POWERPREP PLUS® Online
Practice Test 3
Scored Sample Essays with Rater Commentary for the
Analytical Writing Issue Task
Copyright © 2023 by ETS. All rights reserved. ETS, the ETS logo, GRE and POWERPREP PLUS are registered trademarks of ETS in the
United States and other countries. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Issue Topic – Practice Test 3
Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out
the will of the people they serve.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the
recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and
supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation
would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Note: All responses are reproduced exactly as written, including errors, misspellings, etc., if
any.
Score 6
Essay Response
Author of the Constitution, James Madison once stated, "If men were angels, no government
would be necessary." I think that this quote aptly sums up why government officials should
balance their own judgment and expertise with the will of the people they serve. This is the best
way for the system to work because there are problems with the other forms of government, no
one has perfect judgment, and it is the best way to ensure that quality policies are being carried
out.
The founders of the United States set out to create a system like no other because they saw the
problems that arose for other kinds of governments. They rebelled against a cruel and foreign
monarchy which either didn't know the will of the people under its rule or didn't care. They knew
from firsthand experience that the judgment of people in power was not always the best.
However, at the same time, they saw the collapse of a pure form of democracy in ancient Greece
where the people's whims were always carried out. Democracy was a dirty word, and equated to
"mob rule." The majority always got its way even at the expense of the minority's rights.
Therefore, they decided it best for the people to have some say in the policies and laws that
affected them, but to ultimately put the power in the hands of representatives who were qualified
and could use their expertise to make the tough decisions about what is best for the country.
Since its inception, the representative form of government has been successful in the United
States and when it is duplicated abroad.
It should be apparent that it would be dangerous to give lawmakers or the people complete power
over what laws are made in the country. No one has perfect judgment all of the time, whether it
be an expert policymaker or the general citizenry. There are a great many examples of this in the
United States. For instance, the issue of same-sex marriage was put to a popular vote in many
states. The more liberal and open minded state populations voted to allow it, while other more
conservative and traditional state populations created added amendments to their state
constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. This created problems when married couples moved to a
new state with a ban and could not get divorced because their new state of residence did not
recognize their union. Ultimately, it the judges appointed to the Supreme Court that decided this
2
complex issue. These experts on Constitutional law took the rights of all citizens into account,
and using their years of accumulated wisdom and experience, while also taking into account the
changing nature of public opinion regarding same-sex unions, decided that it best served the
nation’s interest to guarantee and protect the rights of same-sex couples.
However, it is also true that the representative form of government is far from perfect. Far too
often, policymakers tend to lose touch with what their citizenry wants, especially those in
Congress and the Senate, who spend much of their time in Washington, DC, far from the
everyday lives and concerns of their constituents. This day and age, politicians at the national
level may be influenced more by lobbyists than by their constituents. For instance, the recent
debate about gun control. The vast majority of American citizens would like for their to be some
new laws regarding purchasing guns, specifically related to background checks for gun buyers.
Yet, even though bills related to this have been introduced in the Congress, they have either
failed to pass them or failed to even schedule a vote on the particular bill. In theory, lawmakers
should be held accountable (by citizens voting them out of office if they are unhappy) by the
citizens they serve. However, in practice, this is not always the case. If government officials no
longer even had the threat of being held accountable for their voting records by citizens, they
could just pursue the policies that benefit themselves and the special interests that donate money
to them for every issue, without regard to what would happen to the people they serve. In my
opinion, this is a very flawed way to govern.
Thus, for a representative government to be effective and result in the best policies, it is
imperative that a combination of the judgment of government officials and the will of the people
is in place. It is impossible for the general public to be knowledgeable about every governmental
issue. This could be for a variety of reasons: they don't have the education or the time to study
the issues, or certain areas of policy should not be made known to a large number of people (i.e.
information that might impact national security). On more technical issues ( which also tend to
coincide with things people do not care about), government officials should use their judgment
and expertise to make policy. But when it comes to issues that their citizenry care greatly about,
they should also take into consideration the will of the people they serve. The United States
government was set up in such a way to ensure that the best policies are made. This involved the
two chamber system, where the House could be more responsive to the citizens as they were
directly elected by citizens every couple of years. The Senate is more deliberative (though now
they are also elected by the people). But, the idea is to have a diverstiy of people and procedural
steps involved to ensure that everyone's voice is heard and that policies that are being created can
actually solve the problems they are meant to address. With some exceptions, I would say that
this process has worked out astonishingly well. So, in summation, it has been shown throughout
time that no men (or women) are angels, which is why it is vital that both the personal judgment
and expertise of government officials and the will of the people are necessary are consulted when
making policy.
Rater Commentary
This 6-level response presents a nuanced position on the importance of respecting both the
personal judgment of elected officials and the will of the people (e.g., paragraph 5). Compelling
reasons are offered in support: given insufficient education or access to information or concern
over the issues, the general public is compelled to rely on the judgment of the qualified few. But
3
since the few are in power at the behest of the people, they must take steps to “ensure that
everyone’s voice is heard and that policies that are being created can actually solve the problems
they are meant to address. With some exceptions [. . .] this process has worked out astonishingly
well” (paragraph 5). The response also shows superior facility with English writing conventions,
although minor errors place the response at the lower end of the 6 range (e.g., “This day and
age,”; “The vast majority of American citizens would like for their to be some new laws
regarding purchasing guns . . .”).
Score 5
Essay Response
At first glance, the claim that government officials ought to rely on their own judgement rather
than that of their constituents seems dubious. Certainly, the democratic process by which
candidates are elected for office suggests that these candidates owe their supporters due
obedience. Once voted to represent the people, a politican must surely work to represent those
same people who elected him or her. Yet upon closer examination, the statement rings true for
many successful and well-liked politicians, and is in fact integral to the political process. That is
to say, a politican's own judgement must be weighed with the favor of his/her constituents,
before making a decision.
It must be said that a democratically elected congressman or politician holds an important
obligation to his/her constituents. For example, a US state senator typically works to enact policy
decisions that benefit the people of his/her own state. Politicians must appease their supporters in
order to win future elections, and maintain their integrity with their voters. While this may
appear to be bias, it is part of the democratic process by which politicans are elected, and how
these politicans can speak for the people. This process cannot be understated in its importance. In
a democracy, the people elect their congressman and government officials to truly represent their
interests. At a society-wide scale, the voices of the people must be heard, and they will not be if
politicans ignore their constituents, and vote with their heart (or wallet) alone. It is through
representation, and the fair portrayal of the people's voice that the democracy formula does not
fall apart.
Despite the obligation politicans have towards their constituents, they must make decisions that
align with their values. Striking a balance between what the people want, and what the elected
official feels is best is a key relationship that few politicians have mastered. Surely, elected
politicians are not intended to mindlessly follow the wishes of their constituents. Individuals
working in government must make the best decisions they can, after weighing all possible
options. If biases towards home-state voters or corporate sponsors drive the decision-making for
a politican, corruption can easily take place in the political hemisphere.
In addition to avoiding corruption, politicans must be trusted to vote with their own judgement.
Politicians are professionals who understand the key issues and controversies better than the
average citizen (or so one hopes). In addition, no politican can successfully please everyone
100% of the time. It would be therefore dangerous to assume that the majority voice is always
the moral or rational one. A politican abandoning his/her best judgement to the at times
4
whimsical desires of the uninformed public can create lasting damage. For this reason, it makes
sense for a politician to use his or her own judgement to make decisions, even where his/her
constituents might disagree.
Integral to the democratic process is a relationship of trust between the people and their elected
officials. It is certainly the politicans job to speak for the people, and represent their best
interests. Yet, politicans must also avoid the system that forms them into malleable puppets,
poster boys and girls for whichever corporation speaks the loudest, or pays the highest. Politicans
must rely on their better judgement, and make the tough decisions that will inevitably create
divide between their citizens and constituents. The people must place their trust in elected
officials to do what is right, and the politicans must also respond to the needs of the people. This
balance of trust is the cornerstone of democracy.
Rater Commentary
This response is a solid 5, arguing that the importance of politicians’ own judgments must be
weighed against the favor of their constituents, who trust leaders to represent their interests. This
mutual trust between elected officials and the people they serve is “the cornerstone of
democracy.” These points are reinforced with sound reasons: obligations to constituents must be
fulfilled in ways that are consistent with leaders’ own values. Comments on obligations
(paragraph 2) exemplify the general thoughtfulness of the analysis and the facility and clarity of
expression in evidence throughout (“At a society-wide scale, the voices of the people must be
heard, and they will not be if politicans ignore their constituents, and vote with their heart [or
wallet] alone. It is through representation, and the fair portrayal of the people’s voice that the
democracy formula does not fall apart”).
Score 4
Essay Response
The recommendation or statement - that "government officials should rely on their own
judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people" seemingly paints the
scenario as having only two options: the good option of government officials "using their own
judgment", and the bad option of government officials carrying out "the will of the people".
Unfortunately, real life is not so cut and dry; government officials may not always have great
judgment, nor is the will of the people always misguided or bad. For such a recommendation to
be valid for every scenario, it requires government officials to be absolutely objective and
perfectly fair in their judgment.
An example of the recommendation - in which a government official relies solely on their own
judgment - can be observed in the infamous first emperor of Qin. At the top of his government
heirarchy, his decree and judgment were carried out without question - and most certainly
without considering the will of the people. As a result, he was able to complete such milestones
as uniting all of China and constructing the Great Wall of China, however his military and
architectural campaigns left great numbers of death in their wake. This is an extreme example in
which the government official was rather tyrannical. In the perfect world where government
officials have absolutely perfect judgement free of any greed, the recommendation becomes
5
valid, however it is evident that not every government official is an angel of lucid judgment and
therefore capable of causing extreme misery.
An antithesis example of the recommendation - in which the will of the people is carried out can be observed in the French Revolution. This revolution was centered around plebians ousting
out the ruling class in favor removing the social caste system and achieve equality. However, it
was unclear on how the masses wanted to replace the ousted government, and much of the
revolution devolved into anarchy in which the current governing figure head would be beheaded.
This is an extreme example of the will of the people running uncontrollably rampant. However it
shows that the masses may sometimes be misguided on how they carry out their task to achieve a
certain ideal. Evidently, relying on the masses may also result in calamity.
It is evident that the statement to rely on gvernment officials' judgment and it's antithesis of
relying on the people are both not ideal. It is perhaps better to choose a middle route, in which
government officials rely on their jugdment while also considering the will of the people. Such a
case is evident in the U.S. government, which has had a history of success thus far.
Rater Commentary
This basic 4 offers a clear position and is organized in a straightforward manner. The response
discusses a purported case of a government official relying solely on their own judgment (China)
and an “antithesis” example in which the will of the people is carried out (France). These
contrasting examples are used to argue that neither extreme is ideal and that “[i]t is perhaps
better to choose a middle route.” Development of ideas is adequate; the writing, likewise, is
acceptably clear throughout.
Score 3
Essay Response
I disagree with the statement made that, government officials should not consider the will of
people and take decisions based on their judgements only.
Government officials should take decisions based on their own judgements as they have
knowledge of the work they are assigned to do but, considering public's opinion is also crucial.
Government officials are servents of the society, it is their duty to consider will of public.
Consider for example President of India, Mr. Narendra Modi came up with the decision of
"Demonetizing" recently. This led to an acopalyse in the whole nation as suddenly he announced
that, some of the higher value of notes are banned. Due to this decision, the amount of cash in
market tremendously decreased. Many people suffered in their bussiness, people of lower class
are able to sustain their daily needs even though they have money in their bank accounts. Thus,
such decision taken without thinking how it might affect common people's lives is not a good
move.
People working in banks are also government officials. If, suppose, a person approaches bank
with urgent withdrawal of large amount of money and the bank policies do not allow such large
6
withdrawal. Considering the need of that person bank should be flexible with rules, allowing him
the withdrawal with some application submitting that he is soley responsible if any mishaps
happens.
If the people are not happy and satisfied with the service provided by the government
organizations then they are not doing the work they are assigned to do. If the decision of the
President does not bring relief even after 90 days of announcement then in next election people
will hesistate electing his party.
As, government officials are trained to be in that position, they have knowldege of what they are
doing and what can be its consequences. So, we cannot say that the decisions take by him won't
bring good to the society. People might notice its advantages later. So relying on self judgement
can be considered as primary and people's will can be consider on secondary basis to that.
Thus, I believe, as government officials are meant to serve the people of nation, considering their
will is equally important as their own judgement.
Rater Commentary
This response only partially agrees with the recommendation, arguing that government officials
should use their own judgment to carry out “the work they are assigned to do,” but since they
remain “servents of the society, it is their duty to consider will of public.” Relevant support
includes discussions of how changes in monetary policy should consider possible effects on
“common people” and how bank policies should be flexible enough to accommodate “mishaps”
and situations of urgent need. Problems in language and sentence structure tend to interfere with
clarity throughout (e.g., “So, we cannot say that the decisions take by him won’t bring good to
the society. People might notice its advantages later. So relying on self judgement can be
considered as primary and people’s will can be consider on secondary basis to that.”) For this
reason, the response is scored a 3.
Score 2
Essay Response
In this statement, the author claims that government officials should depend on "their
own judgment". I partially concede this statement that they should rely on their judgment in
sometimes. I do not espouse that they should ignore the others' opinion. They should accept and
evaluate the people's opinion who lives in their country.
First of all, I partially concord that they should hearken "their own judgment" in case of
confidential situation. Personalize of transportaion (train) in Republic of Korea, for instance, is
strongly objected by their nation. If officials personalize with ignorance to their nation, the bill
might be passed. In case of such like this, government officials can ignore others' voices.
Nonetheless, I disagree that they ignore "the will of the people they serve". Because, that
people are lives in their country. There is the following statement : "for the people, of the people,
7
by the people" by Abraham Lincoln. The officials must admit their people's opinions. I think that
the people constitute their country rather than their officials.
Furthermore, they shoud not accept "unquistioningly carry out the will of the people they
serve". Government officials' duty is to judge their nation. Therefore, they should appraise their
people's opinion.
In concusion, the government officials should have dependent on both their own
judgment and the people's opinion. They should not ignore both of them.
Rater Commentary
This response takes the position that government officials should rely on their own judgment, but
only as they carefully “accept and evaluate” the opinions of the people they govern. The writer
attempts to support assertions with examples, but serious problems with language and sentence
structure frequently interfere with meaning. For instance, the second paragraph mentions that
government officials can “ignore others’ voices” in particular cases, but the example of pending
transportation legislation in South Korea is unclear and incomplete: “Personalize of transportaion
(train) in Republic of Korea, for instance, is strongly objected by their nation. If officials
personalize with ignorance to their nation, the bill might be passed.” For this and similarly
unclear examples, the response is scored a 2.
Score 1
Essay Response
although, some people agree that goverment should considers to the unguestioninguly
carry out the will of the people they serve, I strongly agree that government should rely on their
own judgment, because of rules applicate on all people and peole have change openions.
first, the goverment have a strong rules that are studeid and applicated in many different
countries so the people will be under specific and fair rules. for example, all the peple will have
specific rules any where no one can break the rules, if they do they will have a panchiment ,thus
all the people will be same and save under specicific rules.
Anathor reasons is that people have different kinds of openins and usuallay depend on
their emotion so it will be change. Furthermore, they people willbe under un fair decissions that
is not peoven and studed.
In conclusion, Government official should rely on their own judment becuse the people
will be specific proven rules and not on their changed un constant peop if the people follow
government rules, they will be under fair.
Rater Commentary
This response attempts to address the topic and task, but severe errors persistently interfere with
meaning (e.g., “Furthermore, they people willbe under un fair decissions that is not peoven and
studed.”) The response is scored a 1.
8