12-Mark Essay: Developing Your Skills

Calculating...

How to Read Your Feedback

The grade on your work is a Projected Grade. It is not your final mark, but an assessment of the skills you have demonstrated. It estimates the score you could achieve in a full-length essay if you applied these same skills consistently throughout. The feedback is designed to help you develop these skills further.

This shows an argument FOR the statement.

This shows an argument AGAINST the statement.

This shows your Conclusion or overall Judgement.

Class Overview & Common Targets

Overall Performance

A very strong start to discursive writing for Year 8. The vast majority of you understood the core task: to weigh up the arguments for and against dictatorship and come to a justified conclusion. Many of you successfully identified key concepts like power, freedom, and elections. The average projected grade shows a solid foundation across the class.

Common Strengths

Clear Opinions: Almost every student gave a clear personal judgement in their conclusion, which is a vital skill for this type of essay.
Understanding of Core Concepts: Most students showed a good grasp of the basic differences between a dictatorship (power through force/inheritance) and a democracy (power through voting).
Two-Sided Arguments: Many of you successfully structured your answers to include at least one point for and one point against the statement, which is the basis of a good discursive essay.

Common Targets for Improvement

Develop Your Points (The "Why" Chain): The most common area for improvement is moving from stating a point to explaining it. A good technique is the "Why Chain." After you make a point, ask yourself "Why does this matter?" or "What is the consequence of this?" For example, instead of just saying "decisions are faster in a dictatorship," develop it: "...decisions are faster because the leader doesn't need to consult anyone. (Why does this matter?) This could be useful in a crisis, like a natural disaster, where quick action is needed to save lives."
Use Specific Examples: To elevate your arguments, try to include real or hypothetical examples. Naming a figure like Kim Jong Un, or thinking about a situation where a quick decision might be needed, makes your argument much more convincing than just talking in general terms.
Structure with P.E.E.L: A great way to structure your paragraphs is using **P**oint, **E**vidence, **E**xplanation, **L**ink. Make your **P**oint, provide some **E**vidence or an example, **E**xplain how it supports your point, and **L**ink it back to the question. This will help ensure every paragraph is fully developed.

Model Answer

12/12

'A dictatorship is the best way to run a country.' How far do you agree with this idea?

Model Response (12/12)

While a dictatorship might appear efficient in certain situations, I strongly disagree with the statement that it is the best way to run a country because it fundamentally undermines human rights and long-term stability for the sake of speed.This is a strong introduction. It directly answers the question, shows a clear line of argument (disagree), and briefly outlines the main reasons (human rights, stability vs. speed). This sets up the entire essay.

On one hand, an argument in favour of a dictatorship is that decisions can be made swiftly and without opposition.This is a clear topic sentence for the 'FOR' argument. For example, in a national emergency like a pandemic or a natural disaster, a single leader could enforce measures immediately, such as lockdowns or resource distribution, without lengthy parliamentary debates.A specific, relevant example is used here to support the point. This is much stronger than just saying 'things get done faster'. This decisiveness could, in theory, save lives and prevent chaos, making the country seem strong and well-managed.This is the 'Explanation' part of the paragraph. It explains the consequence and why the initial point matters, linking it directly to the idea of the country being run well.

However, this potential for efficiency comes at an unacceptable cost: the abuse of power and the suppression of individual freedoms.A good connective phrase ('However') is used to transition to the 'AGAINST' argument. This sentence clearly states the counter-point. In a system without checks and balances, a dictator is not accountable to the people and can therefore make decisions that benefit themselves or their allies rather than the nation.Here, the point is being developed with clear reasoning ('not accountable to the people'). History provides many examples, such as North Korea, where the ruling family lives in luxury while the citizens face poverty and have their basic rights, like freedom of speech, completely denied.Using a real-world example (North Korea) makes the argument highly effective and demonstrates wider knowledge. This lack of accountability often leads to corruption and poor long-term planning, as there is no mechanism for citizens to challenge bad decisions or remove a failing leader.This sentence provides a powerful explanation of the long-term negative consequences, strengthening the overall argument.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that a democracy, despite its slower pace, is a far superior way to run a country.The conclusion starts with a clear and decisive judgement, directly referencing the question. The argument for dictatorial efficiency is outweighed by the severe and predictable dangers of unchecked power.This sentence directly weighs up the 'for' and 'against' points that were discussed, showing high-level evaluation. A system where citizens can hold their leaders accountable and participate in their own governance provides the only genuine path to a country that is not only stable and prosperous but also just and free.This final sentence provides a powerful summary of 'why' democracy is better, leaving the reader with a strong, well-supported final thought.

Candidate 21896

4/12

Transcribed Answer

I personally disagree with this statement because a dictatorship is a leader who usually comes to power through power their family or inheritance. Democracy is a leader who has usually come to power through being elected and people being able to vote.

Agree-
Someone may agree with this statement because the place can just be passed down just because there parent/family member is known and has more power.This is a valid point, but it needs more explanation. Why would someone see this as a good thing? Perhaps because it provides stability and a clear line of succession?

Disagree-
Someone may disagree with this statement because it is unfair if a role can just be passed down to someone with no experience whatsoever just because there parents dies and someone needs to takeover.This is a strong point. You've identified a clear reason why inherited power can be a bad thing. Also people in the country should be able to share ideas with there leader without feeling scared or being judged.Excellent point. You are connecting democracy with the important idea of freedom of speech. This is a key difference.

Conclusion-
I think the best way to run a country is a democracy so everyone can vote who will fit the role good so everyone has a chance to share there ideas.You have made a clear judgement and linked it back to one of your main points (sharing ideas). This is a good way to conclude.

Strengths

You have a very clear structure with an introduction, a point for 'Agree', points for 'Disagree', and a conclusion.
You have a good understanding of the key difference between dictatorship (inheritance) and democracy (voting).
Your point about people being able to share ideas without fear is excellent and shows you are thinking about the consequences of different systems.

Targets

Your points are good starting points, but they need to be explained in more detail. For each point you make, ask yourself "Why does this matter?" or "What is the result of this?". For example, why is it bad if someone with no experience takes over? (They might make terrible decisions that harm the country).
Try to combine your points into fuller paragraphs rather than using single sentences under headings.

Here's an example of how to strengthen a point:

Your point was: "it is unfair if a role can just be passed down to someone with no experience whatsoever".

Here's how we could develop that into a full paragraph:

One of the biggest arguments against dictatorship is that power is often inherited, which means an unsuitable or inexperienced leader can take charge.This is the 'Point' - it clearly states the main idea of the paragraph. For instance, a dictator's child might become the next ruler simply because they were born into the family, even if they have no skills in governing.This provides a simple, clear 'Example' to illustrate the point. This is incredibly dangerous because they could make poor decisions about the economy or foreign policy that could harm millions of people, and nobody would be able to vote them out.This is the 'Explanation' - it explains WHY having an inexperienced leader is so bad for the country.

Candidate 81672

2/12

Transcribed Answer

a dictatorship as a leader who has usually come to Power through force or inheritanc. I agree with this statement because they family must have very strong genesThis is an interesting idea, but it needs more explanation to be a strong argument. What do you mean by 'strong genes'? however many may disagree they want a Democracy which means when someone can take charge of being elected.You've correctly identified that democracy involves elections. This is a good starting point for a counter-argument. One disagree point is someone may not want the person to be elected and may be ungur if another family has a very family.The idea of fairness ('unfair') is a really important one when comparing these two systems.

Strengths

You have correctly identified how a dictator often comes to power (force or inheritance).
You have mentioned both an 'agree' and a 'disagree' point, showing you are thinking about both sides of the argument.
You bring up the idea of fairness ("may be unfair"), which is a key concept in this debate.

Targets

The biggest target is to develop your points much more. After you write an idea, try to add another sentence that starts with "This is because..." or "This means that...". For example, why do people want a democracy? What are the benefits of being able to elect your leader?
Your answer needs a clear conclusion. After you have given your 'for' and 'against' points, you need to state your own opinion, for example: "In conclusion, I disagree with the statement because...".
Try to structure your answer into separate paragraphs for each idea to make it easier to read.

Here's an example of how to strengthen a point:

Your point was: "many may disagree they want a Democracy which means when someone can take charge of being elected."

Here's how we could develop that into a full paragraph:

On the other hand, many people would disagree with the statement because in a democracy, citizens have the power to choose their own leader through elections.This is the 'Point'. It's a clear statement of the argument against dictatorship. This means that every few years, the public can vote for the person they believe will do the best job.This adds a bit more detail to the point. The benefit of this is that the people have control, and if a leader is doing a bad job, they have the power to vote them out and select someone new. This makes leaders accountable to the people they govern.This is the 'Explanation'. It explains WHY having elections is a good thing and introduces the important idea of 'accountability'.

Candidate 78169

3/12

Transcribed Answer

An Dictatorship is the best way to run a country because they are born into a royal family and they let everyone have an opean and they made eveyone. Also an Dictatorship is a person who is born into royalty or an group who is born into coming like the king or Queen.

Some people might agree because they like when they are heard or they should respect the person who is in control of the whole country.This is an interesting reason. The idea that a single, powerful leader deserves respect and provides clear authority is a key argument for this style of rule.

Some people might disagree because they might not want someone to be in control and they could also not want to give all their openen to the king or Queen.This is a good, clear point against dictatorship. You're highlighting the desire for personal freedom and a say in how things are run.

Their is also something called a Democracy which is very different from Dictatorship because Democracy is when some-body might will take all control and they dont need to be elected for example Hitler he made himsely in charge to and expected everybody to follow his rules without any aguments.Be careful here - you've correctly identified Hitler as a dictator, but you've described his actions under the heading of 'Democracy'. Democracy is the opposite - where people ARE elected.

Inconclusion I think everyone would pick the fair opean which would be Dictatorship.This is a confusing conclusion. Throughout your answer, you have given reasons for and against, but you use the word 'fair' - which is usually associated with democracy - to justify dictatorship. Make sure your conclusion logically follows from your arguments.

Strengths

You have considered both arguments for ('agree') and against ('disagree') the statement.
You have correctly identified that dictators are often born into power (like a king or queen).
Your point about people not wanting to "give all their openen to the king" is a good way of expressing the value of freedom of speech.

Targets

Be very careful with your definitions. You have mixed up the definitions of dictatorship and democracy, particularly when you used Hitler as an example of democracy. Remember: Democracy = elections and choice. Dictatorship = one ruler, no choice.
Your conclusion needs to be clearer and must match the arguments you have made. You state dictatorship is the 'fair' option, but the idea of fairness (everyone having a say) is normally an argument for democracy.
Try to explain your points further. For example, WHY might people like having one person in control who everyone respects? (e.g., it might create a more orderly and less chaotic society).

Here's an example of how to strengthen a point:

Your point was: "Some people might disagree because they might not want someone to be in control".

Here's how we could develop that into a full paragraph:

On the other hand, a major reason to oppose dictatorship is that people lose their freedom and have no say in how the country is run.This is a clear 'Point' that sets up the paragraph. In a democracy, people can protest and share their opinions freely, but under a dictator, anyone who criticises the leader could be arrested or punished.This gives a specific 'Example' of the difference in freedoms. This creates a society based on fear, where people cannot challenge bad decisions, meaning the country is less likely to improve or be a fair place to live.This is the 'Explanation'. It explains the negative consequences of people not having a say.

Candidate 82790

4/12

Transcribed Answer

I don't agree with this statement because a dictatorship can lead to people possibly dislike disliking that person and revolting against that person.This is a great point. The risk of rebellion is a major weakness of a dictatorship. This shows you're thinking about the consequences. But a Democracy is a person being elected by the people of that country and the person being elected will probably listen to what the people want and people citizens who elected that person we'll have a good reason why that person did in the past like helping people around the world in their political parties.You've identified a key feature of democracy: leaders need to listen to the people to get elected. Excellent.
Every one over the (18) have a choice who the vote and majority wins.
Reasonable decisions - goes through a long process.
The person who had been elected can also tell us what they could do to help their country.This links to the idea of accountability and promises made during an election. Good point.

So So in my conclusion I want to add. Says that democracy is the best way to run a country based on how the people vote and have a good reason why they voted that person.This is a clear conclusion that links back to the main argument you have been making about the importance of voting and public choice.

Strengths

You have a very clear point of view and you argue it consistently throughout your answer.
Your point about a dictatorship leading to people "revolting" is a sophisticated idea that shows you are thinking about the long-term stability of a country.
You clearly understand that in a democracy, leaders have to "listen to what the people want," which is a core concept.

Targets

Your answer is entirely one-sided. To get a higher mark in a "How far do you agree?" question, you MUST discuss the other point of view, even if you don't agree with it. You need to include a paragraph that starts with something like, "On the other hand, someone might agree that a dictatorship is best because...".
Your ideas are good but are currently presented as a list of points. Try to group them into a structured paragraph to build a more powerful argument.

Here's an example of how to write a paragraph for the other side of the argument:

Even though there are many problems with dictatorships, some people might argue they are the best way to run a country because decisions can be made very quickly. This is the 'Point'. It acknowledges the other side of the argument. For example, if a country is facing a major crisis like an earthquake, a dictator can order the army to help and distribute aid immediately without having to debate it in parliament.This provides a clear 'Example' of when this might be useful. This speed and efficiency could save lives and make the country appear strong and decisive, which is an argument people use to support this type of rule.This is the 'Explanation'. It explains why someone would value this efficiency.

Candidate 87610

5/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is someone who gets Power often by force or inheritance.

On one hand, someone might agree with this statement, This is because no time are wasted on elections and it is faster to get work done.This is a classic and very strong point in favour of a dictatorship. You've stated it very clearly. This means that we can save time and get it over with quickly. They also don't waste the whole day discussing.

On the other hand, someone might disagree with this statement. This is because everyone has a chance to vote on who they want to be our leader.This is the core argument for democracy. Good. This means that they are not afraid of their leader if it is a democracy vote.

In my opinion, I think a democracy is the best way to run a country So I disagree.A clear statement of your own judgement. This is because they are more people to share their ideas meaning they can discuss and share new ideas. Also, if it is a dictatorship, they could abuse their power.This is a crucial point and a very strong reason to support your conclusion. This means that if they can share and discuss ideas, the laws are going to be useful and important to us.

Strengths

You have a perfectly balanced structure: a point for, a point against, and a justified conclusion. This is exactly what the question asks for.
Your points are very clear and relevant (speed vs. choice).
In your conclusion, you introduce the important idea of "abuse of power," which is a very strong reason for disagreeing with dictatorships.

Targets

The next step for you is to develop your points with more explanation and examples. After making a point like "it is faster to get work done," add a sentence that gives an example. For example, "In a crisis like a flood, a dictator could make a decision in minutes, while a democracy might take days."
Try to explain the *consequences* of your points. For instance, what is the positive result of people sharing their ideas? (It could lead to better laws that help more people).

Here's an example of how to strengthen a point:

Your point was: "if it is a dictatorship, they could abuse their power.".

Here's how we could develop that into a full paragraph in your conclusion:

In my opinion, I think democracy is the best way to run a country because under a dictatorship, leaders can easily abuse their power.This turns your point into a clear topic sentence. Without elections or a free press, there is nobody to stop a dictator from making laws that make them richer or punish their enemies, rather than helping the country.This 'Explains' what 'abuse of power' actually means in practice. Therefore, even though a democracy can be slower, its ability to hold leaders accountable is far more important for creating a fair and safe society in the long run.This links the idea back to the question and weighs it against the 'for' argument (speed), which shows strong evaluation.

Candidate 20679

7/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is the leader who has come to power with force or inheritance. which means the country is run or controlled by one person or a small group. In dictatorships they often take away a lot of peoples freedom. While a democracy is a leader who has usually come to power through being elected. So the country is usually controlled by a group who listen to the peoples views. So mostly they have freedom of speech and human rights. The human rights in a democracy are protected.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because the leader has more power and everything they want.This is a good starting point. You've identified the concentration of power. Also things they wanna do get done way more faster. People like Kim Jong un passed down his title by his father thats a dictatorship.Excellent! Using a specific, real-world example like Kim Jong Un makes your argument much more powerful and shows good knowledge. Also no time to wait for elections to come they just rule until they die or want to stop. One person just has all the power that they need and want.You've clearly explained the concept of ruling for life and the efficiency that comes from not having elections.

Now some people would disagree with this statement because the people there might want more than one person so a group of people.This links to the idea of shared power and representation. ALSO they might wanna make sure that their human rights are protected.This is a crucial argument against dictatorships. You mentioned this in your introduction and it's great that you are using it as a main point here. Also people will argue that it is better so they get a say in how their country is run. They might want it to be a democracy because people share the power and less likely to get greedy.

To conclude, I personally believe that a democracy is better because you get a say on who runs your country and what they do.This is a clear conclusion that links directly to one of your key arguments. Also our human rights are protected and we get a freedom and not all power to one person.You are reinforcing your main points well here. I would rather a group of people run than one person because that one person eventually get greedy.Excellent point. You are considering the corrupting influence of absolute power, which is a very sophisticated idea. One thing is things won't get done as fast but better than one person.

Strengths

Your introduction is excellent. You clearly define both dictatorship and democracy and introduce key concepts like freedom and human rights.
Your use of a specific example (Kim Jong Un) to support your 'for' argument is fantastic and is a key skill for high marks.
Your conclusion is strong. You make a clear judgement and you weigh up the two sides ("things won't get done as fast but better"), which shows you are really evaluating the arguments.
You make the very mature point that a single ruler might "eventually get greedy," showing a deep understanding of the risks of unchecked power.

Targets

Your paragraphs are well-developed, but to push them even further, try to use the "Why Chain". For example, after saying human rights are protected in a democracy, explain *why* this is important for the people living there (e.g., "This means people can live without fear of being unjustly arrested...").
A minor point, but try to use transition words like "However" or "On the other hand" to move between your 'for' and 'against' paragraphs.

Here's an example of how to further strengthen your 'against' paragraph:

Your point was: "they might wanna make sure that their human rights are protected."

Here's how we could build on your existing good ideas:

However, many would strongly disagree with the statement because dictatorships almost always lead to the violation of human rights.This creates a very clear topic sentence for your paragraph. In a democracy, rights like freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial are protected by law. This means citizens can criticise their government without fear and are safe from being imprisoned without cause.This 'Explains' what human rights are with specific examples. Conversely, a dictator stays in power by suppressing dissent, meaning people are often scared into silence. This lack of freedom and safety is a huge price to pay for the efficiency that a dictatorship might offer.This final sentence directly compares the two systems and links the point back to the central debate in the question.

Candidate 76921

7/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is a country usually controlled by one person who has usually come to power through force or inheritance.
Some people might strongly agree with a dictatorship being the best way to run a country. for example it would be decision making would be faster as asking for permission from the people to make laws would be faster because since only one person is in power they would just make the decision there.Excellent point. You've not only stated that it's faster, but you've explained *why* it's faster (no need to ask permission). This is good development. Another reason why would be that it would be more simple as power is inherited so money and time wouldn't be wasted putting elections together.This is another strong, well-explained point. Linking the lack of elections to saving time and money is a smart connection.

On the other hand, people may disagree with the statement as dictators usually take advantage of their power and abuse it for their selfish wants, therefore taking away a large amount of freedom from people.This is a fantastic point. Using words like 'abuse', 'selfish' and the impact on 'freedom' shows a strong understanding of the key issues. People might also believe a democracy is better because the people who live in a country they should be able to have a say in who has the most control in their lives.This clearly and effectively sums up the core principle of democracy.

To conclude, I personally believe that a democracy is the best way to run a country as the people who have to live there know whats best for them and their community.A clear, well-reasoned conclusion. And they know which leader would make the right decisions for them. Also, they would be able to request changes that rich people wouldn't know needs to be changed, as they don't understand their situation, unlike a dictatorship where one leader makes all the choices.This is a very sophisticated point. The idea that a single ruler (who is often rich and isolated) won't understand the lives of ordinary people is a powerful argument for democracy. Excellent work.

Strengths

Your answer is very well-structured with clear paragraphs for the 'for' and 'against' arguments.
Your points are well-explained. For example, you didn't just say decisions are "faster," you explained it's because there's no need to ask permission.
Your conclusion is excellent. The point you make about a single, out-of-touch leader not understanding the needs of the people is very insightful and shows a high level of critical thinking.
You use strong vocabulary like "abuse," "selfish wants," and "take advantage," which makes your arguments more powerful.

Targets

To elevate your answer even further, try to include a specific example from the real world. When you talk about dictators abusing their power, could you think of a country where this has happened? Naming a country or leader can make your argument even more convincing.
You are already explaining your points well, but you can always add more detail to the consequences. For example, what is the result of dictators abusing their power for selfish wants? (e.g., the country's money is spent on palaces instead of hospitals).

Here's an example of how to integrate a real-world example into your already strong paragraph:

Your point was: "dictators usually take advantage of their power and abuse it for their selfish wants".

Here's how we could enhance it:

On the other hand, people may disagree with the statement as dictators often abuse their power for their own selfish wants.Your original point is a perfect topic sentence. For instance, in North Korea, the leader Kim Jong Un is known to live a life of extreme luxury while many of his people face starvation.This adds a specific, powerful 'Example' to back up your point. This happens because there are no elections or free press to hold him accountable, so he can use the country's resources for himself, taking away freedom and prosperity from ordinary citizens.This 'Explains' why the abuse of power is possible and what its consequences are for the people.

Candidate 68720

3/12

Transcribed Answer

Dictatorship means someone has come into power through force or in heritance. on the other hand democracy is, when citizen have a say in how the country is run.

people might agree with this statement because of the amount of power a person has for example, the prime minister has power therfore people will obey him.Be careful with your example here. A Prime Minister is a leader in a democracy, not a dictatorship. However, the basic point that some people might think it's good for a leader to have a lot of power so people obey is a valid argument. on the other side of the argument people might disagree as they might feel dont have a say in how the country is ran and people might start protesting and it will be chaotic.This is a great point. You are thinking about the consequences - a lack of say can lead to protests and chaos. This is a strong argument against dictatorship.

My personal opinion on this statement is I disagree because it is unfair and the country can develop with ideas from the community.This is a good conclusion. You've made a clear judgement and given two strong reasons (it's unfair, and it prevents new ideas).

Strengths

You have a good, clear introduction where you define both dictatorship and democracy.
You have considered both sides of the argument.
Your point about a lack of say leading to "protesting" and chaos is a very strong and well-reasoned argument against dictatorships.
Your conclusion is clear and you link it to the positive idea of a country developing with "ideas from the community."

Targets

Be careful with your examples. You used a "prime minister" as an example of a dictator's power, but a prime minister is an elected leader in a democracy. A better example would be a king or a historical figure like Fidel Castro.
Try to explain your 'for' argument a bit more. WHY would it be good for a leader to have so much power that everyone has to obey them? (e.g., maybe it would lead to less crime and a more orderly society).
Structure your answer into paragraphs to make your different points stand out more clearly.

Here's an example of how to strengthen your 'for' paragraph with a better example:

Some people might agree with the statement because a dictator has the absolute power to enforce laws and maintain order.This is a clear 'Point' to start the paragraph. For instance, a single, powerful leader can ensure that rules are strictly followed, which might lead to lower crime rates and a more stable society because everyone knows they must obey.This 'Explains' why someone might see this as a positive thing. This sense of order and control is an argument some people use to suggest that dictatorship is an effective way to run a country, especially if the country has been experiencing a lot of chaos.This links the idea back to the question and gives a reason why someone might support it.

Candidate 91826

7/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when one person rules a country and is chosen by passing down to family or getting it by force (invasion).

Someone may agree that a dictatorship is the best way to rule because in a dictatorship only one person is in charge and things like new rules/laws happen quicker and faster than in a democracy.This is a great point, and you've started to explain it well. This is because a democracy is when people have an election every few years on who they want to rule. Is everyone can have a say in everything, things will happen way slower since everyone would have to agree on something to make it happen. Also in a dictatorship, people are born into power and no time are wasted on elections as what the leader says will happen.You've clearly contrasted the speed of a dictatorship with the slowness of democracy. This shows good comparative thinking.

On the other hand, someone may disagree that a democracy is better because everyone over the age of 18 is allowed to vote on who they want to rule their country every few years.You've clearly stated the core principle of democracy. This means that everyone has a right to speak out for their opinon and this makes it fair.Linking democracy to the concepts of 'rights' and 'fairness' is excellent. These are key ideas for this topic.

In my opion, I think a democracy is the best way to run a country because its fair that everyone should conyess what they have in mind.This is a good, clear conclusion that links back to your main point about fairness. 'Convey' or 'express' would be a better word than 'conyess'. Maybe one of these people could make a difference in society?This is a nice, thoughtful final sentence. It hints at the idea that good ideas can come from anyone, not just from a single leader.

Strengths

You have a very clear and well-balanced structure, looking at both sides of the argument before giving a justified conclusion.
Your explanation of why dictatorships are faster (because you don't have to get everyone to agree) is very well reasoned.
You use key concepts like "rights" and "fairness" to support your argument for democracy, which is excellent.
Your final sentence is thought-provoking and adds a nice touch to your conclusion.

Targets

To take your answer to the next level, try to include a specific example. When you talk about laws happening "quicker and faster," can you think of a situation where this would be a good thing? (e.g., an emergency). When you talk about fairness, can you think of a country that is a democracy?
Try to think about the negative side of each system a little more. For example, what is the *danger* of one person making all the decisions? (They could be selfish or make a huge mistake).

Here's an example of how to strengthen your 'against' paragraph:

Your point was: "everyone has a right to speak out for their opinon and this makes it fair."

Here's how we could develop that with more detail:

On the other hand, a democracy is a better system because it is fundamentally fairer, giving every citizen a right to a say in their future.This is a strong topic sentence using your key word, 'fairer'. By allowing everyone over 18 to vote, the power is spread amongst the population, not concentrated in one person's hands.This explains *how* it is fairer. This means leaders have to listen to the public's concerns to get elected, and it prevents a single, unelected person from making disastrous decisions that could ruin the lives of millions. This accountability is more important than the speed a dictatorship offers.This explains the positive consequences of a fair system and links it back to the debate about speed vs. fairness.

Candidate 79628

5/12

Transcribed Answer

Dictatorship: When one person has control and power over everyone and everything. These people are called a dictator.

Someone may agree with this statement because they could enjoy the advantage of not having to do work and rely on one person to do so.This is a very unusual and interesting point. It's creative, but it's probably not a standard argument for dictatorship. Usually, dictatorships involve the leader having control, not doing all the work for others. In addition, there could be no time wasted on elections and it could be focused on things more important.This is a much more standard and very strong argument. The efficiency of not having elections is a key point. Also, the leader could be an organised and mature person.

However, someone may disagree with this statement beleive there could be a fair system, work load is evenly divided and you could choose who you want as long as you are 18 and/or over.You've clearly linked democracy to fairness and the right to vote. Good. but for dictatorship, people could abuse there power and make there country a police state.This is an excellent and very sophisticated point. Using the term "police state" shows a strong understanding of the potential dangers of a dictatorship.

Overall, my personal opinion is that democracy would be the better option because you could vote for who you wants and the country would not become toxic or controlling.A good, clear conclusion that uses strong vocabulary like "toxic" and "controlling" to summarise the dangers of a dictatorship.

Strengths

You have a clear, balanced structure with points for and against, followed by a conclusion.
Your vocabulary is strong. Using terms like "police state," "toxic," and "controlling" shows a very good understanding of the political concepts involved.
Your point about dictatorships leading to an abuse of power and the creation of a police state is a very high-level argument.

Targets

Your first 'for' argument is a little confusing ("rely on one person to do so"). Try to focus on the more standard arguments, like your excellent point about saving time on elections, as this will build a stronger case.
The next step is to develop your points with more explanation. For example, what does a "police state" actually look like for the people who live there? (e.g., constant surveillance, fear of arrest, no freedom of speech). Adding this detail will make your argument even more powerful.

Here's an example of how to strengthen your "police state" point:

Your point was: "people could abuse there power and make there country a police state."

Here's how we could develop that into a full paragraph:

However, the strongest argument against dictatorship is the risk of it becoming a "police state" due to the abuse of power.This turns your point into a clear topic sentence. Without any checks and balances like elections or a free media, a dictator can use the police and military to control the population through fear.This explains *how* a police state is created. This means citizens could be arrested for criticising the leader, their internet access could be monitored, and their freedoms completely removed. Therefore, the country becomes a controlling and toxic place to live, which is too high a price to pay for any potential efficiency.This explains the 'consequences' for ordinary people and links it back to the question.

Candidate 97028

2/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is one person that has all the power. A leader who has usually come to power through force or inheritance. The country is usually controlled by one person or a small-group and they often take away much of their people's freedom.

I agree with this statement or some people may agree with this statement because some dictators do things to benifit other people rather then them selfs.This is a very interesting and important idea. A "benevolent dictator" (a dictator who rules for the good of the people) is a concept worth exploring. Can you think of any examples, even hypothetical ones?

Strengths

Your introduction provides a very clear and detailed definition of a dictatorship, including key features like "force or inheritance" and "take away people's freedom". This is an excellent start.
Your 'agree' point is very thoughtful. The idea that a dictator *could* do things to benefit the people is a sophisticated one that many people don't consider.

Targets

Your answer is incomplete. To answer a "How far do you agree?" question, you must also include the other side of the argument (a 'disagree' point) and a final conclusion where you state your own opinion.
You need to develop your point. HOW or WHY would a dictator do things to benefit other people? For example, perhaps a dictator who doesn't have to worry about elections could make an unpopular but necessary decision, like raising taxes to build a new hospital.
Make sure you fully answer the question that has been set.

Here's an example of how you could add a 'disagree' paragraph to your answer:

On the other hand, many people would disagree because in a dictatorship, there is a huge risk of the leader abusing their power.This introduces the counter-argument clearly. Without elections or a free press, there is nothing to stop a dictator from making laws that only benefit themselves or their friends.This explains *why* the risk exists. This often leads to the people suffering, with no freedom to complain or vote for a change. This is a major reason why many believe democracy is a safer system.This explains the negative consequence for the citizens.

After adding this, you would then need a conclusion, such as: "In conclusion, although it is possible for a dictator to be benevolent, I disagree with the statement because the risk of them abusing their power is too great."

Candidate 62791

5/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is not the best way to run a country. dictatorship means one person is in power.

Some may strongly agree with this statement because in a dictatorship one person has all the power to run the country so that one person can do what they want without punishment also it leads to more being done as not everything is debated.This is a great point. You've identified two key arguments in favour: the leader is above the law ("without punishment") and it's more efficient ("not everything is debated"). another perk of dictatorship is that it is simple to pass down the power/leadership.A good point about the simplicity of succession.

on the other hand some people may strongly disagree as they will argue that democracy is better than dictatorship as the power is given to political parties which is chosen by the citizens.You've clearly defined the core principle of democracy - power comes from the people. also the laws that are made are made by multipul view points so it will be more fair.Excellent point. The idea that laws are fairer because many people have input is a very strong argument for democracy.

personaly I believe that democracy is better as it is more fair for the country.A clear conclusion that links directly to one of your strongest arguments about fairness.

Strengths

You have a clear, balanced structure, examining both sides of the argument before concluding.
You make several strong, distinct points for each side, such as the efficiency of dictatorship and the fairness of democracy.
Your point that democratic laws are fairer because they come from "multipul view points" is very well-expressed and insightful.

Targets

The next step to improve is to add specific examples to your points. For instance, when you say a dictator can do what they want without punishment, can you think of any examples from history or the modern world where this has happened?
Try to explain the consequences of your points further. For example, what is the negative result of a leader who can't be punished? (They could become corrupt, steal money, harm people etc.).

Here's an example of how to strengthen your point about "multipul view points":

Your point was: "the laws that are made are made by multipul view points so it will be more fair."

Here's how we could develop that into a full paragraph:

On the other hand, democracy is a better system because laws are created from multiple viewpoints, making them fairer and more effective.This turns your excellent point into a clear topic sentence. In a country like the UK, a proposed law is debated by hundreds of MPs from different parties and regions, who can all offer ideas to improve it.This uses a real-world 'Example' (the UK) to illustrate the point. This process helps to ensure the final law considers the needs of many different groups within society, rather than just the opinion of a single, unelected ruler. This leads to a country that is governed more fairly for everyone.This 'Explains' the positive consequence of having multiple viewpoints and links it to the key idea of fairness.

Candidate 19678

1/12

Transcribed Answer

Personally I dont think a dictatorship is the best way to rule a country most times a situation occures.This is a clear start and shows you have an opinion on the question. A dictatorship is a leader who wssually come to power through powere or inheretenc. the country is usually controlled by one person or a small group and they often take away peoples's freedom.

Strengths

You have given a clear definition of what a dictatorship is, which is a good starting point for your answer.
You have stated your personal opinion on the question.

Targets

To answer this question properly, you need to be a "debate teacher." This means you have to explain both sides of the argument, even the side you don't agree with. You should have one paragraph explaining why someone MIGHT AGREE that a dictatorship is best, and another paragraph explaining why someone MIGHT DISAGREE.
After you have explained both sides, you then need a final paragraph (a conclusion) where you explain which side you think is stronger and why.
You have written a good introduction, but you have not yet written the main body of the essay or the conclusion.

Here's an example of a paragraph you could add to build your answer:

On one hand, some people might argue that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country because decisions can be made much more quickly.This gives a reason for the 'agree' side of the argument. For example, in an emergency like a flood, a dictator can order help immediately without having to waste time debating in parliament. This speed could save lives.This gives an example and explains why speed is good.

(You would then need to add a paragraph for the 'disagree' side, and then your conclusion).

Candidate 19267

8/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictator is someone who comes into power through force or inheritance. In dictatorship the country is often controlled by one person or a small group of people.

The main reason someone would agree that a dictatorship is the best way to rule a country is because of efficiency.A perfect topic sentence, using excellent vocabulary ('efficiency'). As with not much people ruling over the country things will get done quicker. Big desicons will not have to be talked through by a huge concil and the process of election is long so during an election the government would be unstable for a long period of time.This is a fantastic explanation. Linking the lack of elections to 'stability' is a very sophisticated point. but in dictatorships the title gets passed down for example the title got passed down to Kim Jong Un.Excellent use of a specific, relevant real-world example to support your point.

However dictatorships are only efficent for short periods of time and there isn't much stability. in dictatorships with only one person in control they might start to do what they want to do insted of whats best for the country.This is a brilliant counter-argument. You are directly challenging the idea of stability you just raised, showing you can think critically about both sides. dictators can be easily turn into tyrants and start to abuse their power.Using strong vocabulary like 'tyrants' and 'abuse their power' makes this a very strong point. Some people might believe a democracy is better because the people of the country get to vote for who they believe is best suited to rule over them. Although with a democracy they don't have to discuss anything when making changes it would still be a lot of work.You've clearly defined the benefit of democracy, although the last sentence seems to contradict the idea of discussion in a democracy.

For one person, but with democracy's the work load is shared with many people. unlike with dicators democrats often have the peoples best intrest at heart looking forward to shape the country into a better place.This is a strong evaluative point, contrasting the motives of a dictator with those of an elected leader. A country that is ruled under a democracy is often better and more stabile in a long term way due to the fact that all of the changes are thought about and talked with by many people.Another excellent point, arguing that democratic stability is more genuine and long-lasting than dictatorial stability. I personally believe that democracys are a better way of ruling a country because the people get to chose who they want to rule and with dictators peoples freedom of speech might be taken away from them.This is a well-reasoned personal judgement, bringing in the key idea of freedom of speech. in conclusion a democracy is a better long term way to rule a country to ensure a long lasting stable society.A powerful and well-supported concluding statement.

Strengths

This is a very well-developed and thoughtful answer with excellent structure.
Your vocabulary is superb (e.g., "efficiency," "unstable," "tyrants," "abuse their power").
Your use of Kim Jong Un as an example is perfect.
Your argument is nuanced and sophisticated. For example, you argue that dictatorships can seem stable, but then you counter this by arguing that democracy offers better "long term" stability. This is a very high-level skill.
Your conclusion is strong, well-supported, and summarises your key arguments effectively.

Targets

This is already a very strong piece of work. To improve it even further, you could refine the clarity of one or two sentences. For example, the sentence "Although with a democracy they don't have to discuss anything..." seems to contradict the point you make later about things being "talked with by many people". Just ensure every sentence is clearly supporting your main point for that paragraph.
You could add one more specific example for the 'against' side of the argument, perhaps by naming a successful democratic country.

Here's an example of how to further enhance your already excellent conclusion:

In conclusion, while the efficiency of a dictatorship is tempting, I believe democracy is a far better and more sustainable way to rule a country.This opening sentence directly weighs the two sides against each other. The short-term stability a dictator might offer by force is an illusion compared to the long-lasting, genuine stability that comes from a government that has the consent of its people.This builds on your excellent point about long-term vs. short-term stability. Ultimately, a system that protects freedoms, like freedom of speech, and allows citizens to hold their leaders accountable is the only way to ensure a society remains both prosperous and just.This provides a powerful, well-reasoned final thought.

Candidate 26190

6/12

Transcribed Answer

I do not agree wth this statment as a dictatorship is a leader who has come to power through force or inheritance. And the country is usually controlled by one person or a small group of people and they often take away much of their peoples freedom.
On the other hand, other people might agree with the statement, they might say it is faster so there is no voting process and this is because checking arranging everything with the votes is long and some people might not have patients to wait.This is a well-explained point. You've correctly identified that efficiency is a key argument and explained it in terms of avoiding the long voting process. Like in Korea Kim Jong Un does not allow much freedom to his people so the people also not take advantage of their freedom and there is no voting process which means no wasting time.Using Kim Jong Un is a good example, but be careful with your reasoning. You've said that people not having freedom is a good thing because they can't "take advantage" of it. While this might be an argument a dictator would use, it's a tricky one to make. The link to "no wasting time" is stronger.

Wnepras, other people might disagree with the statem that dictatorship is the best way to run a country. The people have no option on how the country can get better and in a dictatorship people have no freedom.This is a clear counter-argument focusing on the lack of choice and freedom. they have an overload of work because one person does it or a small group and only one person gets a say so the place does not get better.This is an interesting point, linking the lack of different opinions to the country not getting better. This is a good, well-reasoned idea. Like in England it is a democracy and everyone has a say so I believe that the country is getting better.

the people this statment is wrong because we should all have a say because you never know if the country can get better. And a place that people love and feel safe like in England.A good conclusion that links having a 'say' with the country getting 'better' and people feeling 'safe'. This is a strong and well-supported final judgement.

Strengths

You have a good, clear structure with arguments on both sides and a justified conclusion.
You use a specific example (Kim Jong Un) to support your 'for' argument and another (England) to support your 'against' argument. Using examples is a great skill.
Your point that a country with only one person's opinion "does not get better" is a very thoughtful and well-reasoned argument for democracy.

Targets

Be careful with some of your reasoning. You argued that not having freedom is good because people can't "take advantage" of it. This is a weak argument. It's better to focus on the idea that dictatorships are more efficient and faster, rather than trying to argue that a lack of freedom is a good thing in itself.
Try to develop your points with a little more detail. For example, when you say people have "no freedom," what specific freedoms are you talking about? (e.g., freedom of speech, freedom to protest).

Here's an example of how to refine your 'for' paragraph:

On one hand, some people might argue a dictatorship is better because decisions can be made more efficiently without a long voting process.This keeps your strong, clear point. For instance, a leader like Kim Jong Un in North Korea does not need to waste time on elections or parliamentary debates. If he decides on a new law, it can be implemented immediately.This uses your example to clearly illustrate the point about efficiency, which is a stronger connection. This speed could be seen as a major advantage, especially in times of crisis where quick and decisive action is required.This explains WHY someone might value this efficiency.

Confirmed. Here is the second and final batch containing the remaining 7 student scripts. Please paste this code block directly after the first batch in your skeleton HTML file. After this, the processing phase will be complete, and I will provide the clean skeleton file again as per the protocol. code Html play_circle download content_copy expand_less

Candidate 90768

6/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is a society where one leader rules the country often through force or anheritance.

Some might argue that a dictatorship is the best way to rule country because descisions are made quicker because the election process is quicker because dictators are often elected through force or inheritance.You have a slight confusion here. Dictators are not 'elected' through force; they 'take power' through force. But your core point that things are quicker because there are no proper elections is excellent. Another reason why people may agree that a dictatorship is better because descisions get done quicker whereas in a democracy descions get made over a long period of time because different members of parliment have to agree to law being passed however in a dictatorship this process is eliminated.This is a very well-explained point. You've clearly contrasted the slow, deliberate process of a parliament with the speed of a dictator. This is a strong argument.

Some may argue that a democracy is better because there is a lesser chance of tyrranical leadership because the prime minister was elected by the people and doesn't have the oppurtunity to pass unfair laws because multiple people have to veiw these laws.This is a fantastic paragraph. You use excellent vocabulary ("tyrannical leadership") and you clearly explain *why* democracy is less likely to be tyrannical - because multiple people have to approve laws.

Overall I believe that a democracy is better because multiple people's opinions get put into account.A good, clear conclusion that links back to one of your strongest points about multiple people viewing laws.

Strengths

You have an excellent structure, with clear paragraphs for the 'for' and 'against' arguments and a conclusion.
Your explanation of why decisions are slower in a democracy (because parliament has to agree) is very clear and well-reasoned.
Your 'against' paragraph is superb. Using the phrase "lesser chance of tyrannical leadership" and explaining that this is because multiple people have to review laws is a very sophisticated and well-made point.

Targets

Just be careful with your wording. Dictators aren't "elected" through force, they "take power" by force. Clear definitions are important.
To improve further, try adding a specific example. For instance, when you talk about parliaments slowing things down, you could mention the UK Parliament as an example. When talking about tyrannical leaders, could you name one from history?

Here's an example of how to enhance your already great 'against' paragraph:

Your point was: "there is a lesser chance of tyrranical leadership because... multiple people have to veiw these laws."

Here's how we could build on that:

However, a democracy is a much safer system because there is less chance of a tyrannical leader gaining total control.This is a great topic sentence, using your key vocabulary. In a democracy, a leader is elected by the people and can be voted out if they become too powerful or corrupt. Furthermore, they do not have the sole power to pass unfair laws, as these must be viewed and approved by hundreds of other elected officials.This explains the two main checks on power: elections and parliament. This system of 'checks and balances' prevents one person from abusing their power, a danger that is almost always present in a dictatorship.This adds some higher-level vocabulary ('checks and balances') and directly contrasts the two systems.

Candidate 26198

2/12

Transcribed Answer

I disagree because people might want to vote for who they want to pick.This is a good, clear point. The right to choose your leader is the fundamental basis of democracy. so the person they vote can be good isdead of bad.
some people might agree because if they are born into royatie they will be like there father or mother which were good peopele.This is an interesting idea. You are suggesting that if the previous rulers were good, then their children might be good rulers too. This is a key argument used to support monarchies (rule by Kings and Queens).

Strengths

You have looked at both sides of the argument, giving one reason to disagree and one reason to agree. This is the correct structure.
Your point about people wanting to "vote for who they want to pick" is the central argument for democracy, so well done for identifying that.
Your 'agree' point is quite thoughtful - the idea that good leadership could be passed down through a family is a real argument that has been used to support dictatorships and monarchies.

Targets

Your answer needs a conclusion. After you've given the 'for' and 'against' points, you need to write a final sentence that says what you personally think. For example, "In conclusion, I believe democracy is better because..."
Try to explain your points in a bit more detail. WHY is it good to be able to vote for someone? (e.g., "This means the country is run by someone the majority of people trust..."). What happens if the dictator's parents were *bad* people? Your argument for inheritance only works if the family is good. This is a weakness you could have explored.

Here's an example of how to develop your 'disagree' point into a fuller paragraph:

On the other hand, many people would disagree with dictatorships because they believe citizens should have the right to vote for their leader.This turns your point into a clear topic sentence. This allows people to choose a candidate who they think will do a good job, and means the country is run by someone the majority of people support.This explains *why* voting is a good thing. Also, if a leader turns out to be bad or corrupt, the people have the power to vote them out in the next election, which is a protection you don't have in a dictatorship.This adds another important reason why voting is valuable - accountability.

Candidate 20178

6/12

Transcribed Answer

Dictatorship can be both good and bad. Dictatorship means a leader who has come to power through force or inheritance. The country is usually controlled by one person or a small-group and they often take away much of their peoples freedom.

The good reason for dictatorship is that if you are a dichter you have lots of power and you can do whatever you want in war, taxes, no voting process and you could have just been born into power.This is a clear summary of the powers a dictator has. To make it a stronger argument, you need to explain why this might be seen as 'good' for running a country (e.g., it allows for quick decisions).

However some people may strongly disagree with this statement because people may think Democracy is better.Good use of 'However' to switch to the opposing view. Democracy means a leader who is usually come to power through being elected. The country is usually controlled by a group who listen to the peoples views. There is freedom of speech and human rights are protected.This is a fantastic point. Identifying freedom of speech and human rights as key features of democracy is crucial.

But in my opinion i think democracy is better because even-though you can get overthrown, you can swich as a team and if you are a nice leader, people wouldn't want to overthrow you.This is a very interesting and thoughtful conclusion. You're suggesting that in a democracy, good leadership is rewarded with loyalty from the people, making it a more stable system in the long run. That's a great insight.

Strengths

You have a very good structure with a clear introduction, a point 'for', a point 'against', and a conclusion.
Your definition of democracy is excellent, particularly your mention of "freedom of speech and human rights are protected." This is a key distinction.
Your conclusion is very insightful. The idea that a 'nice leader' in a democracy won't be overthrown because they work with the people is a mature and well-reasoned argument for why it's a better system.

Targets

Your 'for' argument is more of a list of what a dictator can do, rather than an explanation of why that's a good way to run a country. Try to explain the *benefit*. For example, a dictator having "lots of power" means they can "make decisions quickly in a crisis."
Try to expand your 'against' paragraph a little more. Why is it important that "human rights are protected"? What does that mean for the people living in the country? (e.g. they can live without fear).

Here's an example of how to refine your 'for' paragraph:

One argument for a dictatorship is that the leader has the absolute power to make decisive and rapid changes.This sets up the point clearly. Because they do not need to waste time with a voting process or debates, a dictator can immediately implement new policies on everything from taxes to the military.This uses your examples to explain the point. Some would argue this efficiency is the best way to run a country, as it makes the nation seem strong and ensures that important decisions are not delayed.This explains WHY someone would believe this is a good thing for the country.

Candidate 78962

5/12

Transcribed Answer

I disagree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country.
Although, some people may agree with this statement because in a dictatorship there is no process of voting like a democracy and it's easier because one person has absolute power.This is a great point. You've clearly identified two key arguments in favour: it's 'easier' and avoids the voting process.

Some people may disagree with this statement because dictatorships take away the citizens freedom, overloads the dictator and they are not afraid of their leader like in a dictatorship.The point about taking away freedom is excellent. The last part of the sentence is a bit confused - in a dictatorship people ARE often afraid of their leader. In a democracy, people are generally LESS afraid.

On the other hand people may argue that democracy is a better ideology than dictatorship because the citizens will be able to do anything they want without feeling any pressure and stress.While people in a democracy have more freedom, it's not quite true that they can do 'anything they want' (they still have to obey laws). A better way to phrase this would be that they can live without the 'pressure and stress' of being punished for their opinions.

In conclusion I'm grateful we live under democracy because we live under dictatorship it will be very stressing.A clear conclusion that links back to your main point about the stress and pressure of living under a dictatorship.

Pros and Cons of democracy.
Pros - Everyone has the chance to vote who they want in charge -> Majority wins.
Reasonable decisions because goes through a long Process.
cons - People may take advantage of their freedom. Can take a long time to pass laws - as there is a lot of discussion.

Strengths

You clearly state your own opinion at the start and provide a balanced argument with points for and against.
Your 'for' argument is strong and well-explained, linking the lack of voting to it being 'easier' for the person with absolute power.
The list of Pros and Cons of democracy at the end shows very good knowledge and understanding of the topic. You understand the trade-off between speed and fairness.

Targets

Be careful with the clarity of some sentences. For instance, you said in a democracy people are "not afraid of their leader like in a dictatorship" - this is confusing. It should be that in a democracy, people are less afraid. Reread your sentences to make sure they say what you mean.
Try to integrate your excellent list of pros and cons into your main paragraphs. For example, when you are writing about the 'against' argument, you can mention that "reasonable decisions go through a long process" as a benefit of democracy.

Here's an example of how to integrate your pro/con list into a paragraph:

On the other hand, many would disagree with the statement because dictatorships strip citizens of their freedom and create a stressful, fearful society.This creates a clear topic sentence for the paragraph. In a democracy, everyone has the chance to vote, which means the majority decides who is in charge. This gives people a sense of control and reduces the fear that one person will make all the decisions.This integrates your 'Pro' point about voting. While it's true that it can take a long time to pass laws because of all the discussion, this process ensures the final decision is reasonable and has been properly considered, which is much safer than one person's unchecked power.This integrates your 'Con' about speed and turns it into a positive argument for democracy.

Candidate 17629

6/12

Transcribed Answer

I strongly disagree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country due to the fact that they might be greedy and selfish and they may make the people angry.This is a good start with two clear reasons for your disagreement (leader's greed, public anger). Sub the people cant even do anything about it because they didnt get to pick who they wanted.
For example Kim John un from north Korea He would kill people just for talking bad about him and if you didn't have a picture of him in your house you would be publicly excicuted.This is an excellent use of a specific, real-world example. It's powerful and effectively demonstrates the dangers of a dictatorship. Also no matter how many people tryed to protest they werent heared and they would be killed. To add onto their point I think it is only fair that the people of the country get to decide who should rule it.You are connecting the problems of dictatorship back to the core democratic idea of fairness. Good.

In conclusion I strongly disagree with this statement but everyone has there own point of view and I can see why you would agree.It's good that you acknowledge the other side of the argument, but you haven't actually explained what that other side is.

Strengths

Your use of the example of Kim Jong Un is fantastic. It is specific, detailed, and powerfully supports your argument against dictatorships.
You have a very clear and consistent point of view.
You make several strong points against dictatorship, including the leader being "greedy and selfish" and the people having no voice.

Targets

Your answer is completely one-sided. To get a high mark for a "How far do you agree?" question, you MUST show the examiner that you have thought about the other point of view. You need to write a paragraph explaining why someone *might* agree that a dictatorship is best, even if you personally disagree.
In your conclusion, you say "I can see why you would agree," but you need to explain what those reasons are within the main body of your answer.

Here's an example of a paragraph for the 'other side' that you could have included:

On the other hand, an argument in favour of dictatorship is that decisions can be made much more quickly and efficiently.This introduces the counter-argument. In a democracy, it can take months or years to pass a new law because of debates and disagreements. A dictator, however, can put a new rule in place instantly.This explains the point clearly. This could be very useful in a national emergency, like a war or a natural disaster, where quick, decisive action is needed to protect the country.This gives a specific example of when this efficiency might be a good thing.

Candidate 72061

3/12

Transcribed Answer

I disagree that dictatorship is the best way to rule a country.A clear statement of your opinion. Someone would probaly agree because laws can come in quicker than a democracy can.This is a very good point. The speed and efficiency of making laws is a key argument for a dictatorship. Another reason is that your born into power so you dot need to anything.This point is a bit unclear. Is this a reason to agree or disagree? It's usually seen as a negative point, as the person may not be qualified. Someone else could also disagree with this idea as they think democracy is a better way to rule as people have a say in who to vote to rule their country.This is the core argument for democracy - the right of the people to choose. Good. Another reason is that they went be afraid of their leader.

My opinion is to have a democracy Leader so everything is more fairer.Your conclusion links democracy to the key concept of 'fairness'. This is a good way to summarise your judgement.

Strengths

You have considered both sides of the argument, stating a reason why someone might agree and reasons why they might disagree.
You have identified some of the most important points in this debate: the speed of making laws in a dictatorship vs. the right to vote and fairness in a democracy.
Your conclusion is clear and uses the important concept of 'fairness' to justify your choice.

Targets

Your points need to be explained in more detail. For example, WHY is it good that laws can be made quicker? What is the benefit of people having a say? Try to add a second sentence to each point that begins with "This is good/bad because...".
Structure your answer into paragraphs. Have one paragraph for all the 'agree' points and another paragraph for all the 'disagree' points. This will make your answer much clearer and easier to follow.
Some of your points are a bit unclear, such as "you dont need to anything". Make sure you explain what you mean by this.

Here's an example of how to develop your point about the speed of making laws:

On one hand, some people would agree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country because laws can be made much more quickly than in a democracy.This is your original point, turned into a clear topic sentence. A dictator does not need to debate or vote on new laws, so they can be implemented immediately.This explains *why* it is quicker. This could be a major advantage in a time of crisis, for example during a natural disaster, where quick decisions are needed to save lives and organize aid.This gives a specific example of when this would be beneficial, making the point much stronger.

Candidate 78796

1/12

Transcribed Answer

I disagree
Dictatorship is a leader who has usually come to power through force or inheri tance. The country is usually controlled by one person or a small-group and they often take away people's freedom.

Some people would agree because People...It looks like you started to make a point here but didn't finish it. A good point would be "...because decisions can be made much more quickly."

Strengths

You have a very good definition of dictatorship at the start, which shows you understand the key terms in the question.
You clearly state your own opinion ("I disagree").
You started to set out your answer in the correct way, by considering why "some people would agree".

Targets

Your answer is incomplete. You need to finish your point for the 'agree' side of the argument.
You also need to add a paragraph explaining the 'disagree' side of the argument. Why is democracy better? (e.g., people get to vote, they have more freedom).
Finally, you need to add a conclusion that summarises your overall opinion. For example, "In conclusion, I disagree that a dictatorship is best because the loss of freedom is too high a price to pay for efficiency."

Here's an example of a 'disagree' paragraph you could have added:

On the other hand, many people would disagree with the statement because in a democracy, citizens have the freedom to choose their own leader.This is a clear point for the 'disagree' side. This means that the country is run by someone the majority of people want, and if that leader does a bad job, they can be voted out at the next election.This explains why having the vote is so important. This freedom and accountability is why many people believe democracy is a much better and fairer system.This provides a strong summary of the argument.