GRE ISSUE TOPIC 21

Claim: The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine

the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes
or its role models.
Reason: Heroes and role models reveal a society's highest ideals.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.

The character of society is determined by the character of the individuals

who form that society. The characteristics of such a wide range of people
cannot be understood by merely studying the character of the few
individuals that society idealizes as heroes and role models. These
individuals are those who have created drastic change in society or impacted
the lives of many people. Regardless of what these heroes have
accomplished, their character is individual and is based on personal views
and beliefs and cannot be generalized to reflect the nature of a whole
society. Many people attempt to emulate heroes and role models, but while
this may effect the character of a society, it cannot be used as a basis to
determine the nature of society as a whole.
Consider the case of Mahatma Gandhi, he is still idealized around the world,
as a hero and a leader. His ideology was fundamentally based of the principle
of non violence. While millions of people consider him to have been a great
man, and believe in his ideology whole heartedly, society cannot be
characterized on this basis. Wars and violence are sadly still intrinsic to
societies.
Movie actors are often idealized for the heroic characters that they play, but
their lives are often strife with scandals and controversies. Common drug
use, alcoholism and blatant disregard for laws are quotidian. Society does
not necessarily have the same character, and it would be unfair to use such
heroes as a basis for characterizing the nature of society as a whole. It does
not follow, that a society must have the same character as the few people
who are loved and idealized by the populace.

Consider the case of elected politicians who represent the interests of the
public. A politician who works tirelessly for the betterment of society is to be
admired, but does this mean that all people are as selfless? What if a
politician is corrupt and unscrupulous, does this mean that society must be
similar? In certain areas of the world, famous actors, with no political
experience, are elected simply because they are idealized. In certain areas of
India, famous actors are even worshiped along with more traditional gods!
Just because huge fractions of a society can adore a hero, does not mean
that their personal character represents a broader national character.
While heroes and role models frequently represent and exhibit the best
characteristics of society, does not imply that society is so one dimensional.
The complexities and nuances of a society cannot be understood by such
simple analysis. One must also consider the other less desirable and darker
characteristics of a society, which often cannot usually be understood by
only studying the best society has to offer.

GRE ARGUMENT TOPIC 21

According to a recent report, cheating among college and university students
is on the rise. However, Groveton College has successfully reduced student
cheating by adopting an honor code, which calls for students to agree not to
cheat in their academic endeavors and to notify a faculty member if they
suspect that others have cheated. Groveton's honor code replaced a system
in which teachers closely monitored students; under that system, teachers
reported an average of thirty cases of cheating per year. In the first year the
honor code was in place, students reported twenty-one cases of cheating;
five years later, this figure had dropped to fourteen. Moreover, in a recent
survey, a majority of Groveton students said that they would be less likely to
cheat with an honor code in place than without. Thus, all colleges and
universities should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's in order to
decrease cheating among students.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be
answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument
on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to
these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

The recommendation is based on an argument which has certain critical

flaws, while this does not necessarily invalidate the efficacy of the
recommendation, further consideration into the issue is definitely warranted.
This argument depends fundamentally on the correlation between the
decrease in cheating and the implementation of the honor code system.
Even without evaluating the functionality of the honor system, the argument
has failed to consider alternate factors which could have resulted in
decreased cheating levels. For example, if alternate measures to reduce
cheating were simultaneously in place, the impact of the honor system could
be questioned. If the professors determined that the increase in cheating
was due to excessively high standards of examinations, they could have
made the exams easier, which would make cheating less necessary.
The competence of the honor system itself has not been questioned in this
argument and its functionality is assumed. Since this if the foundation of the
argument, alternate scenarios must be explored to rule out all other
possibilities. I feel that the honor system is intrinsically flawed, as it is based
on students telling the truth, even when they stand to gain by not doing so.
This system works by getting students to turn on each other. There are a few
factors which should be examined, which may effect the efficacy of this
system. Firstly, if any student comes forward to report a fellow student, they
are liable to become social outcasts. This may reduce the willingness of
students to come forward, unless strict confidentiality is ensured. Secondly,
this system relies on the judgement of students, and takes their suspicions at
face value. Just because one student suspects another of cheating, does not
denote that such an action actually occurred. Students may make false
claims against enemies and may also be reluctant to report friends.
The argument quotes a decrease in overall cheating, this does not
necessarily mean that cheating has decreased, it could just imply that less
number of cases are being reported. Students may have become
complacent, when faculty did not question their honesty over 5 years, and no
longer feel obligated to turn their friend in.
To better understand the efficacy of this recommendation, universities may
consider using both systems simultaneously, on a trial basis, and verify
whether the numbers match approximately. This is a very narrow study,

conducted in only one university and would be much more effective if a

number of universities implemented this, on a trial basis, until some
conclusive trend is observed.
If the final goal is to reduce the amount of cheating, the university should
consider conducting a anonymous survey, to understand the reason why
students find it necessary to cheat, and them remedy these problems. This
would be more effective, rather than attempting to catch cheaters,
universities could attach the root cause from which this problem stems.