggests that the costs are smaller than Text 2 fears.

[Conclusion: restates the thesis in new words] Overall, Text 1 makes the stronger case. Its claims rest on measured results, while Text 2 depends on fears and one secondhand story. When a city must choose, evidence should count more than predictions.

Why it earns 6/6: the thesis answers the prompt and previews the reasons (T1). Every body paragraph quotes a text and explains the quote (the italic sentences). Both texts are evaluated, and the concession shows fairness. Paragraphs are focused and linked with transitions such as "also," "To be fair," "However" and "Overall", and the style is formal with precise word choice (T2). Sentences are clear, varied and correct (T3).