Yes, it's okay to do this, but I would be very careful about it. Pretty much every topic they give us is suited for a "balanced" analysis, because they purposely give us topics where it's reasonable to think either way. That allows people to really write about what they think.
But here's the problem with a balanced analysis: it's harder to write. It takes more time and more brain energy. And you haven't gotten to the multiple choice yet. So why use up more brain energy on something that doesn't count very much?
eg, if I ask you Coke vs. Pepsi: what do you prefer? You can just pick one and give me a few reasons why. Or you can say, well, I prefer Coke when I'm eating burgers or pizza (and here's why), but I think Pepsi really goes better with hotdogs (and here's why). We're qualifying here, right? What's the problem?
Now, you're having to define the different situations in which one is better than the other, which is more complicated, and you're going to have to come up with more reasons why, because you're going to need some for the two different setups - when Coke is better and when Pepsi is better. See what I mean?
You may want to read this: http://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... no-thanks/