Hence, “hook.” If everyone did them they wouldn’t be desirable.
The university has accepted you without funding. If you really want to go there, accept the admittance, and find another job on-campus.
Otherwise, there will be a point when they will start rejecting you. The department does meet together to review candidates. Having your name come up AGAIN, might start to annoy some of them because they’ve already accepted you.
They are aware that you want to go there and have accepted you based on your present levels of accomplishments.
They are aware that you hope to get full funding by reapplying, but they can’t take that risk since, obviously, there were better candidates than you who were funded.
Accept their admission, then prove to them what you can do.
At a top program, there will be many applicants who have all that PLUS the acceptable minimum GRE scores.
Graduate admissions can sometimes be more holistic than undergrad admissions, but they are less forgiving. A top undergrad program might be willing to take a chance on a student with low test scores or missing information; a top graduate program - which is much smaller and maybe has much more riding on its reputation - is less willing to do so. That’s even more true if they are going to be offering you funding.
^ what are they afraid of ? That I won’t do well and fail out ? And this is based on the GRE ?
It has nothing to do with that. it is, as a number of posters have explained, a requirement that permits schools to reduce the number of applicants that need to be evaluated when there are many, many applications. This is what happens in the highly selective programs where there are a lot people who want to attend. It happens in smaller universities too, where a particular degree is so popular that there are many more applications than open positions. Some triaging needs to be done and the GRE is convenient even if we all know that the GRE does not measure success as a graduate student but simply the ability to do well on such tests.