GRE Analytical - What exactly does it emphasize?

[Char123]

What does the GRE Analyical primarily emphasize: Your writing skills or coming up with supporting reasoning?

 

Are they looking for test takers who can come up with very good reasons for choosing their side? Or, do they just want to see that you can support your reasoning well?

I'll make an example of what I'm trying to say (Note I've made up some extremes to emphasize my question):

Let's say the prompt was "The deer population is decreasing substantially Camp Soar. During this decrease, there has been heavy rainfall. Thus, deers population is decreasing substantially to due to rainfall. Agree/Disagree."

The "good reason" to disagree might be: There could have been an increase in hunters during that period.

A stupid reason could be: It could be snowed a lot during that time period, which could have made deers slip and kill themselves. 

 

I know this my "stupid" reason is very extreme, but would they count it against me if I used that reasoning? Or are they looking to see if I can make that reasoning logical? 

 

 

[fishasaurus]

They are looking at your ability to think critically and present your ideas well in a written format. They are looking for an essay, essentially, with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. You would want to formulate a solid argument that either supports or refutes their claim, and shows your ability to reason within a time constraint.

 

As an example, for your deer question, you want to address the logic behind saying the deer population is decreasing due to rainfall. You would want to focus on factors directly related to rain that would affect the birth and death rate of deer, as well as factors that could be completely unrelated to the rain that could affect the population. Is their food source inaccessible due to rain? Are predators more active? Has their habitat been destroyed? Are deer unable to find mates? Did they move to a location that doesn't have heavy rain? To make a strong argument either way, you'd want to find a counter-example: one thing that could definitely affect the number of deer that would be unrelated to rain. Maybe there was a construction project in the area that made the deer leave. Maybe there was a disease outbreak. You need to show that there is a logical error in the conclusion made in the problem statement, or show that the conclusion is sound.

 

Your snow example would not be relevant. The problem specifically mentions rain--nothing about snow. You want to be very on-topic when answering the analytic prompts.