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

This is a very promising collection of discursive essays. The majority of students have successfully grasped the core task: to examine arguments for and against dictatorship before reaching a justified conclusion. Key concepts such as freedom, power, elections, and fairness were frequently and correctly identified. The average projected grade reflects a solid understanding of the topic and the skills required across the class.

Common Strengths

Clear Structure: Many students successfully structured their answers to include a 'for' paragraph, an 'against' paragraph, and a conclusion. This balanced approach is essential for discursive writing.
Use of Examples: A number of students elevated their arguments by using specific examples, such as Hitler or Kim Jong Un, to illustrate the potential dangers or supposed efficiencies of a dictatorship.
Strong Personal Judgement: Almost all responses included a clear conclusion stating the student's own viewpoint, which is a critical component of this essay style.

Common Targets for Improvement

Developing Points with Explanation: The most common area for improvement is moving from *stating* a point to *explaining* it. After making a point, ask "Why does this matter?" or "What is the consequence of this?". For example, instead of just saying "a dictator can be cruel," explain the impact: "...a dictator can be cruel, and without a system to remove them, they can make laws that harm citizens, leading to a society that lives in fear."
Ensuring Balanced Arguments: While most attempted a two-sided structure, sometimes one side of the argument was much weaker than the other. Even if you strongly disagree with an idea, you must try to present the strongest possible argument for it to show you have considered it properly. The most common 'for' arguments are speed/efficiency and stability/order.
Precise Definitions: A few responses showed some confusion between the terms 'dictatorship' and 'democracy'. Remember: Democracy = Power from the people (elections). Dictatorship = Power through force or inheritance. Being precise with these terms is fundamental.

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 61728

5/12

Transcribed Answer

I think this is a good statement and i do think a Dictatorship is the best way to run a country. However i dont agree with it Sully.
Some people may agree with this statement because a dictator dictatorship is coming through sorce or power and is you do that is shows that your a star Leader.This is an interesting idea, suggesting that taking power by force is a sign of being a 'star leader' or a strong leader. This is a key argument used by supporters of dictatorships. This also can show that you can lead a country but however can also have to be a good leader.

However some people may strongly disagree with this statement because it a come through sorce this could be a dangerous leader.This is a direct and effective counter-argument to your first point. For example a Hitler had come through sorce and was one of the main reasons WWll had happened and coming forward some could even make wars with other countries as they might think your a threat.Excellent! Using Hitler as a specific example of a 'dangerous leader' who came to power through force and started wars is a very powerful way to support your point. This links to the statement and I understand why people will disagree.

To conclude I personally believe dictatorship is not the best way to rule a country as it is very dangerous as people can be killed and other countres will think your a theat which could start wars.A very strong conclusion. You make a clear judgement and you support it by summarising the excellent points you made in your 'disagree' paragraph (danger, people getting killed, starting wars).

Strengths

Your use of a specific historical example (Hitler and WWII) is excellent and makes your argument against dictatorship very powerful and convincing.
Your conclusion is very strong, clear, and directly linked to the arguments you made in your main paragraph.
You have successfully structured the essay to look at an 'agree' point and a 'disagree' point before concluding.

Targets

Your introduction is a little confusing as you say you agree and disagree in the same sentence. It's better to briefly introduce the topic and then present your own final opinion in the conclusion.
Try to develop your 'for' argument a little more. You say taking power by force shows you are a 'star leader'. Explain this further - why would someone think this? For example, "This shows they are strong and decisive, which might make the country feel safe."

Here's an example of how to build a clearer 'for' paragraph:

On one hand, some people might agree that a dictatorship is a good way to run a country because a leader who takes power by force can be seen as strong and decisive.This clearly states the point for the paragraph. They might believe that such a leader would not be afraid to make tough decisions to keep the country safe and orderly, for example, by increasing the size of the army.This gives an example of a 'tough decision' this leader might make. This image of strength and control can be appealing to people who feel their country needs a powerful figure in charge to maintain stability.This explains *why* some people might find this kind of leadership desirable.

Candidate 91826

7/12

Transcribed Answer

In this statement the key word is dictatorship. A dictatorship means when someone comes into power through inheritance or force.

Some may agree with this statement because if you come into power through a dictator ship your people would not like you, but they also might respect you as they are scared of you.This is an excellent point. You've made a clear distinction between being liked and being respected through fear. This is a key principle of how many dictatorships operate. This is why some people would agree with this.

However some may strongly disagree with this statement because they don't believe it is fair because in a democracy people vote for who they want their leader to be.This is a strong counter-argument, focusing on the core democratic value of fairness and choice. Also they may not like their leader as he came into power through force. He also may be leading in tyranny as they are scared of rebellion.This is a very insightful point. You are suggesting that the dictator's own fear of being overthrown is what leads them to rule cruelly ('tyranny'). This is a sophisticated idea.

To conclud, I personally believe that a country should be in a democracy as it reduces the chances of riot's and rebellion, and everyone can vote for who they want it to be.A good, clear conclusion that links directly back to the points you've made about fairness and the risk of rebellion.

Strengths

You have a very clear, well-balanced structure with a good introduction, a paragraph for each side, and a justified conclusion.
Your point about a dictator ruling through tyranny because they themselves are "scared of rebellion" is a very mature and sophisticated insight. It shows you are thinking deeply about the topic.
You clearly link the concepts of fear, respect, and power, which is central to understanding how dictatorships work.

Targets

To elevate your answer, try to use a specific example from the real world. When you talk about a leader ruling through fear, could you name one? For example, "Kim Jong Un in North Korea is an example of a leader who rules through fear, and this has led to tyranny."
You can always add more detail to your explanations. For example, why does democracy reduce the chance of rebellion? (Because people feel they have a say in the government, so they are less likely to feel the need to resort to violence to be heard).

Here's an example of how to integrate an example into your already strong point:

Furthermore, a dictator often rules through tyranny precisely because they are afraid of rebellion.This highlights your excellent original point. For example, many historical dictators have created secret police forces to spy on their own citizens.This provides a specific, real-world detail to support the idea. They do this to crush any disagreement before it can grow into a full-scale revolt, meaning the country is governed by fear, not by consent. This instability is a key reason why dictatorship is not the best way to run a country.This explains *why* the dictator acts this way and links it back to the question, showing strong analysis.

Candidate 86120

4/12

Transcribed Answer

The word dictatorship means someone who inherited power or gained power by force.

Some people may agree because some leaders are famous and can sometimes be smart when it comes to making decisions.The idea that a dictator might be 'smart' and good at making decisions is a valid point, often linked to efficiency. Additionally some of them are inherited by someon their mum or dad after they pass.

However, some may disagree with this statement because the leaders can be very cruel.This is a key argument against dictatorships. Some may choose decision that will ruin the whole country and some that forced their way to become a leader can mess up and not know what he is doing.This is another excellent point. You have correctly identified the risk of incompetence - a leader who isn't qualified for the job.

to conclude, I personally believe disagree because most Dictators dont know how to manage a place especially a whole country.This links back to your good point about incompetence. Additionally most of them are cruel and confused.A clear summary of your main arguments against.

Strengths

You have a clear structure with an introduction, a paragraph for each side of the argument, and a conclusion.
You make two very strong and distinct points against dictatorship: the risk of cruelty and the risk of the leader being incompetent ("mess up and not know what he is doing").
Your conclusion is clear and logically follows from the arguments you made.

Targets

Your 'for' argument is a bit underdeveloped. Try to explain *why* having a 'smart' leader who makes all the decisions could be a good thing. For example, you could say, "This means decisions can be made quickly without long debates, which is useful in a crisis."
Try to add an example to make your points more powerful. For instance, when you say a leader can be cruel, can you think of a historical example?

Here's an example of how to develop your point about incompetent leaders:

A major disadvantage of a dictatorship is that a leader who inherits power may not have the skills to rule a country effectively.This turns your excellent point into a clear topic sentence. Unlike a democratic leader who has often worked in politics for years, a dictator's son or daughter might take over with no experience at all.This explains the point by contrasting it with a democracy. This could lead to them making disastrous decisions about the economy or foreign relations that could harm the lives of millions, simply because they don't know what they are doing. This risk of incompetence is a strong argument for democracy.This explains the potential consequences, making the argument much stronger.

Candidate 61089

5/12

Transcribed Answer

Dictatorship means a society or a country ruled by a tyrannical leader through inheritance or force.

Some people may tingly agree with this statement because if it was a democracy the country would be split up about who should be leader.This is a very interesting point. You are suggesting that dictatorships avoid the division and arguments that can happen during democratic elections. For example, there would be protests about who you should vote for. This shows that, a dictatorship wouldn't need that as the leader is chosen for them. So a dictatorship is a very good way to run a country.

However, some people may disagree with this statement because the people should have a say in who there leader will be.This is the core argument for democracy. Good. For example, the society are the priority if they have a dictator they will be overthrown as the society is the Governments boss. This proves that, if a society isn't happy with there leader and they haven't chosen the Government they would be overthrown.Another good point. You're arguing that a dictatorship is unstable because a leader who isn't chosen by the people is more likely to face a rebellion. So a dictator wouldn't last.

To conclude, I personally believe that a democracy is the best way to run a country because it will minimise protests and rebellions as they chose the person in charge.A very strong conclusion that logically follows from your well-made point about the risk of the leader being overthrown.

Strengths

You make several sophisticated points. The idea that dictatorships avoid the 'split' of elections, and that unelected dictators are more likely to be 'overthrown', are both very insightful.
Your conclusion is excellent because it directly links to, and is supported by, the arguments you made in your main paragraph.
You have a clear, balanced structure.

Targets

Some of your phrasing is a little confusing. Try to read your sentences back to yourself to check they make sense. For example, the phrase "the society are the priority if they have a dictator they will be overthrown" is hard to understand. It would be clearer to say: "In a democracy, the people are the priority. If a dictator ignores the people, they risk being overthrown."
Try to include a specific named example to make your points even stronger.

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

On one hand, some may argue that a dictatorship is best because it avoids the political division that democratic elections can create.This is a clear topic sentence based on your original idea. During an election campaign, a country can become very split, with protests and arguments between supporters of different parties.This explains what you mean by the country being 'split up'. A dictatorship, with its single, unelected leader, avoids this conflict entirely, which some might see as a more stable and orderly way to run a country.This explains *why* someone might view this as a positive thing.

Candidate 67804

5/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when someone gets into power by force or inheritance, but however democracy means when someone get into power through votes and elections.
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because they would want their leader to be strong and selfish. For example when a leader comes on by force they want to be aggressive in war which some people would love.This is a clear point - some people might want a strong, aggressive leader, especially in times of war. So when a leader wins wars and become aggressive the country will win war and have a strong army.

But however most people would think that democracy is the best way to rule a country. For example when a leader comes in through votes and elections it more fair that coming in through force as they would listen to the opinions of the parliment and would act fair to others.This is a very well-explained point. You've linked democracy to fairness, listening to parliament, and acting fairly.

So overall many more people would think that dictatorship is the incorrect way to rule a country. To conclude I personally believe that democracy is the correct way to rule a country. I think this because it's more fair to rule when you take in answers and opinions member of partiment give to improve the country and the army.A good conclusion that summarises your main argument about the fairness of listening to different opinions to improve the country.

Strengths

You have a very clear and well-balanced structure to your answer.
Your explanation of why democracy is better is excellent. You connected voting with the leader having to "listen to the opinions of the parliment" and acting "fair to others". This shows a strong understanding.
Your conclusion is strong and directly supported by the arguments you made in your main paragraph.

Targets

Try to add a specific historical example to support your points. You mention a leader being "aggressive in war" and use the example of Adolf Hitler becoming leader by force. You could explicitly link these two points to make your argument even stronger.
Think about the consequences. What is the positive result of a leader listening to the opinions of parliament? (It leads to better, more balanced decisions that benefit more people).

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

Some people may agree with the statement because they want a leader who is strong and aggressive, especially in times of war.This is your original point, stated clearly. For example, when Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany, his aggression and focus on building a strong army was popular with some people who wanted to see the country become a dominant military force.This uses your own example to directly support the point you are making. This shows that a dictatorial style can be appealing if it promises military strength and victory, which some people believe is the most important part of running a country.This explains the reasoning behind this viewpoint.

Candidate 679

2/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when someone come through force and into power.
I dissagree because you can't just let someone come into it and take a power. I think they should calm down and wait for the right person come so they can vote for him/her and can take over and make the country a right place.You have clearly stated the core principle of democracy: people should be able to vote for the right person. where people can know that the country is a good place. ... If you let the wrong person take over it will be the worst nightmare. People will despise, and people will not be treated right or equally.

I agree because if you can find a right person to take over you might as well.This is an interesting point. You are suggesting that if the 'right' person is there, a dictatorship might be acceptable. you can vote for someone who may treat the country right but might not if you think the person might be nice and take over very well which people might love him as the president or something. Gill

Strengths

You have considered both sides of the argument, giving reasons to agree and disagree.
Your argument against dictatorship is clear: people should have the right to vote for their leaders to ensure the right person gets the job and people are treated equally.

Targets

Your answer is very confused in its structure and reasoning. The "I agree" section seems to contradict itself by talking about voting, which is part of a democracy. You need to have one clear paragraph for the 'agree' arguments and one for the 'disagree' arguments.
You need to add a conclusion at the end to state your final personal opinion. For example: "In conclusion, I disagree with the statement because the risk of the wrong person taking power is too high without elections."
Try to explain your points more. Why is it a "nightmare" if the wrong person takes over? (Because they could make bad laws, start wars, or treat people unfairly).

Here's an example of how to structure a clear 'for' paragraph:

On one hand, some people might agree with a dictatorship if they believe the 'right person' is in charge.This sets up your point clearly. They might argue that if a leader is very intelligent, moral, and truly wants what is best for the country, it would be more efficient to let them make all the decisions without slow elections.This explains the logic behind this idea (the concept of a 'benevolent dictator'). The problem with this argument, however, is that there is no guarantee that this person will be good, or that their replacement will be.It is also good practice to show the weakness in an argument.

Candidate 19678

7/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is someone that comes to power through force or inheritance. A democracy is someone that comes to power through election or vote.
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because they believe if you don't use violence there will be no order or discipline.This is a strong, clear point. You are linking dictatorship to maintaining order. For example, portraying violence will make people fear you which would also make them respect you. This tells us that ruling through force make people see you as strong and cruel which forces them to obey your every command.This is a very well-explained argument. You've clearly outlined the logic: violence leads to fear, which leads to respect and obedience, which leads to order.

However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because they believe kindness overpowers violence and cruelty.This is a good, clear counter-argument. For example, letting your people have a voice and a say in descions will make it less likely for you to get overthrown.Excellent point. You are making a sophisticated argument that democracy is actually more stable because a leader who listens is less likely to face a rebellion. This tells us that ruling through election is beneficial as it guarantees you are loved and that you could possibly stay leader for a long period of time.

To conclude, I personally believe democracy is better than dictatorship because that way you are less likely to be targeted by people and to be outvoted/overthrown.A strong conclusion that is directly supported by the excellent point you made in your 'disagree' paragraph. for example, Adolf Hitler was killed and he was a dictator.

Strengths

Your answer is very well-structured with clear, balanced paragraphs and a strong conclusion.
Your explanation of the 'for' argument is excellent. You clearly explain the chain of logic from violence to fear to order.
Your 'against' argument is very sophisticated. The idea that democracy is more stable because a loved leader is less likely to be "overthrown" is a high-level point.
Your conclusion is logical and well-supported by your arguments.

Targets

Your example of Hitler being killed is historically inaccurate (he took his own life to avoid capture), but the point you are trying to make - that dictators often meet violent ends - is a valid one. You could instead mention a leader like Gaddafi in Libya who was overthrown and killed by his own people.
To improve even further, you could add more detail. What does it mean for people to "have a voice"? (e.g., freedom of speech, right to protest, free press).

Here's an example of how to refine your already excellent 'against' paragraph:

However, many would argue that democracy is a more stable system because a leader who shows kindness and listens to the people is less likely to be overthrown.This makes your sophisticated point the main focus. By giving citizens a voice through elections and protecting rights like freedom of speech, a democratic government has the consent of the people.This explains *how* a leader "lets people have a voice". This creates a more stable society than one ruled by fear, as people are working with the government rather than wanting to rebel against it. This long-term stability is a key benefit of democracy.This explains the positive consequence and links it back to the question.

Candidate 20168

6/12

Transcribed Answer

Intro: The word "dictatorship" means to forcefully come in as president or prime minister with inheritance. Also, dictatorships are unfair without voting and not like a democracy as people of the country (citizens) have no choice.
Some people might strongly approve of this statement as dictators such as Hitler and Kim Jong were people who were strong and full of leadership.Using specific examples like Hitler and Kim Jong Un is excellent. You've also identified a key perceived positive: they were 'strong' leaders. Hitler had made Germany a threat to Europe through dictatorship and his force making soilders powerful.This is a good, specific detail to support your point about strength.

However, some people could disagree with this statement as dictatorship comes with inheritance and it's quite unfair to democratic country's citizens.You've identified the key democratic value of 'fairness'. People may feel that dictatorship is wrong as it sometimes prevents day daily life things such as leaving your house to buy food or to go out.This is a great point. You are thinking about the real-world impact on ordinary people's lives and freedoms. Whereas democracy, is a fair system that permits citizens to vote and express who they want as prime minister/president.

To conclude, I personally believe that democracy is more of a safer and more expressive way of having a leader of a country. Democracy allows fairness to all adults to vote fairly and so freely.A good conclusion that summarises your main points about safety, freedom of expression, and fairness.

Strengths

Your use of specific examples (Hitler and Kim Jong Un) to support your 'for' argument is a high-level skill. Well done.
Your point about dictatorships preventing everyday activities ("leaving your house to buy food") is excellent because it shows you are thinking about the real, practical impact on citizens' lives.
You have a clear, balanced structure and a well-reasoned conclusion.

Targets

Develop your 'for' argument a little more. Why would some people *want* a leader who makes their country a "threat" and has powerful soldiers? (e.g., It might make them feel nationally proud or secure from attack). Explaining the reasoning behind the argument is key.
Be careful with definitions in your intro. A dictator doesn't come in "as president or prime minister" - those are usually democratic titles. They come in as 'the leader' or 'the dictator'.

Here's an example of how to develop your point about the impact on daily life:

However, the strongest argument against dictatorship is its negative impact on the daily lives and freedoms of ordinary citizens.This creates a clear topic sentence. In many dictatorships, basic freedoms are severely restricted. For example, the government might impose curfews, control what is shown on TV, and monitor people's internet usage.This gives specific examples of the restrictions you mentioned. This creates a society where people live in fear and cannot express themselves freely. This loss of personal liberty is a huge price to pay for the supposed strength that a dictator offers.This explains the overall negative consequence and links it back to the debate in the question.

Candidate 28691

4/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when a person comes in power through force or even inheritance.
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because a dictator ship can be seen as an advantage. Dictatorship may be seen as an advantage because most people have to work to gain power.This point is quite confusing and not clearly explained. Are you suggesting it's an advantage because the dictator doesn't have to work to gain power, or something else? A clearer point would be about speed or efficiency.

However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement and think democracy is the best way to run a country as its more fairer. I agree because with dictatorship, the person may not know how to rule as they're not experienced enough and could make bad decisions.This is an excellent point. The idea that an inherited leader might be incompetent is a very strong argument against dictatorship. On the other hand with democracy people make their decision and vote which is way more sensible as they most likely know what they're doing and organised.You are making a good contrast here between an inexperienced dictator and an organised, sensible voting public.

Strengths

Your argument against dictatorship is very strong. The point that an unelected leader might not be "experienced enough and could make bad decisions" is well-reasoned and clearly explained.
You have attempted to look at both sides of the argument.
You correctly link democracy with the concept of fairness.

Targets

Your 'for' argument is very unclear and needs to be rewritten. A better argument would be to focus on the idea that dictators can make decisions quickly because they don't have to debate or hold elections.
Your answer is missing a conclusion. After giving both sides of the argument, you need a final paragraph to state your personal opinion and briefly explain why you hold it. (e.g., "In conclusion, I disagree with the statement because the risk of an inexperienced leader making bad decisions is too great.")

Here's an example of a clearer 'for' paragraph you could have used:

On one hand, some people might agree with the statement because a dictatorship can be a very efficient and fast way to govern.This provides a clear and standard 'for' argument. Since the leader doesn't need to win elections or get agreement from a parliament, they can implement new laws or respond to a crisis, like a natural disaster, almost instantly.This explains *why* it is more efficient. This speed and decisiveness is an argument some people use to say that dictatorships are a better way to run a country.This links the point back to the question.

Candidate 20967

4/12

Transcribed Answer

Dictatorship is defined as a person gaining power unfairly.
Some people may agree with this statement because they might think since they have a lot of power, people will support them and be on their side while them running the country.This is an interesting point. You are suggesting that power itself can attract support. For example, if a dictator was to come rule a country, people will already assume that he's good since he has a lot of power.

However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because they might think that power has to be earned not just given to you like that.This is a strong counter-argument based on the idea of merit and fairness. For example, if a dictator was to come run a country, people might get upset and think that he might not be a good leader since he gained power in an unfair way.You've clearly explained *why* people would be upset, linking it back to the unfairness of how power was gained. People would want to have a leader who gains power through his actions and prove themself.

So that is why I think some people may strongle disagree with the statement A dictatorship is the best way to run a country.

Strengths

Your main argument is very clear and consistent, focusing on the idea of 'earning' power versus gaining it 'unfairly'. This provides a strong theme for your answer.
You have a clear, balanced structure, looking at both sides of the argument.
You use examples (though hypothetical) to try and explain your points.

Targets

Your answer is missing a final conclusion. After explaining both sides, you need a short paragraph at the end to state your own personal opinion. For example, "In conclusion, I disagree with the statement because I believe a leader should earn their power by proving they are right for the job, not take it unfairly."
Try to develop your 'for' argument a bit more. Why would people assume someone with power is good? Maybe because they are too scared to think otherwise, or because the leader uses propaganda to make themselves look good.

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

However, the main argument against dictatorship is that leaders should have to earn their power, not simply take it unfairly.This is your original point, made into a clear topic sentence. In a democracy, a candidate must prove themselves to the public by sharing their ideas and debating with opponents. They gain power through their actions and by winning the trust of the people.This explains what 'earning' power looks like by contrasting it with a democracy. This ensures that leaders are held accountable and are more likely to be competent, which is much safer than allowing someone to rule who has not proven they are up to the job.This explains the positive consequence of having leaders who have earned their position.

Candidate 71689

3/12

Transcribed Answer

1. Dictatorship means someone who is force or have a heir to become presedant. So people do not get a vote or opinon.
2. Some people may strongly agree with this statment because the person that was forced or from the heir might have a good heir and be the type of person people want.This is a valid point. You're suggesting that it's *possible* that the unelected leader could be a good one that people like.
3. However, some people may strongly disagree with this statment because the person that came thought through sorce or heir may be unsair to people like raise faxs to get money for him self or may make unsair rules to everyone which is a unsair dictatorship.This is a strong counter-argument. You've given a specific example of unfairness (raising taxes for personal gain) and correctly identified this as a key feature of an 'unfair dictatorship'.
4. But I think it ca agree and disagree because some may be good but people should be aloud to have a opihon towards this because everyone should have the Right to vote (16+) because they will be making hard choses for that country so they should be able to vote or have a opinon about it.This is a good conclusion. You weigh up both sides ('some may be good') but ultimately decide that the 'Right to vote' is more important.

Strengths

You have a clear structure, numbering your points for and against the statement.
Your point against dictatorship is very strong. Using the specific example of a leader raising taxes for their own benefit shows a good understanding of corruption and abuse of power.
Your conclusion successfully weighs up both sides and comes to a justified decision based on the importance of the "Right to vote".

Targets

Your points are currently single sentences. The next step is to build these into full paragraphs by adding more explanation. For example, after your 'for' point, you could add: "If the leader is good, the country might be run very efficiently because they don't have to waste time with elections."
Try to present your answer in a more traditional essay format with paragraphs rather than a numbered list.

Here's an example of how to expand your excellent 'against' point into a paragraph:

However, many people would strongly disagree because a dictator, with no one to hold them accountable, could rule in a very unfair way.This is your original point, turned into a clear topic sentence. For example, they could use their power to enrich themselves at the public's expense, such as raising taxes on ordinary people just to fund their own luxurious lifestyle.This uses your excellent, specific example. Because the citizens have no power to vote them out, this corruption and abuse can continue for decades, making the country a much worse place to live. This is a significant danger of dictatorship.This explains the long-term consequences of this unfairness.

Candidate 89721

3/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictator is someone who takes power through force.
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because when you use force you can easily get what you want, whereas when you don't use power, people won't take you seriously and you wouldn't get what you want.This is a clear argument in favour of ruling through force, linking it to effectiveness and being taken seriously.

However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because people might think your treating them like their useless and your basiclly using them just for power and reputation.This is a strong counter-argument, focusing on the lack of respect for citizens.

To conclude, I personally believe that using power is helpful, because at the end of the day, you get what you wanted (power) and you can you it freely. however you want.This is a very clear conclusion, but it seems to strongly support dictatorship. This is an unusual but acceptable viewpoint, as long as it is justified. I also think that you have to be calm and respectful when your approaching someone for ideas or anything, so they wouldn't feel overwhelmed. A leader should do what's best for his/her country so its better to use force.This final sentence is a very strong and clear justification for your conclusion. You are arguing that using force is ultimately what is 'best for the country'.

Strengths

You have a clear structure, examining both sides of the argument before reaching a conclusion.
Your points are very clear and directly address the question. You argue that force gets results, while the counter-argument is that it's disrespectful to the people.
Your conclusion is decisive and provides a clear, if controversial, justification for your viewpoint (that using force is ultimately what's best for the country).

Targets

Your argument could be made much stronger with the use of examples. Can you think of a situation where a leader 'using force' might be seen as a good thing? (e.g., cracking down on crime, or responding to a national security threat).
Your reasoning in the conclusion is a little contradictory. You say it's best to use force, but also that you should be "calm and respectful". How do these two ideas fit together? A dictator using force is not usually seen as respectful. You need to explain this connection more clearly.

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

On the other hand, many would strongly disagree with using force because it treats citizens without respect and uses them as tools for the leader's own power and reputation.This is your original point, phrased as a clear topic sentence. In a democracy, the government is supposed to serve the people. In a dictatorship, the people serve the leader.This provides a sharp contrast to explain the point. This can lead to a population that feels resentful and oppressed, which can often result in protests and rebellions, making the country less stable in the long run.This explains the negative consequences of treating people without respect.

Candidate 19726

7/12

Transcribed Answer

I: A dictatorship is when someone has power through force or inheritance. usually a dictatorship is a bad thing since people donot get to vote or choose. The opposite would be a democracy, which means people have an election and get to vote for who they think is best. In this essay I will write about the pros and cons of both.
D: Some people might disagree with this quote because they compare democracy to dictatorship and see the difference. An example of a dictorship would be North Korea.Using a specific, real-world example like North Korea is excellent. They dont have freedom like other countries do because the person who rules gained power through dictorship. Ruling through force or inheritance might lead to chaos and weak leadership which is why some people can go against this quote. They might also think its unfair.You've identified multiple strong arguments against: lack of freedom, risk of chaos, and unfairness.
A: On the other hand many can agree with this statement due to many reasons, they might believe that its best if someone rules through force because that shows the person knows that they are a good leader.This is a good, clear point linking rule by force to perceived strength and leadership skill. They might also think its better for someone to work with few people to run a country or by themselves.
C: To conclude, ...I personally believe that its better for someone to rule from being chosen as elected by the people of the country because they know best.A clear conclusion based on the idea that the people are the best judge of who should lead. sir kier starmer (the prime minister of the UK) was voted and has plenty of help from experienced people and groups like labour.Note: At the time of writing (Nov 2025), Keir Starmer is the Prime Minister. Using a contemporary, correct example is very impressive. whereas someone who comes in and rules through dictatorship does'nt get the support and help they need to rule a country. The respect from the people of the country really plays a big part in dictatorship v/s democracy!!This is a very insightful point. You are arguing that democratic leaders are more effective because they have a network of support (parties, experienced people) and the respect of the public, which a dictator lacks. Excellent.

Strengths

Your answer is very well-structured (you've even labelled the sections I, D, A, C for Intro, Disagree, Agree, Conclusion).
You use excellent, specific, and correct real-world examples (North Korea and Keir Starmer). This makes your answer very convincing.
Your final point in the conclusion is superb. The idea that a democratic leader is stronger because they have a support network and public respect is a very sophisticated argument.

Targets

This is a very strong answer. To make it even better, you could develop your 'Agree' paragraph a little more. You say ruling by force shows someone is a good leader. Explain *why*. For example, "This shows they are decisive and powerful, which could make a country feel secure and well-protected."
While your labelling (I, D, A, C) is clear, in a formal essay it is better to link your paragraphs with transition words like "On one hand..." and "However..." instead.

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

In conclusion, while a dictator might seem powerful, I believe a democratically elected leader is more effective.This provides a clear topic sentence for your final judgement. A leader like Keir Starmer in the UK does not rule alone; he has the support of an experienced political party and, most importantly, a mandate from the people who voted for him.This integrates your excellent example smoothly. A dictator lacks this essential network of support and the respect of the public, which ultimately makes their rule more brittle and less successful. The consent of the people is therefore a more durable source of power than force.This explains your final point with sophisticated language ('mandate', 'brittle', 'durable source of power').

Candidate 72916

6/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is someone who became in power by force and inheriting. However, a democracy is some one who gets elected to be powerful or in charge.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because they wouldn't have to pick who to control the country next because it is either the next in their family blood line and if the person was a good person before maybe the next person...be also a good person.This is a good point. You are arguing that inheritance provides clarity and stability, and that good leadership qualities might run in the family.

However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because, they think democray is better, as the people have a choice voice and vote on who they are really want to be the next leader and it will be fair as the person who will get the most vote would be the next leader.This is a very well-explained argument for democracy, linking choice, voting, and fairness together. This also helps because it is better for the people to understand that one day the person that they voted for would change the world.

To conclude, I personally believe that having a democratic society is better to run the country than having a dictatorship because its easier for people to have their says on making the country better and the person in charge would build up all the ideas to make them all work and make the country a better place.This is a strong conclusion. The idea that a democratic leader 'builds up all the ideas' from the people to make the country better is a very effective summary of the benefits of democracy.

Strengths

You have a very clear, balanced structure with well-defined paragraphs for each side of the argument.
Your explanation for why democracy is better is excellent. You link the concepts of choice, voting, and fairness together very effectively.
Your conclusion is superb. The image of a democratic leader collecting and building on the ideas of the people is a powerful and sophisticated way to summarise the argument.

Targets

Try to think about the opposite of your points. For your 'for' argument, you say the next leader in the family might be good. What if they are bad? Acknowledging the risks of an argument can show a higher level of analysis.
Add a specific example to your points. Can you name a country that is a democracy? Can you name a family that has inherited power (e.g., in North Korea or Saudi Arabia)?

Here's an example of how to add a counter-point to your 'for' paragraph:

On one hand, some may agree that inheriting power is a good system because it provides a clear and stable line of succession.This states the point clearly. It is possible that a good leader's child could also be a good leader, having been trained for the role their whole life.This explains the potential upside, as you suggested. However, the major risk is that the heir could be cruel or incompetent, and if that happens, the people have no power to stop them from taking charge and potentially ruining the country.This shows you are thinking critically about the argument by acknowledging its biggest weakness.

Candidate 76921

4/12

Transcribed Answer

A democracy is a way a leader rules while listening to their people, they were chosen through frequent elections. A dictatorship is a leader who rules through force and they were put into place by force and power.
Some people may strongly agree with this statement as a dictatorship running of a country means it becomes more strict and less likely for it to be ran wrong.This is a good point, linking the strictness of a dictatorship to stability and fewer mistakes. An example of a country running with a dictatorship is North Korea as the man who rules it is very demanding and stands by his choices.Excellent use of a specific, real-world example to support your point.

However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because it is not a fair way of ruling/running a country.You've identified the key counter-argument: fairness. Instead, they can believe a democracy is the fairest way of chasing a leader as the people of the country vote to who they believe is best suited for the role.Good explanation of why democracy is considered fair. An example of a country running with a democracy is England, people over the age of 18 get the choice to vote.

To conclude, I personally believe that ruling through a democracy is the best and fairest way to run a country as the leader is support by other people and it is a fair way of election.A clear conclusion that summarises your main argument about fairness and support from the people.

Strengths

You use excellent, contrasting examples for both sides of the argument (North Korea for dictatorship, England for democracy). This is a great way to structure your answer.
You have a very clear and well-balanced structure.
Your conclusion is logical and directly supported by the points you made.

Targets

Be very careful with your definitions at the start. You have swapped the definitions of democracy and dictatorship. A dictator rules by force; a democratic leader is elected and listens to the people. Getting these right at the start is crucial.
Develop your 'for' argument in more detail. Why would being "more strict" mean the country is "less likely to be ran wrong"? You could explain that a strict leader can enforce order and stop crime, which some people would see as a good thing.

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

On one hand, some might agree that a dictatorship is best because it can be a very strict system, which may lead to more order and stability.This is a clear topic sentence for your paragraph. For example, a leader like Kim Jong Un in North Korea can enforce laws without opposition, ensuring that rules are followed and dissent is controlled.This uses your own example to illustrate the point. Some people might believe this strict control is a good thing as it could lead to less crime and a more predictable, well-run society, making it less likely for things to go wrong.This explains the reasoning behind why someone would support this view.

Confirmed. Here is the second and final batch containing the remaining 11 student scripts from the new set. 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 28176

3/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when you come into power through force or anheritage. A democary is a fair vote from a specific topic which are available to people over the age of 18.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement, because they believe that they should have a storn leader who would lead them to 'victory'.This is a strong point. The idea of a powerful leader who can bring victory to the nation is a classic argument for dictatorship. they would give the same respect to a leader who is more relaxed and 'softar' because they are easy to take advantage of.

However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because they believe that their leader should be chosen by themserlgs and how it should also be a fair vote.This is a good, clear statement of the core principles of democracy: choice and fairness.

To conclude, I personally believe that dictatorship is the best way to rule a country because people (members of the public) respect you more.This is a very clear conclusion that links back to your 'for' argument. It is an unusual position to take, but you have justified it based on the idea that a strong leader commands more respect than a 'softer' one.

Strengths

You have a clear structure, with an introduction, a point for each side, and a conclusion.
Your 'for' argument is well-reasoned, suggesting that a strong, dictatorial leader is respected more than a 'softer' democratic one who could be taken advantage of.
Your conclusion is decisive and clearly follows from the argument you made in your 'for' paragraph.

Targets

Your points need more development. For example, why is it good to have a "strong leader"? What does "victory" mean in this context (military victory, economic success)? Explaining your ideas in more detail will make your argument stronger.
Try to use a specific example. Can you think of any leaders who were seen as 'strong' and led their country to what some considered 'victory'?
The sentence starting "they would give the same respect..." is a little confusing. It would be clearer to say something like: "They would not give the same respect to a 'softer' leader, because they are easy to take advantage of."

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

However, many would disagree because they believe a leader must be chosen by the people in a fair vote.This is a clear topic sentence based on your point. In a democracy, citizens have the power to select the person they think is best for the job, rather than having a leader forced upon them.This explains the mechanism of a 'fair vote'. This ensures the leader is accountable to the people and has their support, which creates a more stable and just society than one ruled by an unelected individual.This explains the positive consequences of a democratic system.

Candidate 98607

6/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when a leader is chosen through fear and tyranny or gets inherited.

Some people may strongly aggree with this statment because people can believe that ruling through fear and cruellty is better due to being scared.This is a good point, linking fear and cruelty to control. For example, Kim Jun an rules with a dictator ship and ho people have to respect him through force. Even though his people are scared of him he rans his country very well due to ruling with fear.Using Kim Jong Un is an excellent real-world example to support your point. You also make the crucial argument that this style of rule can be seen as running the country 'well'.

However some people may strongly dissagree with this statment because ruling with a democracy should be a thing every country. because if one is scared of a leader, then that citizen wouldn't want to respect that leader.This is a good counter-argument, suggesting that fear does not lead to genuine respect. for example Keir Starmer rules with a democracy. ... He rules so that no one is scared to live in England or him.

To conclude, I personally believe that a leader shoould run with a democracy because ruling fear means your people don't respect you. However if you rale with kindness and fairness your people will love you and will respect you.A very strong conclusion that directly weighs the two types of 'respect' (one from fear, one from fairness) and decides that the democratic version is better.

Strengths

You use excellent, contrasting real-world examples (Kim Jong Un and Keir Starmer) to support both sides of your argument. This is a high-level skill.
Your conclusion is very effective. You analyse the idea of 'respect' and argue that the respect earned through kindness is better than the 'respect' created by fear. This is a sophisticated piece of analysis.
You have a clear, balanced structure throughout your answer.

Targets

Some of your phrasing is a little repetitive. Try to vary your sentence starters to make your writing flow better.
Develop your 'against' point a little more. Why is it important that people aren't scared of their leader? What are the benefits of a leader who is loved and respected? (e.g., people are more likely to work together for the good of the country).

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

However, many would disagree, arguing that genuine respect for a leader cannot be achieved through fear.This makes your point the focus of the paragraph. A democratic leader, like Keir Starmer in the UK, governs not by making people scared, but by seeking their consent and support through elections.This integrates your example effectively. This creates a society based on trust and cooperation, where people feel safe to express their opinions. Many would argue this is a much healthier and more stable way to run a country than a system based on terror and oppression.This explains the positive consequences of a less fearful society.

Candidate 67892

7/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when one person rules the country using tyranny and cruelty. They usually come into power through inheritance or force.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because it may be easier to rule with dictatorship.A clear point about efficiency. For example, it may be easier to get the civilians to follow laws while following a dictatorship society. This may be because ruling with while using fear, as well as cruelty, forces citizens to follow orders and ensures a "well run society".This is an excellent explanation. You have clearly shown the chain of logic: fear and cruelty lead to obedience, which in turn leads to an orderly, "well run" society.

However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because ruling while using dictatorship might not be "the best" way to run a country.Good use of a transition word. For example, using fear and cruelty to rule could affect how society thinks and what they think of the one in charge. They might have bad metal health due to the way society is run.This is a superb and very insightful point. Considering the impact of a political system on the 'mental health' of the population is a very sophisticated and modern argument. they might discourage famils from another country to visit.

To conclude, I personally believe that a democratical enviroment and government is the best way to run a country, so as citizens can choose how we feel and what we believe.A powerful conclusion that links democracy directly to the fundamental freedoms of thought ('what we believe') and emotion ('how we feel'), connecting brilliantly to your mental health point.

Strengths

This is a very thoughtful and well-argued piece. Your structure is clear and balanced.
Your point about the negative impact of a dictatorship on the "mental health" of the citizens is a highly original and sophisticated argument. It shows you are thinking about the deep, personal consequences of these political systems.
Your conclusion is excellent. Linking democracy to the freedom to "choose how we feel and what we believe" is a very powerful and well-reasoned justification.

Targets

This is already a very high-quality response. To improve it even further, the only thing to add would be specific, named examples from the real world. For instance, when talking about ruling through fear, you could mention a country like North Korea. When talking about democracy, you could mention the UK.

Here's an example of how to integrate an example into your excellent 'against' paragraph:

However, the strongest argument against dictatorship is the severe negative impact that ruling by fear and cruelty can have on the mental health of the population.This turns your superb point into a clear topic sentence. Living in a state of constant anxiety, where a wrong word could lead to punishment, can be incredibly damaging. Citizens are not free to express their true thoughts or feelings.This explains *why* mental health would be affected. A society where people are happy and feel safe is surely a better-run society than one that is merely orderly on the surface but is underpinned by misery and fear.This powerful sentence directly challenges the 'for' argument's definition of a "well-run society".

Candidate 26817

6/12

Transcribed Answer

Intro A dictatorship means when a person rules and comes through power by force, fear and inheritance. The opposing word for this is democracy which means you come through power by being elected from citizens.
D: Some people may strongly disagree with this statement because if you come rule through power by force and inheritance you may become tyrannical by power and per citizens will become afraid which may lead them into wanting a new person to lead.This is a well-explained point, linking ruling by force to tyranny and fear, and then to the people wanting a new leader. For an example, kum Jungoon is a dictatorship because he came powerful through inheritance and North Korea dont feel respected as he makes the place, a place someone wouldnt want to visit.
A: However, some people may strongly agree with this statement because when peope fear you they don't dare to speak as you can control.This is the core argument for ruling by fear, stated very clearly. They think that when people fear them they will get more respect as they are heard. ... To run a canhyy you need peoples respect and through force is the right way so people will have fear upon you.
To conclude, I personally disagree with this statement because is you want to rule you dont want people to fear or underistumate you... When you rule through Democracy you have more reliable supporters.A very good conclusion. You have weighed the two options and decided that having 'reliable supporters' (in a democracy) is better than having people who fear you (in a dictatorship).

Strengths

You have a good, clear structure with an introduction and paragraphs for both sides of the argument.
You use a good real-world example (Kim Jong Un) to support your 'disagree' point.
Your conclusion is strong. The idea that a democratic leader has "more reliable supporters" than a feared dictator is an insightful piece of analysis.

Targets

Some of your sentences are a little long and confusing. Try to read them aloud to check they make sense. Breaking them down into shorter sentences can often make your points clearer.
Develop your points with more explanation. For example, why is having "reliable supporters" a better way to rule? (Because it leads to a more stable country where people work together, rather than a country where people are looking for a chance to rebel).

Here's an example of how to develop your conclusion:

In conclusion, I personally disagree with the statement because a government built on support is stronger than one built on fear.This is a powerful way to state your final judgement. While a dictator can use force to control people, their supporters are not reliable, and many will be waiting for a chance to protest or rebel.This explains the weakness of the dictatorial position. A democratic leader, however, has earned the trust of the people. This creates a much more stable and resilient country, as the citizens and the leader are working together, not against each other.This explains the strength of the democratic position, building on your excellent original idea.

Candidate 82790

7/12

Transcribed Answer

Dictatorship means when a person or group of people come into power and leadership by force or inheritance, they disregard their people's opinions and will do anything (lie and even kill) to stay in power.
Some people may disagree strongly with this statement because they believe that democracy is the best way to run a country as everyone gets to vote for who they support and have good aspirations for their people.This is a clear and well-explained point for democracy, focusing on voting and positive aspirations. For example, if people were forced to follow and support someone who is going against their morals, they will feel less motivated to take part in their community and will feel like the selection was unfair.This is an excellent piece of reasoning. Linking an unelected leader to people feeling 'less motivated' to participate in society is a very sophisticated argument.

However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because they believe dictatorship is a strong way to run a country as it allows leaders to focus on what is the best for everyone, not individual people.This is a very interesting way of putting the 'for' argument, suggesting dictators work for the collective good. For example, leaders can not cater to every citizen of their country's opinions so they use propaganda and lies to make it seem like they are making decisions for everyone but in reality they do it for themselves to keep power.This is a fascinating paragraph. You have started by presenting a 'for' argument, but you have then immediately shown that it is based on 'propaganda and lies'. This shows a very high level of critical thinking, as you are deconstructing the argument as you make it. This proves that dictatorship is the best way to rule a country as it keeps the citizens in check and is strong.

Strengths

Your answer shows a very high level of critical thinking. Your point about an unfair leader making people "less motivated to take part in their community" is superb.
Your 'for' paragraph is very clever. You explain the argument that a dictator can focus on the 'greater good', but then you immediately analyse and expose how this is often a lie based on propaganda. This is a very advanced skill.
Your definitions in the introduction are strong and detailed.

Targets

Your answer is missing a conclusion! This is a real shame as the analysis in the main body is so strong. You must always add a final paragraph that starts with "In conclusion..." where you state your own personal judgement.
The last sentence of your 'for' paragraph ("This proves that dictatorship is the best way...") seems to contradict the critical analysis you just made. It reads as though you actually support the propaganda you've just exposed as lies. Make sure your final sentence for each paragraph accurately reflects the point you have been arguing.

Here is an example of the kind of powerful conclusion your analysis could have led to:

In conclusion, I strongly disagree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country.This states your judgement clearly. While dictatorships present an image of strength and unity, this is often a facade built on propaganda and the suppression of the people's true opinions, as I have discussed.This references the excellent analysis you made earlier. A democracy, by contrast, draws its strength from its people. By allowing citizens to vote and participate in their community, it creates a society that is not only fairer, but also more motivated and resilient.This uses your other excellent point to provide a powerful final thought.

Candidate 91708

8/12

Transcribed Answer

I somewhat disagree with this statement. A dictatorship is when a person comes into power by inheritance or by force and rules with fear and cruelty.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because if a country is ruled by a dictator then the civillians will follow strict laws and obligations.A very clear and well-stated point, linking dictatorship to law and order. This is very importants because people will be able to follow any sort of instruction or command and people would be living in a more civilised and peaceful society.This is a fantastic explanation. You have clearly articulated the potential benefits of this strictness: a 'civilised and peaceful society'. This links back to the question since a good country has law and order and also has severe penalties for offenders.

On the other hand, another group of people may disagree with this statement. This is because in a dictatorship only the leader has a say in decisions on how countries are to be run.A clear statement of the counter-argument. However, in a democracy... people can vote and they do have a say in opinions and descisions which the elected candidate has proposed. This is very important because if people in a country have a say the country will become a better place.You've effectively contrasted the two systems and explained the core benefit of democracy - that it makes the country a 'better place'.

Overall, in my opinion I believe that a dictatorship is not the best way to rule since people under a dictatorship do not recieve the same amount of support than people under a democracy since their voice is heard.A good conclusion that makes a clear judgement. but dictatorships have rules with no exceptions and a consequence which in most dictatorships is death or inprisonment which only makes things worse in countries which is why I do not agree.This is a powerful final sentence, adding weight to your conclusion by highlighting the extreme and negative consequences of dictatorial rule.

Strengths

This is a very well-structured and clearly argued essay.
Your 'for' paragraph is excellent. You don't just say dictators are strict; you explain the potential positive outcome of this: a "civilised and peaceful society". This shows you are thinking deeply about the argument.
Your conclusion is very strong. You effectively summarise the key difference ('voice is heard') and then add the powerful point about the severe consequences ('death or imprisonment') to justify your disagreement.

Targets

This is already a high-quality piece of writing. To improve it even further, the main addition would be the use of specific, named examples from the real world to illustrate your points (e.g., naming a specific dictator or a specific democracy).
You could develop your 'against' point a little more. *How* does a country become a "better place" when people have a say? (e.g., The government has access to more ideas, and laws are created that reflect the needs of the whole population, not just the leader).

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

On the other hand, many would disagree because in a democracy, the public can contribute their own ideas to make the country a better place.This is a clear topic sentence based on your original point. Through elections, a free press, and the right to protest, leaders are forced to listen to a wide range of opinions and needs from across society.This gives specific examples of *how* people have a say. This collective intelligence often leads to better and fairer decisions than a single, isolated dictator could ever make on their own, thus creating a more prosperous and successful country in the long term.This explains the positive consequence of this process.

Candidate 78962

5/12

Transcribed Answer

A Dictator is someone who comes to power through force or inheritans generally acting bad to the citizens of the country they rule.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because some dictators may seem as a really good leaders and rolemodels.This is a valid point - a dictator *could* be a good leader. Also, it might seem as the best way to rule as dictators are harsh meaning that if you tried to do anything wrong you would be punished severely. This would make some people think that with a dictator ruling Society would be strict and safe.This is a good explanation, linking the harshness of the dictator to the creation of a 'strict and safe' society.

However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because some dictators contralls the whole country without being elected which may cause unyality in the system.The idea of 'unyality' (disloyalty/instability) is a good one. People may also disagree with this statement as Dictators may take all the rosoel for themselves, not priortizing the country leaving their country in a poor or heresy state.Excellent point. You are describing corruption and selfish leadership, which is a key weakness of dictatorships.

To conclude, I personally believe that a dictatorship is not the best way to rule a country as it is unfair for the others living their as their freedom is taken away.A clear conclusion that brings in the important concept of 'freedom' to justify your final decision.

Strengths

You have a clear, balanced structure with paragraphs for both sides of the argument and a conclusion.
Your point about dictators taking all the resources for themselves and leaving the country in a "poor state" is excellent and shows a strong understanding of the dangers of this system.
You have explained your 'for' argument well, linking the harshness of the dictator to the idea that society might be safer.

Targets

Try to use some specific examples to make your arguments more convincing. For instance, when you talk about a dictator making their country poor, can you think of a country where this has happened?
Some of your wording is a little unclear (e.g., "unyality in the system"). It would be clearer to say "this can cause instability and rebellion." Reread your work to check for clarity.

Here's an example of how to develop your point about corruption:

A major reason to disagree with dictatorship is that leaders can become corrupt, prioritizing their own wealth over the needs of the country.This turns your excellent point into a clear topic sentence. Without elections or a free press to hold them accountable, a dictator can use the nation's money and resources for their own benefit, such as building palaces or buying luxury goods.This explains *how* they can be corrupt. This often leaves the general population in a poor state, with underfunded schools and hospitals, which demonstrates that this system is not the best way to run a country for the benefit of all.This explains the negative consequences for the citizens.

Candidate 90128

6/12

Transcribed Answer

Is dictatorship really the best way to run a country, or is Democracy the other solution...

Some people may strongly aggree with this stalement because without dictatorship society wouldn't be where it has reached now.This is a bold claim, but a valid argumentative point. 'Dictatorship is where you use force and power to gain what you desire.' When you have power and force, it is easier to make quicker and sharper decisions than waiting for the crisis to occor.Excellent point. You are clearly explaining the key 'pro' argument for dictatorships: speed and efficiency, especially in a crisis.

However some may disagree with this statement because dictatorship is just to get what you desire and can cause an all out war.A strong counter-argument, linking dictatorship to selfish motives and conflict. on the other hand democracy is more fair and justice relijing on fairness an equality and thinking about what is fair and equal making it more civil and less likley to cause a war.This is a very well-explained point. You've linked democracy to multiple key concepts: fairness, justice, equality, and peace. Democracy is built on trust and fairness to make a decision.

In conclusion democracy is more fair and equal leading to a safer and more equal approach than fighting for what you desire.A strong conclusion that directly weighs the two systems against each other ('safer approach' vs 'fighting for what you desire') and comes to a clear judgement.

Strengths

Your answer is very well-structured and contains some powerful, well-explained arguments.
Your explanation of the 'for' argument is excellent, focusing on the benefit of "quicker and sharper decisions" in a crisis.
Your explanation of the 'against' argument is also very strong, linking democracy to a range of positive concepts like fairness, justice, equality, and peace.
Your conclusion effectively summarises your main points and makes a clear, well-supported judgement.

Targets

To elevate this answer to the highest level, you need to include some specific examples from the real world. For instance, when you say a dictatorship can cause "an all out war," can you think of a historical example where this happened? (e.g., Nazi Germany).
Your point that "without dictatorship society wouldn't be where it has reached now" is a very interesting one. Can you give an example of a country that developed quickly under a dictator? (e.g., some people argue this about China). Using an example would make this point much more convincing.

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

However, many would disagree because a dictator's selfish desires can often lead to conflict and war.This is a clear topic sentence for your point. For example, Adolf Hitler's desire for power and territory led him to invade other countries, which ultimately caused the Second World War and the deaths of millions.This provides a powerful, specific historical example to prove your argument. In contrast, democracies, which are built on fairness and equality, are much less likely to cause such devastating conflicts, making them a safer option for running a country.This contrasts the two systems and links the point back to the question.

Candidate 79180

8/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is someone that rules a country by themselfs without government with fear and tyranny... In this essay I will be evaluating if a dictatorship is the best option for society.

Some people strongly agree with this statement because they believe that getting people to agree through tyranny and fear is a better way to get people on their side.This is a clear explanation of the logic behind ruling by fear. This is proven by people because fear is a stronger emotion than liking your leader, so this makes people believe this means that people will refrain from disobeying their dictator. This is the reason why people believe that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country.This is a fantastic piece of analysis. Explaining that fear is a 'stronger emotion than liking' is a very insightful and sophisticated way to justify this viewpoint.

On the other hand, many people disagree with the statement, due to the fact that democracy is the most safest, fairest way for society.Good use of strong vocabulary. This is because democracy allows people to have a say in how the country is run... an example of a democracy is the UK which makes decisions using Parliament. This ensures that... people can take part in the decisions in the country.Excellent. You've used a specific, correct example (the UK Parliament) and explained its function clearly.

To conclude my evaluation, I personally believe that dictatorship is not the best way to run a country due to it being dangerous and unfair, and that a democracy is a cleaner and safer way to run the country.A very clear and well-justified conclusion. ...while the dictator is doing favours for the rich, the mayority of the country is poor. This is also reason why meanwhile, what with democracy, it allows fairness and people can decide what they want for their country. This is the reason why I believe dictatorship is the wrong way.This is a superb final point. Highlighting that dictators often favour the rich while the majority remain poor (corruption) is a powerful and well-developed argument that adds great weight to your conclusion.

Strengths

This is an excellent essay with a very clear structure and highly developed arguments.
Your analysis is sophisticated. The point that "fear is a stronger emotion than liking" is a brilliant piece of reasoning. Similarly, your point in the conclusion about dictators favouring the rich is a powerful argument about inequality and corruption.
Your use of the UK Parliament as a specific example of democracy in action is perfect.
Your vocabulary is strong and used effectively ("tyranny," "refrain," "safest, fairest").

Targets

This is already a very high-quality response. The only way to improve it would be to ensure every sentence is as clear as possible. For instance, the sentence starting "To conclude..." is very long and contains multiple ideas. Splitting it into two or three shorter sentences would make your excellent points even clearer and more impactful.

Here's an example of how to refine your already excellent conclusion for maximum impact:

In conclusion, I personally believe that dictatorship is not the best way to run a country because it is both dangerous and unfair.This provides a clear opening statement for your judgement. A common feature of dictatorships is severe inequality. The leader and their allies often enrich themselves, while the majority of the country is left in poverty.This turns your excellent point into a focused statement. In contrast, democracy, with its system of accountability through Parliament, allows for greater fairness where people can decide what is best for the whole country. For this reason, it is a far safer and more just system.This provides a powerful, well-reasoned final thought that contrasts the two systems.

Candidate 78196

7/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when someone comes to power through force or inheritance.
Someone might agree with the idea that dictatorship is the best way to rule a country because they believe that the only the strongest people should rule.This is a good, clear argument, often referred to as 'might is right'. If the strongest people are in power then that means that they have full control over their position therefore they have can protect the country.This is a great explanation, linking the idea of a 'strong' leader to the ability to 'protect the country'.

However, some people might disagree with this statement because they believe that dictatorship is unfair as on because in dictatorship only one person leads the decides for the cantry and no one else's opinion is considered.An excellent counter-argument, focusing on fairness and the lack of consultation. If only one person decides for the country by themselves, they won't be able to know what their people want and might do something that upsets them. This could cause the people to rebell.This is a fantastic piece of analysis. You have created a logical chain: a single ruler -> doesn't know what people want -> upsets them -> causes rebellion. This shows a very high level of thinking.

To conclude, I personally believe I disagree with the statement because I think that people should be able to elect the person who is in power.A clear conclusion based on the principle of democracy. This is because if the person in power does anything wrong, you can relect another person in a democracy, but in a dictatorship, the only way to relect another person to rule is by rebelling which always results in violence.This is a superb concluding point. The idea that democracy provides a peaceful mechanism for change (voting) while dictatorship only offers a violent one (rebellion) is a very powerful and sophisticated argument.

Strengths

This is a very well-argued and thoughtful essay.
Your analysis is excellent. You create clear chains of logic, for example, showing how a single ruler can lead to rebellion.
Your final point in the conclusion is outstanding. Contrasting the peaceful method of change in a democracy (elections) with the violent method in a dictatorship (rebellion) is a very sophisticated and convincing argument.

Targets

This is already a very strong piece of work. The only thing that would improve it further is the inclusion of a specific, named example from the real world to illustrate one of your excellent points. For example, when you mention rebellion, you could refer to a country where a dictator was overthrown.
Just check your spelling of 'rebel' and 'elect'.

Here's an example of how to integrate an example into your brilliant conclusion:

In conclusion, I strongly disagree with the statement because democracy provides a peaceful way to remove a failing leader.This creates a clear topic sentence for your final judgement. If a democratically elected leader does something wrong, the public can simply vote for someone else at the next election. In a dictatorship, however, the only way to remove a leader is through a violent rebellion, as seen in countries like Libya where the dictator Gaddafi was overthrown.This adds a specific, real-world example to your excellent point. This ability to create change without resorting to violence is a key reason why democracy is a better and more stable way to run a country.This provides a powerful final thought.

Candidate 89672

7/12

Transcribed Answer

I: A dictatorship is when a leader comes into power through force or inheritance and often talkes away the people's freedom.
P: Some may agree with this statement because there may be people who do not like the fact that somebody has been unfairly put onto the position of a leader so they may be jealous. Many protests and fights occur when citizens don't like leaders.This is a very complex point. It seems you are arguing that a dictator is good because they can suppress the protests that might arise against an unfairly chosen leader. This is a sophisticated, if cynical, argument.
E: If a leader rules through force and is well protected, those who are against the leader would be punished meaning that other innocents will not get hurt if they follow the rules.This is an excellent explanation. You are making the classic 'authoritarian' argument: punishing the few who break the rules protects the many who follow them. This creates safety and order.
L: Therefore, some may agree that dictatorship is the best way to control a country.
P: Although many people would disagree with this statement. because most of the people living in a dictatorship have had their human rights taken away from them.A very strong and clear counter-argument, focusing on the key concept of human rights.
E: Lots of people were bom into a dictatorship, meaning that they didn't get a childhood they deserved, they didn't get a chance for all their right to be fufilled.This is a very powerful and emotive point, considering the long-term human cost of living under such a system.
E: Human rights are laws written to protect humans. So it is unfair towards those civillians.
L: Therefore many disagree and do not approve of this idea of dictatorship being the best way to rule a country.
C: In my opinion, I believe that dictatorshop is the wrong way to rule a country however, I agree to a certain extent because you may feel more protected knowing that people fear you. But I think that it's wrong for people to have barely any rights to protect themselves from cruel leaders.This is a superb conclusion. You directly weigh the two arguments against each other - the feeling of being 'protected' (your 'for' argument) vs the lack of 'rights' (your 'against' argument) - and then make a justified decision. This is high-level evaluation. Overall I disagree with this statement about dictatorship being the best way to rule a country.

Strengths

This is a very well-structured and thoughtful essay. Your use of a PEEL-style structure (I, P, E, L, C) is clear and effective.
Your 'for' argument is very sophisticated. The idea that a dictator can maintain order by punishing dissenters to protect the 'innocent' is a well-reasoned explanation of the authoritarian viewpoint.
Your conclusion is excellent. You show true evaluation by weighing the feeling of 'protection' against the loss of 'rights' and then explaining which you think is more important.

Targets

This is a very strong response. The only thing missing to push it to the very top marks is the use of a specific, named example. When you talk about human rights being taken away, could you name a country where this happens (e.g., North Korea, China)?
Check some spellings (e.g., 'talkes' -> 'takes', 'fufilled' -> 'fulfilled').

Here's an example of how to integrate an example into your excellent conclusion:

In my opinion, dictatorship is the wrong way to run a country. Although I understand the argument that you might feel more protected when a leader rules by fear, I believe this is an illusion of safety.This shows you are weighing up both sides, which is a key skill. Ultimately, it is wrong for people to have barely any rights to protect themselves from cruel leaders. In countries like North Korea, citizens live without basic human rights, and this is too high a price to pay for the order a dictator might provide.This adds a specific, real-world example to strengthen your final point. Therefore, a system that protects rights is always better than one that removes them.This provides a powerful and decisive final thought.