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 was a very successful attempt at a challenging discursive question. The vast majority of you understood the need to present a balanced argument, considering both the potential (though often flawed) advantages of a dictatorship and its significant drawbacks. Many students successfully used key concepts like freedom, fairness, elections, and power, and some included excellent real-world examples to support their points. The class average reflects a strong foundational understanding of the topic.

Common Strengths

Structured Arguments: Most responses followed a clear structure, presenting arguments for one side, then the other, before drawing a conclusion. This is the bedrock of good discursive writing.
Understanding Core Concepts: There was a widespread and accurate understanding of the fundamental difference between a dictatorship (power via force/inheritance) and a democracy (power via elections).
Clear Judgements: Almost every student provided a clear personal conclusion, which is a vital skill for a "How far do you agree?" question.

Common Targets for Improvement

Develop, Don't Just List: The most common area for improvement is moving from a list of points to a fully developed paragraph. Instead of listing three separate ideas against dictatorship, try to link them together in a chain of reasoning. Explain *how* one point leads to another. For example, "The lack of elections in a dictatorship (Point 1) is unfair, which means the leader is not accountable to the people (Point 2). This can lead to them abusing their power for personal gain (Point 3)."
Explain the "Why": For every point you make, ask yourself, "Why does this matter?" For instance, don't just state that "decisions are faster in a dictatorship." Explain *why* this might be considered a good thing: "...this could be crucial in a national emergency, where quick action is needed to save lives."
Use Specific, Accurate Examples: While many used examples, ensure they are accurate. A few students confused the characteristics of leaders or systems. Using a precise example, like "Kim Jong Un inheriting power from his father in North Korea," is much stronger than a general statement.

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 87610

8/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when someone rules and has complete control of a country with no one else's input.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because for starters alot gets done because only one individual is making the desisioms for the country. The leader will have ultimate power, meaning there is no voting process.This is a very well-explained point. You've clearly created a logical chain: one leader -> ultimate power -> no voting -> things get done. linking back to the question many might believe this statement due to time circumstances and more direct rules without so many other perspectives... so it could most be viewed as the easier option.

Some people may strongly disagree with this statement because for starters a dictactorship can easily overload the dictactor with work to do and rules to put into place, however with democrazy all work and rules to be done... is shared out.This is a brilliant and highly original point. Arguing that a dictator would be 'overloaded' and therefore less effective is a very clever way to challenge the idea of efficiency. Democrazy can also be seen as the better option because more people gets a say in how the country ran implying that they are not afraid of their leader... no one should have any fear towards their leader.This is a strong point, linking having a 'say' to a lack of fear, which implies a healthier society. ...another valid point is that any and everyone gets the oppotunity to vote once they reach the legal age of 18 years old. linking back to the question human rights are absaloutley neccasary.

To conclude, I personally believe a dictactorship is not the best way to run a country because if (godforbid) our countries leader wants to bring back war and anti-racial and predjudice rules we would all be in for a shock.This is a powerful conclusion. You are arguing against dictatorship by highlighting the extreme danger of what an unchecked leader *could* do. this is why democrazy is so important... we need these other opinions because without them Great Britian would lose population and tourists making our country a very deeply unpleasant place to live in and we would all have to live by corrupted rules made by an individual with evil ways.An excellent and well-developed final thought that explains the positive consequences of democracy (attracting people) and the negative consequences of dictatorship (living under corrupt rules).

Strengths

This is a superb and highly sophisticated essay with some very original thinking.
Your point that a dictator could be "overloaded with work" and that democracy "shares out" the work is a brilliant and unusual argument that directly challenges the idea of dictatorial efficiency.
Your conclusion is powerful and well-developed, considering the potential for a "corrupted" leader to do great harm and the positive impact of democracy on a country's reputation (losing tourists/population).
You link your arguments effectively to key concepts like "human rights".

Targets

This is already an excellent piece. To make it even stronger, you could use a specific named example to support your "overloaded dictator" point. For instance, you could argue that a single person couldn't possibly be an expert in the economy, healthcare, foreign policy, and defence all at once, whereas a democracy draws on many experts.

Here's an example of how to further enhance your already brilliant point about the 'overloaded' dictator:

However, the idea of a single, efficient ruler is a myth, as one person would be completely overloaded by the demands of running a modern country.This frames your unique point as a clear topic sentence. A nation's government has to manage complex areas like the economy, healthcare, national defence, and international relations. It is impossible for one person to be an expert in all these fields.This explains *why* the dictator would be overloaded. In contrast, a democracy shares this workload amongst thousands of experts, elected representatives, and civil servants, leading to more considered and effective decisions. Therefore, the supposed efficiency of a dictator is actually a weakness.This directly contrasts the two systems and turns the traditional 'pro' for dictatorship (efficiency) into a negative. This is a very high-level evaluative skill.

Candidate 60928

2/12

Transcribed Answer

A Dictator is someone who runs a country by themselves.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because they dont have to vote but one person has the ultimate power and hold onto this power.You have correctly identified a key feature of a dictatorship: one person holding all the power without elections.

However some people may strongly disagree with this statement because of Democracy Government by the people everyone gets a chance to vote.This is a good, clear contrast, showing you understand the fundamental difference between the two systems.

To conclude, I personally believe that both disagree and agree are good options as they both talking about how they good they can run a country and one how one singular person ca.This conclusion is very unclear. You must make a final decision. You cannot say that you both agree and disagree. You need to choose one side as being the stronger argument and briefly explain why.

Strengths

You have correctly identified the main difference between a dictatorship (one person with ultimate power) and a democracy (everyone gets a vote).
You have attempted to structure your answer with a 'for' point, an 'against' point, and a conclusion.

Targets

Your conclusion must make a clear choice. You cannot sit on the fence. You need to state whether you ultimately agree or disagree with the statement and give a simple reason. For example, "In conclusion, I disagree because it is fairer for everyone to have a vote."
You need to explain your points in more detail. WHY might it be good for one person to have ultimate power? (e.g., "This means decisions can be made quickly"). WHY is it good that everyone gets a chance to vote? (e.g., "This means the leader has to listen to the people").

Here's an example of how to write a clearer conclusion:

In conclusion, although a dictatorship might seem efficient, I personally disagree with the statement.This clearly states your final judgement. I believe that a democracy is a better system because it is much fairer to allow every citizen to have a say in who runs their country.This gives a clear reason for your decision, linking back to one of your earlier points. The right to vote is more important than the speed of a single ruler's decisions.This shows you have weighed up the two sides and made a choice.

Candidate 16782

5/12

Transcribed Answer

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because a dictator has usually come into power through being elected, should consider the opinions of citizens and one person has ultimate power (there is no voting process).This opening sentence is very confused. A dictator is NOT elected and does NOT consider the opinions of citizens. You seem to be mixing the definitions of a dictator and a democratic leader. For example, Kim Jong Un (a powerful man in North-Korea) - title passed down by his father.

However, some may strongly disagree with this statement because they believe that democracy is better because more people get a say in how the country is run... and everyone gets the vote.This is a much clearer point. You've correctly identified that in a democracy, people have a say. For example, overloads the dictator with so much to do than democracy is shared and also they are not afraid of their leader.

To conclude, I personally believe that I disagree with this statement because democracy is way better than dictatorship because more people get a say in how the country is run and everyone gets a vote.A clear conclusion that links back to your main point for democracy. Democracy is force or inheritance, does not consider the opinions of citizens.

Strengths

You have used a good, specific example (Kim Jong Un).
You have a clear structure with a 'for' point, an 'against' point, and a conclusion.
Your argument for democracy (more people get a say) is clear and correct.

Targets

You are very confused about the definitions of the key terms. You state that a dictator is "elected" and "should consider the opinions of citizens," which is the definition of a democratic leader. Then, at the very end, you say "Democracy is force or inheritance," which is the definition of a dictator. You must be very clear on these definitions: Democracy = Elections. Dictatorship = Force/Inheritance.
The point about overloading the dictator is a good one, but it needs to be explained more clearly.

Here's an example of how to write a clearer 'for' paragraph based on your example:

On one hand, some may agree that a dictatorship is a good system because it provides a clear and stable line of succession.This sets up a clear argument. For example, in North Korea, power was passed directly from the leader to his son, Kim Jong Un. This avoids any fighting or arguments about who should be in charge next.This uses your example to support the point about stability. Some people might see this stability and lack of political conflict as the best way to run a country.This explains *why* someone might hold this view.

Candidate 76089

5/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is someone who makes descisions without nobody help.
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because, there are lots of points that you can agree to, for example:
• A law getts done because only one person is makeing descisions.This is a key point about efficiency.
• One person has ultimate power, and hold onto this power (there is no voting process.Good. You've correctly identified the concentration of power.
...I can link this to lots of other things. Eg. Kim Jong Un - title passed down by his father, So if he has kids they will be in charge.

However, Some may strongly disagree with this statement because there are lots of points that you can disagree to, for example:
• They are not afraid of their leader.A good point, contrasting with the fear often found in dictatorships.
• Overloads the Dictator with so much work to do.This is an interesting and unusual point.
...I can link this to Democracy. Democracy means goverment by the people and everyone gets a vote.

To conclude, I personally believe. and agree with the people that agree. This is because. I agree with all the points but mostly with: A law getts done because only one person is makeing descisions.This conclusion is very confusing. It seems you are concluding that you agree with the statement, but your reasoning is not well explained. You must make a clear judgement and justify it.

Strengths

You have identified several good, relevant points for both sides of the argument (speed, ultimate power vs. lack of fear, overloading the leader).
You use a good real-world example (Kim Jong Un).
Your use of a list/bullet point format shows that you can separate and categorise different ideas.

Targets

Your conclusion is very unclear. You must state a single, final judgement (either you agree or disagree overall) and then explain which argument you find most convincing. For example: "In conclusion, I disagree with the statement. Although laws get made faster, the fact that a dictator gets overloaded with work means they are likely to make bad decisions."
You need to move from writing a list of points to writing in full paragraphs. Try to link your points together. For example: "A dictator has ultimate power, which means there is no voting process. The result of this is that laws can get passed very quickly."

Here's an example of how to develop your points into a paragraph:

On the other hand, many would disagree with the statement. Firstly, in a democracy, the people are not afraid of their leader because they know they have the power to vote them out.This links your first point to the idea of accountability. Secondly, a single dictator can be overloaded with work, as they have to make all the decisions for the country alone. In a democracy, this work is shared between many people, which can lead to better results.This explains your second point in more detail and links it to a positive outcome for democracy.

Candidate 21896

3/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when someone rules and has complete control on country with no one else input.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because for starters a lot gets done because only one individual is making the disisions to the country.This is a clear and correct point about the efficiency of a dictatorship. the leader will have ultimate power meaning there is no voting process. linking back to the question many might believe this statement due to time circumstances and more.

Dictatorship
A leader who has usually come to power through force or inheritance. The country is usually controled by one person or small group and they often take away much of their people's freedom.

Democrary
A leader who has usually come to power through being electd.

Strengths

You have a good, clear point in favour of a dictatorship (things get done quickly).
You have provided very clear and accurate definitions of both 'Dictatorship' and 'Democracy'. This shows you have a good knowledge of the key terms.

Targets

Your answer is incomplete. To answer a "How far do you agree?" question, you must discuss both sides of the argument. You have given a reason to agree, but you have not given any reasons to disagree (e.g., it's unfair, people have no freedom, the leader could be cruel).
Your answer is missing a conclusion. You must always have a final paragraph where you state your own personal opinion on the question.
You need to structure your answer as a piece of continuous writing, rather than a collection of notes and definitions.

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

However, many people would strongly disagree with the statement because in a dictatorship, the people have no say in how their country is run.This introduces the counter-argument. Citizens lose their freedom and basic rights, as they cannot vote for their leader or speak out against the government without fear of punishment.This explains the point with specific examples of lost freedoms. This is why many believe that democracy, where people's rights are protected, is a much better system.This links the point to the alternative system.

Candidate 19267

9/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is a form of political system with one person or a small group of people in power and they often gain power through inheritance and force, and often take away other people's freedoms and liberties.

Some people may strongy agree with this statement as because dictatorships get alot done as there are less people involved, which could be crucial in times of conflict eg: instead of waiting for a vote and then an order to attack, a dictator can give the order quickly.This is an excellent, well-explained point. You've clearly identified the benefit (speed) and given a specific, relevant example of when it could be crucial (in a military conflict).

However, some people may strongly disagree as dictatorships overload the dictator with work as they have to deal with and control hundreds of thousands to millions of people and to fix their problems without sharing power to make it easier.This is a brilliant and highly original counter-argument. Suggesting a dictator is actually *less* efficient because they are 'overloaded' is a very sophisticated way to challenge the question. This is a major disadvantage to different governing systems and idealogies. Idealogies such as demcracy who don't face this problem as they have the power split between 650 members of Parliament in a democratic country such as called the United Kingdom.Superb! You have not only made your point, but you have supported it with specific, accurate factual knowledge (650 MPs in the UK Parliament). This is very impressive.

To conclude, I personally believe dictatorships (especially absolute monarchies) are the best way to run a country, in some cases not the best for it's citizens but still the superior way to run a country as getting alot done is a really important factor.This is a very interesting and well-reasoned conclusion. You have acknowledged the downside ('not the best for its citizens') but have decided that the 'pro' you identified (efficiency) is the more important factor. This is a complex and well-supported judgement. ...which is why I believe dictatorship is the best governing governance system.

Strengths

This is an outstanding essay that demonstrates a very high level of understanding and analytical skill.
Your argument that dictatorships are inefficient because the leader is "overloaded" is brilliant and original.
Your use of specific and accurate factual knowledge (650 MPs in the UK Parliament) to support your point is superb and a key skill for earning top marks.
Your conclusion is excellent. It is nuanced and complex, acknowledging the negative impact on citizens but still coming down on one side of the argument based on a clear criterion (efficiency). This is precisely what evaluation means.

Targets

It is very difficult to find fault with this response. To be hyper-critical, you could perhaps have explored the link between an 'overloaded' dictator and the negative impact on citizens more explicitly. For example, an overloaded leader is more likely to make mistakes or cruel decisions out of frustration, directly harming the people. But this is a minor point on an otherwise excellent piece.

Here's an example of how you could have slightly tweaked the conclusion to make it even more analytical:

In conclusion, while I acknowledge that a democracy effectively shares the burden of governance, I personally believe that an effective dictatorship is the superior way to run a country.This directly addresses your own counter-argument. Although it carries significant risks for the rights of citizens, the ability of a single leader to act decisively and get things done, especially in times of crisis, is a more important factor in the successful running of a state.This clearly states the criterion for your judgement (decisiveness is more important than citizens' rights). Therefore, despite its flaws, I agree with the statement that the efficiency of a dictatorship makes it the best system of governance.This provides a powerful and well-reasoned final sentence.

Candidate 68720

5/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when one person runs a entire country not leting anyone else. This power is usually given by inheretors like Kim Jong un.

Some people may agree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country because it gets things done quicker when only one person has albinet power.A good, clear point about speed and efficiency. They even might point out that if we continue to have multiple people disiding how a country works there is going to be a lot of fishes because someone might not agree with what anofcer person which will elongate the matter completly.

on the other hand some people might say that it is better to live in a democracy. a democracy is when every one is equal and has a righe to vote... They belive that democracy allows everyone a say in there life and how the conery is run.This is a well-explained point for democracy, linking it to equality, rights, and having a say. They also think if there is a dictator the work would be overloaded for them but in a democracy the work is shared.This is an excellent point, arguing that a dictator would be less effective because they are 'overloaded'.

In conclusion I think that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country bro only if I get to be in power because I dont trusted any one else to gouvern people the way I see fit.This is a very unusual and interesting conclusion. It is very honest and captures the mindset of a potential dictator perfectly. However, for an academic essay, it is better to answer from a neutral perspective about what is best for a country in general.

Strengths

You have a clear, balanced structure with good points on both sides of the argument.
Your point that a dictator might be "overloaded" with work, whereas in a democracy the work is "shared," is a very clever and insightful argument.
You use a good real-world example (Kim Jong Un).

Targets

Your conclusion is written from a very personal perspective ("only if I get to be in power"). While interesting, an academic essay requires you to make a judgement about which system is *objectively* better for a country, not just for you personally. Try to rephrase your conclusion to be about what is best for the people or the nation as a whole.
Check for spelling and grammar errors (e.g., 'albinet power' -> 'ultimate power', 'fishes' -> 'issues', 'elongate').

Here's an example of how you could write a more academic conclusion:

In conclusion, I disagree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country.This starts with a clear, objective judgement. Although it is true that a single ruler can make decisions more quickly, the argument that the workload is shared in a democracy is more convincing.This shows you are weighing up the points you have made. A country where power and work are shared is likely to have better-made decisions and happier citizens than one where a single, overloaded leader holds all the power.This explains your final reasoning.

Candidate 21067

6/12

Transcribed Answer

On the one hand some people may strongly agree with this statement because in a dictatorship alot gets done as only one person is making the disigions and they can enforce lores quickly.A very clear and well-explained point that correctly identifies speed and efficiency as a key argument for dictatorship.

On the other hand some people may disagre with this statement because work can overlod the dictator in power and it is not fair.This is another use of the excellent and original point that a dictator could be 'overloaded' with work. A Dictatorship is not fair as in there is no vote for the leader in power is just parced down to the leaders child.You've clearly linked the lack of voting to the concept of fairness. Most people would have a demoracy not a Dictatorship as because it is fair, work will not overlod them, and more people get a say and everyone gets a vote for who will be the leader or party.

To conclude I personally believe that a Democracy is the best.A clear, if simple, conclusion that states your final judgement.

Strengths

You have a perfect structure for a discursive essay, using "On the one hand..." and "On the other hand..." to present your balanced arguments.
Your points are very strong and clear. The argument about efficiency ("alot gets done") is well-explained.
Your argument against dictatorship is particularly good, as you combine the sophisticated idea of the leader being "overloaded" with the more fundamental point about fairness and the right to vote.

Targets

Your conclusion is a little too simple. Try to develop it by explaining *why* you believe democracy is best, using the arguments you have already made. For example, "...because the fairness of everyone having a vote is more important than the speed of a single ruler."
Try to include a specific, named example from the real world to make your points even more convincing.

Here's an example of how to write a more developed conclusion:

In conclusion, I personally believe that a democracy is the best way to run a country.This clearly states your judgement. While a dictator can enforce laws quickly, this advantage is outweighed by the problems of unfairness and the risk of an overloaded leader making poor decisions.This shows you are weighing up the two sides you have discussed. A system where people have a say and the workload is shared is much more likely to be successful and just in the long term.This provides a final justification for your opinion.

Candidate 79628

7/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when one person has complete rule over a state or a country.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because it if easier to make decisions. For example, if you want to make a decision with 2 people or more, they will disagree with each other as they have different ideas, while if you are in a dictatorship, it's easy to make decisions since you're the only mind.This is a fantastic explanation of *why* a dictatorship is more efficient. The phrase "you're the only mind" is a very clear and effective way to put it.

However, some may strongly disagree with this statement because one person holds onto that power forever. For example, In North korea, Kim Jong Un is the current leader, but they've had the power in their blood line for years.Excellent use of a specific, real-world example to illustrate your point. This is bad because over the years, they have tormented North korea and there's nothing they can do since there's no voting for other leaders... This shows how a dictatorship can also be bad as you can be stuck in an endless loop of torment forever.This is a powerful and very well-explained argument. The idea of being "stuck in an endless loop of torment" is a very strong image that effectively conveys the dangers of a system with no mechanism for change.

To conclude, I personally believe that a dictatorship is not the best way to run a country as if for have more takes, the better a decision will be.This conclusion is a little unclear. A better phrasing would be: "the more opinions you have, the better the decision will be." However, it does link to the idea of a single mind versus many. in a dictatorship if the wrong person is chosen, you are most likely doomed forever.

Strengths

Your arguments are very clear and well-explained. Your explanation of the "only mind" making decisions is excellent.
Your 'against' paragraph is superb. You use a perfect real-world example (North Korea) and your analysis of being "stuck in an endless loop of torment" is very powerful and sophisticated.
You have a clear, balanced structure.

Targets

Your conclusion could be written more clearly to make your excellent point more impactful. Try to state that the main reason democracy is better is that decisions are improved by considering multiple viewpoints, which avoids the danger of being 'doomed forever' by one bad ruler.

Here's an example of how you could refine your conclusion:

In conclusion, I personally believe that a dictatorship is not the best way to run a country.This starts with a clear judgement. While having a single mind can make decisions easier, it is also incredibly dangerous. As the example of North Korea shows, if that one ruler is cruel or incompetent, the country is trapped in a cycle of torment with no peaceful way to change its leader.This summarises your strongest point effectively. Therefore, a system that allows for multiple opinions and the ability to change leaders is far safer and better in the long run.This provides a powerful and well-justified final statement.

Candidate 68921

8/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when a leader comes into power usually through inheritance or force.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because in dictatorship, the power is usually passed down. An example of this is Kim Jong Un, whose title was passed down from his father. This means that there was no fight for power.Excellent use of a specific, real-world example. This proves the point that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country as there is more peace between rulers as they don't need to go to war to gain their title.This is a very interesting and sophisticated argument. Suggesting that inheritance leads to 'peace between rulers' because there's no need to fight for power is a clever and unusual point.

However, some people may disagree with this statement and argue that democracy... is the best way to run a country because the work load is shared.This is a great counter-argument, focusing on the inefficiency of a single ruler. For example, the three parts of the government - the House of Lords, the House of Commons, and the Monarch - all work together to rule the country as one.This is a good attempt at using specific knowledge, though be careful: the Monarch has a ceremonial role and doesn't rule, and the Lords has less power than the Commons. Still, the basic point that power is shared is correct and well-made. This disproves the point that a dictatorship is the best way to rule a country since in a dictatorship, only one person is doing all the work, which is tiring for them. This means that they could actually get less done than in a democracy, where they work together.

To conclude, I personally believe that a democracy is the best way to run a country as everyone gets a say.A clear and well-supported conclusion that links back to the idea of shared power and participation.

Strengths

You make several sophisticated and well-supported arguments. Your point that inheritance creates "peace between rulers" is very original.
Your counter-argument that the "work load is shared" in a democracy is also excellent and directly challenges the idea that dictators are more efficient.
You use specific examples for both sides of your argument (Kim Jong Un and the UK government).

Targets

This is a very strong piece. To improve further, just be a little more precise with your factual knowledge. While your point about the UK government sharing power is great, it's mainly the House of Commons (elected MPs) and the government they form that does the 'ruling'. The Monarch's role is not one of active governance.
Your conclusion is good but could be developed by weighing your two points against each other. Which is more important: peace between rulers, or sharing the workload?

Here's an example of how you could refine your conclusion to show more evaluation:

In conclusion, I personally believe that a democracy is the best way to run a country.This gives a clear judgement. While a dictatorship might ensure a peaceful transfer of power between rulers, this benefit is minor compared to the advantage of sharing the workload of government.This directly weighs the two points you made against each other. A system where different parts of government work together is more efficient and representative than one where a single, overtired person does all the work. Therefore, democracy is the better option.This explains your final reasoning clearly.

Candidate 89170

7/12

Transcribed Answer

...dictatorship is when a government is not chosen by the votes of the people. they are chosen by there familys. for example Kim Jung-un... his title as goverment was passed down by his father.

"A dictatorship is the best way to run a country" some people may strongly agree with this statment because it makings everything quicker. As voting takes time, but with dictatorship It's quick and easy.A good, clear point about speed and efficiency. a Dictatorship is also good as since you know the goverment you can put a lot of trust in them. But with Democracy you don't know if you could trust them as there new people you have never seen before.This is a very interesting and sophisticated point. You are arguing that the stability and predictability of a single ruling family is more trustworthy than the uncertainty of new democratic leaders.

However, some people may strongly disagree with this seatment because Dictatorship does not let you have a say on what people want in a goverment/country.This is the core argument against dictatorship. Also people don't get to choose if they want another goverment... For example Kim Jung un is the current leader of North Korea and he made everyone have a picture of him in his house. They don't have a say in what they can do, and if they disobey they could get killed.This is an excellent use of a specific example to show what a 'lack of say' really means in practice - complete control and the threat of violence.

To conclude, I personally believe that this statement is a statement that I completely disagree of. Due to the fact that dictarship lead to people having to escape their own country... If Diccatorship was with every country in the world people would not have freedom or happiness.A strong and well-reasoned conclusion that focuses on the human cost of this system (loss of freedom, happiness, becoming a refugee). Therefore I disagree with this seatment as I belive it can cause people so much misery.

Strengths

This is a very well-argued essay with a clear structure and some sophisticated points.
Your point that a dictatorship could be seen as more 'trustworthy' because the family in charge is a known entity is a very insightful and original argument.
Your use of the specific example of being forced to have a picture of Kim Jong Un is excellent for demonstrating what a lack of freedom really means.
Your conclusion, focusing on the 'misery' that leads people to flee their country, is powerful and effective.

Targets

This is already a very good piece of work. To improve it, try to avoid starting sentences with "Also" or "But". Instead, use more formal transition words like "Furthermore" or "However".
Make sure to check for spelling and grammar to ensure your excellent points are communicated as clearly as possible.

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

On one hand, some may agree that a dictatorship offers greater speed and stability.This combines your two points into one clear topic sentence. Decisions can be made quickly, as there is no slow voting process. Furthermore, because power is often inherited within one family, the leadership is predictable and does not change unexpectedly.This explains the points clearly. Some might argue this stability makes the government more trustworthy than a democracy, where new, unknown leaders can be elected every few years.This explains your sophisticated 'trust' argument, linking it back to the question.

Candidate 72609

6/12

Transcribed Answer

A Dictatorship is a leader who comes into power by force or inheritance; meaning they are not voted for. The country is usually ruled/controlled by one person or, a small group of people who normally take away much of their peoples freedom.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because when not many people are involved things are able to get done alot quicker for example they do not have to go through a long process only to make one decision.This is a very clear and well-explained point about the efficiency and speed of a dictatorship. People tend to like this as alot more gets done. Due to this reason, people may agree with the statement.

However, some may strongly disagree with this statement because, there is no democracy for example the people in the country do not get to choose who their leader is and they don't get a say in any decisions.A good, clear counter-argument focusing on the lack of choice. People may not like this as the leader may not be ruling for the benifit of the people, yet they rule for the benifit of themselves which is quite selfish.Excellent. You've correctly identified a key danger of dictatorship: the leader ruling for selfish reasons (corruption).

To conclude, I personally believe a dictatorship is not the best way to rule a country because in a democracy everyone gets a say and although it may take longer it is alot more fair for everyone.This is a superb conclusion. It shows high-level evaluation because you are directly weighing the two main arguments against each other: speed ('it may take longer') vs. fairness ('it is alot more fair'). You then make a justified choice. So due to this reason I disagree with the statement.

Strengths

You have a very clear and correct structure for a discursive essay.
Your points are well-explained, particularly your point about a dictator ruling for the "benifit of themselves," which is a strong argument about corruption.
Your conclusion is excellent. The way you weigh up the trade-off between speed and fairness ("it may take longer but it is alot more fair") shows a high level of evaluative skill.

Targets

This is a very strong response. The only thing that would improve it is the use of a specific, named example to illustrate one of your points. For instance, when you talk about selfish leaders, could you name one from the real world?

Here's an example of how to integrate an example into your point about selfish leaders:

Furthermore, a dictator might rule for their own selfish benefit, rather than for the good of the people.This makes your point the focus of the paragraph. Without elections to hold them accountable, a leader can use the country's money and resources to enrich themselves and their family, while ignoring the needs of the population.This explains *how* a leader can be selfish. There are many examples in history of dictators living in luxury while their people starved. This potential for corruption is a major reason why many disagree with this system of government.This uses a general historical example to prove the point and explains why it's a strong argument.

Candidate 62791

2/12

Transcribed Answer

Some people may strongly disagree because a dictator is a leader who takes power for themselfs usually a person or a group.You've identified that power is taken for selfish reasons, which is a good starting point. rules without being chosen and out of fear, come towards power through forces but people what want to have a say and have frequent elections and have accountable leaders that place Sartan authorisation un like dictators who takaway your freedom.This sentence is very long and contains many different ideas, making it hard to follow. However, within it you have identified several key concepts of democracy: having a say, elections, and accountable leaders.

Strengths

You show some knowledge of the key features of democracy, such as the desire for "frequent elections" and "accountable leaders".
You have correctly identified that dictators take away "freedom".

Targets

Your answer is incomplete and only looks at one side of the argument. To answer a "How far do you agree?" question, you MUST also explain why someone might AGREE with the statement, even if you don't.
You are also missing a conclusion where you state your final opinion.
Your sentences are very long and contain too many ideas. Try to focus on one single point per sentence. This will make your argument much clearer. For example: "Many people disagree with dictatorships. This is because they believe people should have a say in who leads them. In a democracy, people get to vote in frequent elections."

Here's an example of an 'agree' paragraph you could have added to balance your answer:

On the other hand, some people might agree with the statement because a dictator can get things done very quickly.This introduces a reason to agree. Since they do not need to hold elections or debate laws in parliament, they can make decisions instantly.This explains *why* they are quicker. This could be very useful in an emergency, like a war, where fast and decisive action is needed.This provides an example of when this might be a good thing.

Candidate 61207

4/12

Transcribed Answer

A Dictatorship is when one person has ultimate power and holds onto this power because theres no voting process. I disagree because a Democracy is much better due to people having a vote or a say in who they want to lead their country.You have a clear point of view and have correctly identified the core principle of democracy.

An example of a dictatorship is in north Korea for example Kim Jong un.

In north korea people don't have a say because one person has ultimate power and its going to sray like that for a qiuet save time. Sir since there's no voting system the fote of Kim Jong un (the president) will be passed straight down to his son.This is a great paragraph. You use a specific, real-world example to clearly explain how a dictatorship works, highlighting the lack of a 'say' and the hereditary nature of power.

My point is that a dictatorship has to rule a country but Yeah a lot will get done since theres only one person.You've correctly identified the main argument 'for' a dictatorship - efficiency. but people are living an unhappy life because they have no say.

Strengths

Your use of North Korea and the Kim family as a detailed example is excellent and makes your argument very clear and convincing.
You have a clear understanding of the key differences between the two systems.
You have identified arguments for both sides of the debate (people have no say vs. a lot gets done).

Targets

Your answer is missing a conclusion. After you have presented both sides, you need a final paragraph to clearly state your overall judgement. For example: "In conclusion, I disagree with the statement because the unhappiness caused by people having no say is a bigger issue than the benefit of getting things done quickly."
Your points are a little jumbled together. Try to have one clear paragraph that explains all the reasons a dictatorship is bad, and another clear paragraph that explains why someone might think it is good.

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

In conclusion, I strongly disagree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country.This starts with a clear judgement. Although it may be true that a single ruler can get a lot done, this efficiency comes at the cost of the people's happiness and freedom.This weighs up the two sides that you discussed. As the example of North Korea demonstrates, a life with no say is an unhappy one, which is why democracy is the better system.This uses your own example to support your final decision.

Candidate 18726

6/12

Transcribed Answer

A Dictatorship is a leader who to usuals comes to power by force or inheritance. The country usually will get ruled by one person or a small group of people.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because it has many benefits. For example, alot will be get done, like passing new laws as one person decides what happens. This is good as if theres alot of issues in a country it can be solved faster and more effeciently.This is a very well-explained point. You haven't just said it's 'faster', you've explained *why* this is a good thing (solving a country's issues more efficiently). This proves a dictatorship is the best way to run a country as things can get done faster and more quickly.

However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement as they believe a democracy is a better way to rule a country. For example a democracy allows more people to have a say in how the country is run.This is a clear and correct counter-argument. This is good as democracy means government by the people so it allows more people opinion to be heard rather than one person making all the descision.

To conclude, I personally believe a democracy is better as more people have a say on how the country is run so the country is somewhere where everybody likes it.A good conclusion that links the idea of 'having a say' to a positive outcome (a country that 'everybody likes').

Strengths

You have a very clear and well-balanced structure.
Your 'for' argument is particularly strong because you explain the positive consequence of the dictator's speed and efficiency - that it can solve the country's problems "faster and more effeciently".
Your conclusion is logical and well-reasoned, linking participation to creating a country that people like.

Targets

To improve your answer, the next step is to include a specific, named example from the real world. For instance, when talking about democracy allowing more people to have a say, you could mention a country like the UK.
In your conclusion, you could show more direct evaluation by weighing the two sides. For example: "Although a dictator can solve problems quickly, I believe it is more important for people to have a say..."

Here's an example of how to make your conclusion more evaluative:

To conclude, I personally believe that a democracy is the better system.This is a clear start to your judgement. While a dictatorship's ability to solve issues quickly is a significant advantage, I believe the benefit of allowing more people to have their opinion heard is more important.This directly weighs the two main arguments you have discussed against each other. A country that is run in a way that everybody likes is ultimately more stable and successful than one that is simply run efficiently.This provides a final justification for your decision.

Confirmed. Here is the second and final batch containing the remaining 14 student scripts. Please paste this code block directly after the first batch in your skeleton HTML file. After this, the processing phase for this set of scripts 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 79882

5/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when only one person rules a country an example of a dictatorship is North Korea.

The reason that some people like a dictatorship is because things happen a lot faster because only one person is ruling.This is a clear and well-explained point about the efficiency of a dictatorship. if someone lives in a country were a dictator ruls then the dictator has complete over the country and how it is run. adding on to this Monarchies are a form of dictatorship if they still have power.

however many people dislike dictatorships because they thing democracy is better as the goverment is chosen by the people.A good, clear counter-argument. In a democracy everyone above the age of 18 can vote for the goverment. The reason why people think a democracy is better is because everyone gets a say in how the country is run and controlled.

In conclusion a democracy is the better choise because everyone gets a say in how the country is run that is why i prefer a democracy.A clear conclusion that is logically supported by the arguments you made in the previous paragraph.

Strengths

You have a very clear, well-balanced structure with good points on both sides.
You use a good real-world example (North Korea) and also show good subject knowledge by linking dictatorship to monarchies.
Your explanations are clear, particularly your point about democracy being better because "everyone gets a say in how the country is run and controlled."

Targets

Try to develop your points a little further. For example, why is it good that "things happen a lot faster"? (Because it can be useful in a crisis). Why is it good that "everyone gets a say"? (Because it makes the government accountable to the people).
Your conclusion is good, but you can make it even better by showing that you have weighed up both sides. For example: "In conclusion, although dictatorships are faster, I believe democracy is better because it is more important for everyone to have a say."

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

On one hand, some people might support dictatorships because they are a very efficient form of government where things happen faster.This is your original point, stated clearly. Because only one person is in charge, there are no long debates or elections, so new laws can be passed or decisions can be made instantly.This explains *why* it is faster. This decisiveness can be a major advantage in a national emergency, like a war or natural disaster, where quick action is required.This explains the positive consequence of that speed.

Candidate 78962

3/12

Transcribed Answer

...more reasons why people like a democracy more is because if it is a dictatorship the one person rulling has to do lots of things on their own and it will stress them but in a democracy because more than one person is ruling they won't be stressed. another reason is that every five years we pick a new goverment.You've made two good points here: that democracy shares the workload, and that it allows for regular change through elections.

In conclusion a democracy is the better choise because everyone gets a say in how the country is run that is why i prefer a democracy.A clear conclusion that links back to the core principle of democracy.

Strengths

You have made two strong and distinct points in favour of democracy (sharing the workload, and being able to choose a new government).
Your conclusion is clear and states your preference.
The point about a dictator being "stressed" because they have to do everything themselves is a very good and original argument.

Targets

Your answer is incomplete and one-sided. To answer a "How far do you agree?" question, you MUST also include a paragraph that explains why someone might AGREE that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country, even if you don't believe it yourself.
You need an introduction to define the key terms and set up your essay.
Try to explain your points in more detail. Why is it bad if a leader is stressed? (They might make bad decisions). Why is it good that we can pick a new government every five years? (It means we can get rid of a bad leader peacefully).

Here's an example of an 'agree' paragraph you could have added to balance your answer:

On the other hand, some people might agree with the statement because in a dictatorship, decisions can be made very quickly.This introduces a reason to agree. A single ruler does not need to waste time with long debates or elections, so they can put new laws in place immediately.This explains the point. This speed could be seen as an advantage in a crisis, where quick action is needed to keep the country safe.This explains why it could be a good thing.

Candidate 67128

6/12

Transcribed Answer

Some people may strongly agree due to the fact one single person is in possesion of the power. Since they have this power decisions would be made faster unlike a democracy.A clear point about the speed of decision-making. The dictator holds their power until they die, when they die this power would be passed down. for example of a dictator kim jang un... his power had gotten passed down.

Some people may disagree cause if your under a democracy you can vote who do you want as a menoren or primenister...A good, clear counter-argument focusing on the right to vote. this voting system is called a write. Due to the voting system people may see this as fair... because people get a say. This democracy anericors the dictatorship with so much work to do I democracy is shared.This is a great point. It appears to mean that democracy 'unburdens' or 'relieves' the leader, because the work is shared, which is a sophisticated argument.

In conclusion a democracy is better cause more people get a say making it fair for others also to government and other parties to develop and improve as well as choosing a suitable primeminister guiding our country to a fair life making a happy community due to these fair decision.A very strong and well-developed conclusion. You have linked 'getting a say' to multiple positive outcomes: fairness, improvement, a happy community, and good leadership.

Strengths

You have a clear, balanced structure with good points on both sides.
Your conclusion is excellent. You go beyond just saying democracy is 'fair' and explain the positive consequences of this fairness, such as creating a "happy community" and allowing the country to "develop and improve".
The point that democracy is better because the workload is "shared" is a very good one.

Targets

Some of your phrasing is a little unclear (e.g., "this voting system is called a write," "anericors the dictatorship"). Try to reread your sentences to ensure they are as clear as possible. The point about sharing the workload is great, but it needs to be expressed more clearly to have its full impact.
Check your spelling and grammar ("possesion," "yaster").

Here's an example of how to refine your point about the shared workload:

A key advantage of democracy is that the work of running a country is shared, which prevents a single leader from being overloaded.This is a clear topic sentence for the point. In a dictatorship, one person is expected to make all the important decisions on complex topics like the economy, healthcare and defence.This explains the problem. In a democracy, however, these responsibilities are shared among many elected officials and experts. This collaboration leads to more thoughtful decisions and a government that is less likely to make mistakes due to the stress on a single individual.This explains why sharing the work is a better system.

Candidate 26190

7/12

Transcribed Answer

Some people may strongly agree with this idea because you can get alot done with just one person that can make decisions on their own without anyone elses opinione.A very clear and well-explained point about the efficiency of a single decision-maker. And that one person has ultimate power and holds onto this power. Not a single voting process just a straight up leader... And as "Kim Jong un - title past down by he's father."

However, many people may disagree with this statement/idea because mans people would want to get a chance to vote and not just hear opinions and choices from one person.A good, clear counter-argument based on the right to vote and be heard. And more people get a 'say' on how the country is run. So as it over loads dictator with so much work to keep up with and do by them selves.This is an excellent point. The idea that a single ruler would be 'overloaded' with work is a clever way to challenge the idea of their efficiency. And wouldn't be afraid of their leader to speak up because it would be a democracy where people can use their voices and opinions.

To conclude, I personally believe that a dictatorship isn't the best way to run a country, because I believe that every one over the permit age should be allowed to give their ideas and opinions on who should run the country.A strong, clear conclusion based on the democratic principle of participation. ...as for a dictator ship force or inheritance, does not consider the opinions of citizens which makes it very unfair towards the people who want to have a say.A well-developed final thought that reinforces your main argument about fairness and having a say.

Strengths

You have an excellent, well-balanced structure with clear paragraphs for each side of the argument.
Your points are very well-explained. Your argument that a dictator would be "overloaded with so much work" is a particularly insightful and sophisticated point.
You use a good real-world example (Kim Jong Un).
Your conclusion is strong and provides a well-reasoned justification for your final judgement.

Targets

This is a very strong piece of work. To improve it even further, just check for some minor spelling and grammar errors (e.g., "mans people" -> "many people", "permit age" -> "permitted age"). Clear expression helps your excellent arguments to shine.

Here's an example of how to further develop your "overloads" point:

Furthermore, a dictatorship is an inefficient system because it overloads a single individual with an impossible amount of work.This turns your excellent point into a clear topic sentence. Running a country requires expertise in economics, healthcare, foreign policy, and law. No single person can be an expert in all these areas, so they are likely to make serious mistakes.This explains *why* being overloaded is a problem. A democracy, in contrast, shares this workload among many elected officials and specialists, leading to more robust and well-thought-out decisions. This makes democracy a more effective system of government.This directly contrasts the two systems and explains why democracy is better.

Candidate 17629

7/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when someone or a small group gain complete control over an area, usually through force or inheritance.

Some people may agree with this statement because the dictator can get a lot of work done because there wont be any need to debate it... For example, if the dictator wants something built, they will get people to do the job immediatly.This is a very clear point about efficiency, and you have explained it well with a practical example. This makes being a dictator easier as they can make lots of changes quickly and efficiently. This is why a dictator ship is the best way to run a country.

On the other hand, some people might strongly disagree with this statement. As dictators are normally working alone, they cannot do as much work as they want to. This is because they have to manage things in multiple areas, giving them an over load of work.This is a superb counter-argument. You have directly challenged the 'for' argument about efficiency by pointing out that a lone dictator would be 'overloaded'. This is a very clever and sophisticated point. Another reason why people may disagree with this statement is because the people do not get to choose who rules... The reason why is because the dictator may exploit the people to gain as much profit as possible, leaving their people in terrible conditions.An excellent second point, focusing on the lack of choice and the risk of exploitation and corruption.

To conclude, I personally believe that dictator ships are not the best way to run a country as it could over load the dictator with work, and the people may not like the dictator for keeping them in terrible conditions, living and working conditions, and they do not get a say in how their country is run.A very strong and comprehensive conclusion. You have successfully summarised all of your excellent arguments (overload, terrible conditions, no say) to justify your final judgement.

Strengths

This is a very well-argued and well-structured essay.
Your argument that a dictator may actually be *less* efficient because they are "working alone" and have an "over load of work" is a brilliant and high-level piece of analysis.
You make another strong point about the dictator exploiting people for profit, showing a good understanding of the concept of corruption.
Your conclusion is excellent as it brings together all the different threads of your argument into a coherent and convincing final judgement.

Targets

This is already a very high-quality response. The only thing that would elevate it further would be the use of a specific, named example from the real world. For instance, when talking about exploitation, could you mention a country where the leader lives in luxury while the people are poor?

Here's an example of how to integrate an example into your point about exploitation:

Another reason for disagreement is that a dictator can exploit the people for personal profit, leaving them in terrible conditions.This clearly states your point. Without needing to win votes or face a free press, a leader can use the country's wealth for their own benefit. For example, there are many reports of leaders in countries like North Korea living in extreme luxury while their citizens face food shortages.This adds a specific, real-world example. This clear injustice, where the people are not prioritised, is a strong reason why dictatorship is not the best way to run a country.This explains why exploitation is such a powerful argument against this system.

Candidate 28019

8/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when someone has absolute power over a country often gained through inheritance or force.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement as there are many benefits to having a dictatorship. Such as, more work gets completed as only one person is in chage and nobody can disagree.A good point about the speed and lack of opposition. or maybe the dictator isn't corrupt and has the countris best intrests at heart. There are many examples of succesful dictatorships such as monarchies, for stample prior to King John there were many beloved Kings and queens who inherited the title.

However some people may disagree with this statement as there are many flaos with dictatorships. for example them are some of the most evil people of this century were dictators such as Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussain and Mussolini.This is a fantastic use of multiple, accurate historical examples. Listing these notorious dictators provides very powerful evidence for your argument. that basic human rights are often neglected by dictators... also power often corrupts people as shown in George Orwells book animal farm.Another excellent piece of wider knowledge. Referencing a relevant text like 'Animal Farm' to make a point about power corrupting is a very sophisticated skill.

To conclude I personally believe that dictatorships are not the best way to run a country as even though they are extremely practical on paper the thrill of power can often corrupt people, also the right to vote provides a voig for everyone no matter how big or small.A very thoughtful and well-reasoned conclusion. You acknowledge the 'pro' (practical on paper) but argue that the 'cons' (corruption, lack of voting rights) are more significant. This is excellent evaluation.

Strengths

This is a superb essay, demonstrating excellent historical and cultural knowledge to support your arguments.
Your use of multiple, accurate examples of evil dictators (Stalin, Hitler, etc.) is a very powerful and effective way to make your point.
Your reference to George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' to illustrate the corrupting nature of power is a sign of sophisticated, high-level thinking.
Your conclusion is nuanced and evaluative, acknowledging that dictatorships can seem "practical on paper" but ultimately concluding that the risks of corruption and the importance of voting rights make it an inferior system.

Targets

It is very difficult to find ways to improve this response. Your arguments are well-made and exceptionally well-supported. Perhaps you could have developed your 'for' argument a little more, but it is still clear and serves its purpose in creating a balanced discussion. This is an excellent piece of work.

Here's an example of how you could have slightly expanded the 'for' paragraph:

On one hand, some may argue that a dictatorship is a more efficient system. With only one person in charge, decisions can be made and work completed without disagreement.This states the main point clearly. In theory, a benevolent dictator—one who is not corrupt and has the country's best interests at heart—could use this power for good. Historically, some inherited monarchs before the modern era were considered 'beloved' because they provided stability and security.This integrates your example of monarchies and the concept of a 'good' dictator. This ideal of a wise, all-powerful ruler is the core of the argument in favour of dictatorship.This summarises the idea.

Candidate 10897

3/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is the best way to rule a country.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because... lots and lots of rulers have used dictatorship in the position they were make and some were lisitions that still carry/help the country today.This is a very interesting point. You are suggesting that some dictators in the past have made good decisions that still benefit their countries.

But others may strongly disagree with this statement because people think that dictators can't be trusted because some dictators just change things for the sun of it (no idea why) and some dictators change not just ruls, laws or other things but can also change live's.You've identified a key issue: trust. The idea that a dictator might make random, unpredictable changes is a good reason not to trust them.

I think that its not the best way but it is a good way but as is now I think it mid. and I also think that trust, leadership, is the best way to run a country.This conclusion is very confused and doesn't make a final decision. You say it's "not the best way" but also "a good way" and "mid". You must make a single, clear judgement.

Strengths

You have attempted to look at both sides of the argument, which is the correct structure.
Your 'for' argument is quite thoughtful, suggesting that some past dictators may have done good things.
Your 'against' point about dictators not being trusted because they are unpredictable is a good, valid argument.

Targets

Your conclusion must be clear and decisive. You cannot say that you both agree and disagree. You need to weigh up the two arguments and decide which one is stronger. For example, "In conclusion, although some dictators may have done good things in the past, I disagree with the statement because the risk of an untrustworthy leader making bad changes is too great."
Try to explain your points in much more detail and provide examples. Can you name a dictator who made a good decision? When you say a dictator can "change lives," is that in a good way or a bad way? Be specific.

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

On the other hand, many would disagree because a dictator cannot be trusted with absolute power.This is a clear topic sentence for your point. With no elections or parliament to limit them, a dictator can change laws or even people's fundamental rights for no good reason, simply because they feel like it.This explains *why* they can't be trusted. This unpredictability is dangerous and can negatively change people's lives overnight, which is why many believe that a democratic system with clear rules and limits on power is a much safer way to run a country.This explains the negative consequence and contrasts it with democracy.

Candidate 97681

5/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is a leader who has usally come to power through force or inheritance. The country is usa-lly controlled by one person or a small-group and takes away people's freedom and right to vote.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because when a dictatorship runs a country alot gets done since one person is making all the decisions.A clear and correct point about the efficiency of a dictatorship.

However, some may strongly disagree with this statement because everyone gets a vote and more people is allowed to get a say in how the country is run.A good counter-argument focusing on the democratic principles of voting and participation. They also get more freedom.

To conclude, i personally believe that a "dictatorship is the best way to run a country" is wrong because we won't have a say in whatever rules are being made and you get less freedom.A strong conclusion that clearly states your judgement and justifies it by referring to your key arguments (having a say and freedom).

Strengths

You have a perfect structure for this essay: a clear introduction, a paragraph for each side of the argument, and a justified conclusion.
Your points are clear, relevant, and directly address the question (efficiency vs. participation and freedom).
Your conclusion is effective because it summarises your main reasons for disagreeing with the statement.

Targets

The next step for you is to develop your points with more explanation and detail. After you make a point, ask yourself "Why does this matter?". For example, why is it good that "alot gets done"? (Because it can help solve problems quickly). Why is it good that people get "more freedom"? (Because they can live their lives without fear).
Try to use a specific example from the real world to make your arguments more convincing.

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

On one hand, some people may agree with the statement because in a dictatorship, decisions can be made very efficiently.This is a clear topic sentence. Since only one person is making all the decisions, there is no need for slow debates or voting. This means a lot can get done in a short amount of time.This explains your point in more detail. For example, in a national crisis, this speed could be a great advantage, allowing the leader to respond immediately to protect the country.This gives a reason *why* this efficiency is a good thing.

Candidate 90768

5/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is someone who usually comes to power through force or inheretance.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because they think that alot will get done if only one person is making the decision and not multiple people.This is a clear and correct point about the perceived efficiency of a single ruler.
However because when one person has ultimate power they likely hold onto that power untill they die. for example Kim Jong Uns title will be passed down forever.You've identified a key feature (power for life) and used a good example, but you haven't explained *why* this is a bad thing.

However some people may disagree with the statement because they see it as democracy which is when they are the government by the people so everyone gets a chance to vote.This is a clear explanation of the democratic alternative. Another reason why someone may disagree is because people 'get' a say in how the country is run.

Strengths

You have identified the key arguments on both sides: efficiency for dictatorships, and voting/participation for democracies.
You have used a good, relevant example (Kim Jong Un).
You have attempted to look at both sides of the argument.

Targets

Your answer is missing a conclusion. You must always add a final paragraph that states your own opinion and gives a brief reason.
Your points need to be explained more fully. For example, you state that a dictator holds power for life and it gets passed down. You need to explain why this is a bad thing (e.g., "This is bad because if the leader is cruel or incompetent, the people are stuck with them and have no way to get rid of them peacefully").
Your structure is a little jumbled. Try to have one distinct paragraph for all the 'agree' points and one for all the 'disagree' points to make your answer clearer.

Here's an example of how to develop your point about Kim Jong Un:

A major reason to disagree with dictatorship is that a leader holds power for life and it is then passed down to their children.This is a clear topic sentence. For example, Kim Jong Un inherited his title as leader of North Korea from his father, and his children will one day inherit it from him.This uses your example clearly. This is a major problem because if a leader is cruel or makes bad decisions, the country is stuck with them forever, with no peaceful way to replace them. This can lead to decades of suffering for the people.This explains *why* inheriting power for life is such a dangerous and negative aspect of a dictatorship.

Candidate 91028

3/12

Transcribed Answer

Dictatorship is a leader who has useally come to power though 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.

Agree because alot get done because only one person is making clesions.A clear and correct point about efficiency.

One person has ultimate power and holds into this power with no voting process.Another clear point identifying a key feature.

more people get a say in how the country is run.This is the key argument for democracy.

Strengths

You have a very good, clear definition of dictatorship in your introduction.
You have identified key points for both the 'agree' side (efficiency, ultimate power) and the 'disagree' side (people get a say).

Targets

Your answer is a list of notes, not a written essay. You need to write your points out in full sentences and group them into paragraphs.
You are missing a conclusion. You must have a final paragraph where you state your own opinion and briefly justify it.
You need to explain your points. Why is it good that "alot get done"? Why is it good that "more people get a say"? You need to explain the consequences of these points to build a proper argument.

Here's an example of how you could turn your notes into a full paragraph:

Some people may agree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country because a lot can get done very quickly.This turns your first point into a topic sentence. In this system, one person has ultimate power and does not have to worry about a voting process, which means they can make decisions instantly.This links your second point as an explanation for the first. This efficiency can be a major advantage for a country, especially in a time of crisis where fast action is needed.This explains *why* the point matters.

Candidate 97162

6/12

Transcribed Answer

Dictartarship is a person ruling a country by farce.

Some people may strongly agree that a Dictatarship is the best way to run a country because off all the quick moves in the government due to only one person is making a decsion.A clear and well-explained point about the speed and efficiency of a single ruler. one example is the Serbian revolution the President was a dictartar and he got a lot Done. this proves my point because of how much changes he made.

Bot on the other hand, some people may strongly disagree because of the fact that dictatorships mostly end badly because of an example the serbian revolution the President of Serbia was a dictator and he got a revolution against him and that is how his presidential time ended.This is excellent. You have used the same historical example (the Serbian President/revolution) to argue for both sides of the debate. This is a very sophisticated skill that shows you can see the nuance in a single event. this proves my point of all the defeats in the mistery of Dictators.

To conclude, I personally believe that Dictatorship is the worst way to rule a country because of the fact that the civlians should be able to express their feelings about their leader an country.A strong conclusion based on the democratic principle of freedom of expression. Also the downsides of being a dictator are stress because all the decisions relies on him/her. Instead a democracy has different areas for each decision.Another good point, suggesting that the "stress" on a single ruler is a weakness of the system, while democracy shares the load.

Strengths

Your use of a single, specific historical example (the Serbian revolution) to argue for both sides of the debate is a very high-level skill. It shows you understand that historical events are complex and can be interpreted in different ways.
Your conclusion is strong and brings in two good points: the importance of freedom of expression, and the weakness of a system that puts all the "stress" on one person.
Your structure is clear and balanced.

Targets

This is a very strong response. To improve it further, ensure your historical knowledge is precise. While the history of Serbia and Yugoslavia is complex, referring to a specific leader (like Slobodan Milošević) would add more weight to your example.
Check your spelling to ensure clarity ("farce" -> "force", "decsion" -> "decision").

Here's an example of how you could refine your conclusion:

In conclusion, I personally believe that dictatorship is the worst way to run a country.This is a clear and decisive judgement. Although a dictator might get a lot done, the Serbian example ultimately shows that a leader who does not listen to their people is likely to face a revolution. The most important thing is that civilians should be able to express their feelings about their country freely.This weighs the two sides of your example and explains why freedom of expression is the more important factor. Furthermore, a democracy, which shares the stress of decision-making, is a more resilient and less stressful system for everyone involved.This brings in your final point to create a powerful summary.

Candidate 60789

7/12

Transcribed Answer

dictatorship is a country run by only one person and this one person has ultimate power... there is no voting process at all an example of a dictatorship is Kim Jong un his power was passed down from his father Kim Jong ed.

Some people may stongly agree with this stament because having a dictatorship means laws are passed out quickly because there is only one person who is making decisions and has ultimate power.A very clear and well-explained point about the efficiency of a single, powerful ruler.

However some people may strongly disagree with this statement because having a democracy means you can vote and people also have a say in how the country is run and also people do not need to fear their leaders unlike dictatorships.This is a very strong paragraph that links several key democratic ideas: voting, having a say, and not living in fear of the leader. and also in a democracy every thing is shared.

To conclude I personally believe a democracy is better because people do not have to fear their leader but insted tell them what they are doing wrong.This is an excellent and sophisticated point. The idea that citizens in a democracy can correct their leaders is a powerful argument for its superiority. ...a dictatorship is not the best way to run a country. a democracy is slowd but shering it taves longer for laws to be passed around but dictatorships.

Strengths

You have a clear, balanced structure with a strong introduction using a good example.
Your 'against' paragraph is very strong, successfully linking together the ideas of voting, participation, and living without fear.
Your conclusion contains a superb point: the idea that democracy is better because citizens can "tell [leaders] what they are doing wrong." This shows a mature understanding of accountability.

Targets

The final sentence of your conclusion ("a democracy is slowd but shering it taves longer...") is a little confusing and seems to repeat the same idea. A clearer final thought would improve the impact of your excellent point about accountability.
Check for spelling and grammar errors ("stament," "slowd," "shering").

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

To conclude, I personally believe a democracy is better, not just because it is fairer, but because it is more effective.This provides a strong topic sentence for your judgement. While a dictator can pass laws quickly, they have no one to correct their mistakes. In a democracy, citizens do not have to fear their leader; instead, through elections and free speech, they can tell the government what it is doing wrong.This highlights your excellent and sophisticated point about accountability. This ability to self-correct makes democracy a slower, but ultimately smarter and more successful, way to run a country.This provides a powerful final thought that weighs up the two systems.

Candidate 78169

5/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when one person has all control in a country, which some people may agree with this statement because you get more work done and it makes it quicker and fast.A clear and correct point about the efficiency of a dictatorship.

However some people may disagree because dictators could make people fear them reducing trust between the civillians.This is a strong counter-argument, linking the dictator's methods (fear) to a negative societal outcome (reducing trust). this can be seen however, a democracy has a system that keeps the society in place, bringing trust between the people, this can be shown when Elisabeth II was loved and even when they lost wars, the people accepted it.This is a very interesting example. You are arguing that the trust people had in the Queen (as a symbol of the democratic state) helped keep the country stable even in bad times. This is a sophisticated point.

To conclude, I personally believe that a democray would be better and the reason for this circumstance is because everything is done by not only one person, making tasks easier to do and the people of that country are not affraid.A good conclusion that summarises two strong arguments: sharing the workload and not living in fear.

Strengths

You have a clear, balanced structure.
Your 'against' argument is sophisticated. Linking democracy to "bringing trust between the people" and using the example of Queen Elizabeth II to illustrate this is very good.
Your conclusion is strong and summarises your key points well.

Targets

Be careful with your example. While Queen Elizabeth II was a much-loved monarch in a democracy, she held no real political power. A better example of a trusted democratic leader would be a popular Prime Minister. However, the point you make about trust is still a very good one.
Develop your points a little further. Why is it bad if there is no trust between civilians? (e.g., people won't work together, society breaks down).

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

However, many would disagree because a dictator rules through fear, which destroys the trust between citizens and the state.This is a clear topic sentence for your point. In a healthy society, people need to trust that their government is working in their best interests. A democracy builds this trust through transparency and elections, where leaders must earn the people's support.This explains *how* democracy builds trust. A dictatorship does the opposite, creating a suspicious and fearful society where people are afraid of their own government. This is not a stable or desirable way to run a country in the long term.This explains the negative consequences of a lack of trust.

Candidate 86791

4/12

Transcribed Answer

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because they would like to have only one person to rule the country.This is a valid starting point. And also they would not like to vote with diffrent rulers.

However, some may strongly disagree with statement because they would like diffrent ideas from diffrent people.This is the core argument for the benefit of democracy - diversity of ideas. & To add on more people would also like it without only one person, because they can share their ideas.

To conclude, I Posonally believe that there should be more than one person that rules because I would not trust someone who would give ideas to themselfs and say I like this.This is a good, well-reasoned conclusion. Your justification based on a lack of 'trust' in a single, self-serving ruler is a strong point. I would rather have a group and share there ideas so they can all have opions with eachother.

Strengths

You have a clear, balanced structure with a 'for' point, an 'against' point, and a conclusion.
Your argument for democracy, based on the value of having "diffrent ideas from diffrent people," is a very strong one.
Your conclusion is well-justified, explaining that you wouldn't "trust" a single ruler who only listens to their own ideas.

Targets

Your points need to be explained in more detail. WHY would some people like to have only one person rule? (e.g., they might find it less confusing or more stable). WHY is it good to have different ideas from different people? (e.g., it leads to better decisions that consider everyone's needs).
Try to use full sentences and paragraphs to build your argument, rather than a series of short phrases.

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

On the other hand, many would disagree with the statement because the best decisions are made by considering different ideas from different people.This is a clear topic sentence based on your point. A single ruler only has their own limited experience and knowledge. In a democracy, however, ideas are shared and debated by hundreds of representatives from all over the country.This explains the difference between the two systems. This process of sharing ideas helps to ensure that the final decision is well-thought-out and benefits the whole country, not just the interests of one person. This is why it is a better system.This explains the positive consequence of having many different ideas.