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 strong set of responses to a complex discursive question. The vast majority of students successfully identified the core task: to weigh the arguments for and against dictatorship and come to a justified conclusion. There was a good understanding of key concepts such as freedom, elections, power, and accountability. Many students went further by including specific real-world examples to support their arguments, which was impressive.

Common Strengths

Balanced Structure: Most students correctly structured their essays with an introduction, a paragraph for the 'agree' side, a paragraph for the 'disagree' side, and a conclusion. This balanced approach is fundamental to discursive writing.
Use of Examples: Many students effectively used examples, ranging from North Korea to historical figures like Hitler, to make their arguments more concrete and convincing.
Clear Personal Judgement: Nearly every response ended with a clear conclusion that stated the student's own opinion, a crucial skill for this type of question.

Common Targets for Improvement

Develop Points with the "Why Chain": The most common area for improvement is moving from stating a point to fully explaining it. After making a point, ask yourself "Why does this matter?" or "What is the consequence?". For example, instead of just saying "a dictatorship is faster," explain the benefit: "...which could be vital in a national crisis, allowing a leader to respond immediately to save lives."
Deepen the Evaluation: While conclusions were clear, they can be made more evaluative. Try to directly compare the 'for' and 'against' arguments. For example: "Although a dictatorship offers speed, this is a small benefit when weighed against the severe risk to human rights." This shows you are making a judgement based on the evidence you have presented.
Ensure Argument Accuracy: A few responses confused some concepts (e.g., claiming a dictator is elected). It is vital to be precise with your definitions. Remember: Democracy = Power from the people (elections); Dictatorship = Power through force or inheritance.

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 89162

6/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is a person who comes into power by either force or anheritance to the throne.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because they may think that if the leader before then was good then it must run in the family.This is a clear point, suggesting that good leadership qualities might be hereditary. Or they may think that the person who forced their way to the throne (most likely by a war or some kind of violence) would be a better leader as they got rid of the old leader by force/strength meaning they are stronger.This is another excellent and well-explained point. You are arguing that 'might makes right' – that a leader who can take power by force must be a strong leader.

However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because they may belive that everyone should have a say on who rules the country as they are the ones living there.This is the core principle of democracy, clearly stated. Also they may think that the people who want to rule the country should have to give a speech on why they would be a good leader for said country.

To conclude I personally belive that everyone should have an oppinion on who will run the country.A clear conclusion that states your judgement. I belive this because no matter if the person "claimed the throne by sorce" or "inherited it" that does not mean they will be a good leader with good intentions.This is a superb piece of evaluation. You are directly challenging the assumptions of the 'for' argument, stating that the method of gaining power doesn't guarantee the quality or intention of the leader. So it's always good to see what the possible future ruler has to say before voting for them to rule.

Strengths

You have an excellent, balanced structure with very well-explained points on both sides of the argument.
Your conclusion is particularly strong. The way you directly challenge the 'for' arguments by stating that how a leader gets power doesn't guarantee they have "good intentions" is a very high-level evaluative skill.
Your arguments are clear and logical, especially the point about a leader who takes power by force being seen as 'stronger'.

Targets

This is a very strong response. To elevate it even further, try to include a specific, named example. For instance, when you talk about leaders taking power by force, could you name a historical figure who did this?

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

In conclusion, I personally believe that everyone should have an opinion on who runs their country.This is a clear topic sentence for your judgement. Just because a person inherits power, like Kim Jong Un, or takes it by force, does not mean they will be a good leader with good intentions.This adds a specific, real-world example to your brilliant point. Therefore, it is much safer and fairer to have a democratic system where potential leaders have to explain their intentions to the people, who can then vote for the person they trust the most.This provides a powerful final thought, explaining the benefit of the democratic alternative.

Candidate 68791

5/12

Transcribed Answer

I highly disagree with this statement because I believe that a Democray is a much better way than a Dictatership. I think this because a Dictatorship is when a leader come to power through force or inheritance meaning that the member of the public with have no say.A good, clear definition and reason for your disagreement. and if the leader came through force that shows that he's/she is not a very trustworthy person. ...Dictatorship dosent do that at all.
But in a Democray on the other hand is when a leader comes into power through an election creating less chaos and the member of the public could actually have a say on who they want to lead their country for the next 5-4 years.You've effectively contrasted the 'chaos' of a violent seizure of power with the order of an election.

So to conclude my response I disagree with this statement because living in a dictorship will creae chaos and a Democray is a much better way to pick a responsible leader.A strong conclusion that logically summarises the main points you have made about chaos and responsibility.

Strengths

You have a very clear point of view and you argue it consistently with some well-explained points.
The contrast you make between the "chaos" of a dictatorship and the orderly nature of a democratic election is a very good point.
You correctly link coming to power through force with the leader being untrustworthy.

Targets

Your answer is completely one-sided. To get a higher mark on a "How far do you agree?" question, you MUST include a paragraph explaining the arguments for the other side, even if you don't find them convincing. You need to show the examiner you have considered the opposing viewpoint.

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

On the other hand, some people might agree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country because decisions can be made much more quickly and without disagreement.This introduces the counter-argument. A single leader does not need to waste time with debates or elections, so they can pass laws and react to crises instantly.This explains *why* it is more efficient. Some would argue that this speed and decisiveness makes a country stronger and more stable, especially in dangerous times.This explains why someone might hold this viewpoint.

Candidate 20896

8/12

Transcribed Answer

I disagree with this statement completely. A Dictatorship is a when a leader come in to power through force or inheritence and con the country by themselves.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement. This is because in a dictatorship a leader has the freedom to do make the changes to way he want without have to go through the long process or dabats it.A clear point about the speed and efficiency of a dictator. ...this links back to my poine that dicters have more freedom to make charges easier and quicker.

on the other hands, some people may disagree with this statement. This is because a dictatorship rens into a massive problem, it causes rebels, infireng and common people dont have their voices herd and feels oppressed.You've identified several strong arguments against: rebellion, oppression, and lack of voice. This proves a bad thing because being thrown tyranny is absolutly horrible and never ends at good as shown in the dictatorships of Saddam, Assad and Milosevic.This is excellent. Using multiple, specific, and accurate real-world examples (Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad, Slobodan Milošević) provides powerful evidence for your argument and shows very strong subject knowledge. This links back to my point bease people feeling oppressed, unheard, and unhappy is not a good way to rule.

To conclude, I personally believe a dictatorship always lead to bad things like tyrany, oppression and enslibray of the people and why I think democracy a good system where the people chose the leader and have the freedom to be heard is a better option.A strong conclusion that clearly summarises your key points and makes a justified choice.

Strengths

Your use of multiple, accurate, and specific examples (Saddam, Assad, Milošević) is superb. This is a high-level skill that makes your argument against dictatorship incredibly powerful and convincing.
You have a clear, well-balanced structure and come to a strong, well-supported conclusion.
You use strong, precise vocabulary such as "oppressed," "tyranny," and "unheard," which shows a good grasp of the topic.

Targets

This is an excellent response. To improve it even further, you could develop your 'for' argument with a little more detail. You say it's "easier and quicker" - explain a situation where this might be seen as a positive (e.g., in a national emergency). Acknowledging the best version of the opposing argument makes your own argument stronger.

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

On one hand, some people might agree with the statement because a dictator has the freedom to make changes more easily and quickly.This is a clear topic sentence. Without having to go through a long process of debates or elections, a single leader can implement a new law or respond to a crisis instantly.This explains *how* they are quicker. In a situation like a natural disaster or a military attack, this ability to act decisively could be seen as a major advantage for the country's safety and security.This explains *why* this speed could be considered a good thing, strengthening the argument.

Candidate 60179

2/12

Transcribed Answer

However some people may strongly disagree with this statement because a dictatorship is more than one leader in power for an electory there can be complcaed since people wono always agree in people's opinion, so theres likey going to be an arguments about it.
On the other hand some people may strongly agree with this statement because a single person wouldnt be able to run an election as good as a dictatorship because there's also alot of infromatoin a single person would'nt have more power than a dictatorship since there multiple people to contiune it.
I personaly beive I agree with this soesmeng because even though theres going to be people not agreeing its helpful so the election is stonger.This response is very confused. The points contradict each other and the conclusion does not logically follow. It is very difficult to award marks as the core concepts are misunderstood.

Strengths

You have attempted to use the "On one hand... On the other hand..." structure, which shows you know that you need to look at both sides of the argument.

Targets

Your answer shows a great deal of confusion about the basic definitions. You seem to believe that a dictatorship involves elections and has "multiple people," while a "single person" is the alternative. This is the opposite of the correct definition. You MUST be clear: Dictatorship = ONE ruler, no elections. Democracy = MANY people involved, with elections.
Because the definitions are incorrect, your arguments are very hard to follow and often contradict themselves.
Your conclusion is also unclear. You need to make a final choice and state it simply.

Here is an example of a simple, clear paragraph to show the correct definitions:

Some people might agree that a dictatorship is best because only one person is in charge, which makes decisions very fast.This is a clear point FOR dictatorship. However, other people believe democracy is better because everyone gets to vote for their leader, which is much fairer.This is a clear point AGAINST dictatorship and FOR democracy.

(You would then write a conclusion saying which of these two arguments you find more convincing).

Candidate 87621

7/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is a society where there is a leader who has come into power through sorce or inheritance.
Some people may strongly agree with this sleatement because it may lead to a much more controlled society where there are less disagreements leading to riots or a country. There are more stricter rules in place so it is more peaceful.This is a very well-explained point. You have created a clear logical chain: strict rules -> fewer disagreements -> fewer riots -> a more peaceful, controlled society. An exemple of this would be North Korea; This country is led by Kim Jong Un, who has put in very specific rules that are very strict. These rules make North Korea a much calmer society.Excellent use of a specific real-world example to illustrate your point about a 'calmer' and more controlled society.

However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because it restricts a lot of a cilezen's freedom making it less likely for people to want to live in a dictatorship.A strong counter-argument, focusing on the loss of freedom. Many people believe that a democracy is the best way to run a country because of all the advantages and freedom that come with it. As democracy simply means someone who is elected fairly by voting.

To conclude, I personally believe that a democracy is the right way to run a country rather than a dictatorship due to all the fair things that come with it.A clear conclusion based on the value of fairness. There is also freedom of speech on what you personally believe is best for the country that you live in.A strong final point that adds another key democratic principle (freedom of speech) to support your judgement.

Strengths

You have a very clear and well-balanced structure.
Your 'for' argument is excellent. You explain the logic behind the argument for a more "controlled society" very well and support it perfectly with the example of North Korea.
Your conclusion is strong and you effectively use key concepts like "fairness" and "freedom of speech" to justify your personal opinion.

Targets

This is a very good response. To improve it further, you could develop your 'against' paragraph with the same level of detail as your 'for' paragraph. For example, explain *why* "freedom" is an advantage. How does it make a country a better place to live? (e.g., people are happier, more creative, not afraid of their government).

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

However, many would disagree, arguing that this peace and control comes at the unacceptable cost of personal freedom.This sets up the counter-argument clearly. In a democracy, people have the freedom to choose their own leaders through fair elections, and the freedom to speak their mind if they disagree with the government. These rights are fundamental advantages of a democratic system.This explains what 'freedom' means in this context. Living without fear and with a say in your own future is a key reason many people would want to live in a democracy rather than a dictatorship, as it leads to a happier and more just society.This explains the positive consequence of having these freedoms.

Candidate 60982

6/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when leaders come into power by force or inheritance. The public does not decide who their leader is.

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because it means that there won't be as many debates as to who their leader should be.A clear point about avoiding the arguments of elections. In addition, it is likely that a dictator is very powerful, which is a benefit to people living in their country and under their power, as they have a leader who is able to protect their country.This is a well-explained point. You have clearly linked the dictator's power to a positive outcome: the ability to protect the country.

However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because they believe that a country should be run by a democracy. In a democracy the public votes on who should be their country's leader according to their opinion.A good, clear explanation of the democratic alternative. It leads to people being happy about their leader. This is why some people disagree with this statement.

To conclude, I personally believe that a dictatorship is not the best way to run a country. In my opinion, the job of being a leader should be deserved.This is a strong justification, based on the idea of merit. The public should have a choice on who their leader should be, so that the people's views are heard.An excellent summary of the core principles of democracy that support your conclusion.

Strengths

You have a very clear, well-balanced structure with good points on both sides of the argument.
Your 'for' argument is well-developed, as you explain that the benefit of a powerful leader is their ability to "protect their country."
Your conclusion is excellent. The idea that leadership should be "deserved," not just taken, is a powerful justification, and you support it well by mentioning choice and having views heard.

Targets

This is a very solid response. To improve it further, try to add a specific, named example from the real world. For instance, can you name a powerful dictator who claimed to be protecting their country? Or a democratic country where people are happy with their leaders?

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

To conclude, I personally believe that a dictatorship is not the best way to run a country.This is a clear topic sentence for your judgement. While a powerful leader may be able to protect the country, this position of power should be deserved and earned, not taken by force or inheritance.This directly weighs the two sides against each other, using your excellent point about leadership being 'deserved'. The only way to ensure a leader is deserving is to allow the public to have a choice and for their views to be heard through a democratic election.This provides a powerful and well-justified final thought.

Candidate 49016

1/12

Transcribed Answer

However some people way strongly disagree with this statement because we'll have different mind about this but i think is no best way because sane one just can say in words which are you country or someone just goin to the country of their deals or see some one of your family.
But some people agree because some people may strongly agree with this statement because they think if you have problem and you go to different country people not forget you they just be think about you. But people who agree of the may be think Dictatorship is like you go to the another country and you don't have problem and is the best way but i don't agree with this.
And to conclude I personally belive that the people who thinks for Dictatorship is like doesmater but if the thing for something about Dictatorship they will don't know the normal answer... but i disagree.This answer is very confused and does not address the question with relevant points. The arguments presented are about travel and personal problems, not about how to run a country. It is very difficult to understand the points being made.

Strengths

You have attempted to structure your answer with reasons to agree and disagree, and you have included a conclusion.

Targets

You must focus on answering the question that has been set. The question is about whether a dictatorship is the best *way to run a country*. Your answer needs to discuss ideas related to government, such as making laws, elections, freedom, and power.
Your current points about going to other countries are not relevant to the question.
Try to make one clear point at a time, using simple sentences. For example: "Some people agree with dictatorships. This is because one leader can make decisions quickly."

Here is an example of a simple, relevant paragraph that answers the question:

Some people might agree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country. This is because a single leader can make decisions very quickly, without needing to vote.This is a clear point about why a dictatorship might be good. However, other people disagree. They believe a democracy is better because it is fairer if everyone gets to vote for who their leader is.This is a clear point about why a democracy might be good.

Candidate 86091

5/12

Transcribed Answer

Some people may agree with this statment. This is because a leader as to be strong & physical in case of a thretaning situation.A clear point linking a dictatorial style of leadership to strength and security. Also, sometime the role can be passed down to you and since your realitive has previously done the job, the rest of the country will autimaticly assume you know what you're doing.

On the other hand, some people may strongly disagree with this statment. This because dictatorship doesn't let everyone have a say in choosing or selecting the next leader.The core argument for democracy - the right to choose. Democracy allows everyone to share they point of view and it gives the candid candidate a fair chance of winning.Good. You have clearly linked democracy to fairness and participation. Dictatorshie may prove you strong physically, but it doesn't prove you good when it come to introducing or taking away new laws.

In conclusion, I personally belive democary is the best way to run a country due to the fact that it give everyone the chance to elect someone and you get to hear different ways the candidate will lead.A strong conclusion that is well-supported by the arguments you made in your 'against' paragraph.

Strengths

You have a clear, balanced structure with good points for both sides of the argument.
You make a very good point contrasting the two systems: a dictatorship proves a leader is 'strong physically', but a democracy proves they are good at making laws and listening to people.
Your conclusion is logical and well-reasoned, linking back to the importance of elections and hearing different ideas.

Targets

Try to develop your points with a bit more explanation. For example, why is it good for everyone to have a "fair chance of winning"? (Because it means the best candidate can win, not just the person from the right family).
Using a specific, named example would make your arguments even more convincing.

Here's an example of how to develop your point about a leader's skills:

While a dictator who takes power by force might prove they are physically strong, this is not the most important skill for a leader.This sets up the contrast clearly. Running a country requires the ability to create fair laws, manage the economy, and listen to the needs of the people. A democracy, which allows candidates to debate their ideas and gives everyone a say, is a much better system for choosing a leader with these skills.This explains *why* democratic skills are more relevant. Therefore, choosing a leader based on their ideas is better than choosing them based on their physical strength.This provides a strong concluding sentence for the paragraph.

Candidate 90217

4/12

Transcribed Answer

Some people may strongly agree with this statement because, if there is no say or choice for anyone to say something there would not be a fuss and no arguments.A clear point linking the lack of choice to a lack of arguments and conflict. It would just be what that person, the leader, to become the leader much easier rather than others disagreeing or having to take so much time, so its done and simple.

However, sorce people way strongly disagree with this statement because, if you were to have no say or opinion, its not as fair for everybody else.A good counter-argument, focusing on fairness. For that person to become a leader its just easy like that? No, because if some of these people in the political party and you may not like there or they're not fit to be a leader then you have your rights to speak up, tell them your reasons.

To conclude, I personally believe a democracy is the best way to run a country because it should be that you get to get your point across and tell your reasons on why they should or shouldn't be leader.A good conclusion that logically follows from your 'against' paragraph, emphasising the right to have your say. Its not fair to many people.

Strengths

You have a clear, balanced structure with points for and against, followed by a justified conclusion.
Your arguments are clear and easy to understand, focusing on the key debate between efficiency/simplicity and fairness/participation.
Your conclusion is logical and well-supported by the points you made earlier in your answer.

Targets

Try to develop your points with a bit more explanation. For example, why is it bad if something is "not fair for everybody else"? What are the negative consequences? (e.g., people feel unhappy and powerless, they might rebel).
Using a specific, named example would make your arguments stronger and more convincing.

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

On the other hand, many would disagree because a system with no public say is deeply unfair to the citizens.This is a clear topic sentence for your point. In a democracy, people have the right to speak up and challenge a political candidate if they believe they are not fit to be the leader.This explains the democratic alternative. This is important because it holds leaders accountable to the people and stops someone unsuitable from taking power just because it is 'easy'. This fairness is more important than the simplicity a dictatorship offers.This explains *why* fairness is important and weighs it against the 'for' argument.

Candidate 67029

5/12

Transcribed Answer

Some people may agree with this statement because the idea of power being used very strictly to run a country can be seen as a better way to shape things into what somebody believes is right.This is a good point, linking the strict use of power to the leader's ability to enforce their vision for the country. Forcing your way into power can make it seem like you're strong enough to do so, and makes people believe you can run the country.

However, some may disagree as forcing your way into power can show means civillians cannot vote for what they want.A clear counter-argument, focusing on the lack of voting rights. Instead of accomadating to peoples needs, dictatorship leads to selfish leaders.Excellent point. You've correctly identified that a lack of accountability can lead to selfish, corrupt leadership. Citizens do not get the chance to vote, which is important to acknowledging to what needs fixing or changing.

Overall, I belive this statement is wrong, it's unfair and can be harmful to have a prime minister or president that wasn't voted for.A strong conclusion that uses powerful words ('unfair', 'harmful') and is well-supported by the points you made in your 'against' paragraph.

Strengths

You have a clear, balanced structure and a strong conclusion.
Your 'against' argument is particularly strong. The point that dictatorship leads to "selfish leaders" instead of leaders who accommodate "peoples needs" is very well made.
Your conclusion is decisive and clearly justified.

Targets

Try to add a specific, named example to make your arguments even more convincing. When you talk about "selfish leaders," can you think of one from the real world?
Develop your 'for' argument a little more. What are the potential benefits of a leader being able to "shape things" exactly as they wish? (e.g., it could lead to a very orderly, predictable society).

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

However, many disagree because a dictatorship often leads to selfish leaders who do not accommodate the people's needs.This is a clear topic sentence for your excellent point. Without the need to win votes, a dictator has no incentive to listen to the public. They can instead use their power for their own benefit, or to help their rich friends, while ignoring problems like poverty or poor healthcare.This explains *how* and *why* a leader becomes selfish. This is why the chance to vote is so important: it forces leaders to acknowledge what needs fixing and serves as a vital check on their power.This provides a powerful final thought that links back to the importance of democracy.

Candidate 12906

2/12

Transcribed Answer

I don't fully agree with this statment... for the reason because a lot of people don't agree with the other halfs simply because not everyone has the same opinions as others and because of this there would be a lot of disagreement to one another.This point seems to be an argument *against democracy* (that it causes disagreement), rather than an argument about dictatorship.

On the other hand people might still strongley agree with this statment for the reason was that people should get to express their openions about who should be the King/Queen and belive that 'everybody' has the right to be heard.This is a good point, but it is a point in favour of *democracy*, not dictatorship. You seem to have mixed up the two sides.

Once again to the conclusion that I personally don't agree with this statment as I belive that not everybody has the same opinions although I do agree with voting for a presildant/Goverment but I dissagree with for voting for a King/Queen.This conclusion is quite confused. It correctly identifies disagreement but doesn't form a clear argument about why one system is better than another.

Strengths

You have correctly identified that a key issue in politics is that "not everyone has the same opinions."
You have attempted to use a balanced structure to look at different viewpoints.

Targets

Your answer is very confused about the core definitions and which arguments support which side. The argument that disagreement is a problem is usually used to support dictatorship (as the dictator silences disagreement). The argument that everyone should have a say is the core of democracy. You have presented them the wrong way around.
You need to be very clear on the definitions: Dictatorship (rule by King/Queen/Dictator, no vote) vs. Democracy (rule by President/Government, with a vote).
Your conclusion needs to make a simple, clear judgement. For example: "In conclusion, I disagree with dictatorship because I believe it is important that everyone has the right to vote."

Here is an example of two simple paragraphs with the arguments on the correct sides:

Some people might agree with dictatorship because one ruler can make decisions without any disagreements. This makes the country seem strong and means decisions are made quickly.This is a clear argument FOR dictatorship.

However, many people disagree with dictatorship because they believe everyone should have a right to be heard. In a democracy, people can vote, which means it is a much fairer system.This is a clear argument AGAINST dictatorship and FOR democracy.

Candidate 72968

4/12

Transcribed Answer

...a dictatorship is a country that is run by people who come into power through violence and or inherting it.

Some people may may strongly agree with this sentance because it might show that the leader is brave and powerful.A clear point linking taking power by force to the perception of being a 'brave and powerful' leader. Another reason why people might prefer a dictatorship is that it allows less popular but more powerfull people to have a chance at being in charge.

On the other hand some people might disagree with this statment as most people prefer a democracy. The reasn most people don't like dictatorship is because people that live in a dictatship often live in fear of civil wars.A good counter-argument, linking dictatorship to fear and instability. Most people would prefer a democray as it allows everyone to have a choice or say on who is runing the country.

In conclusion I personally disagree with this stament as I think that it is not a good way to run a country as their is often war to decide who is will be in power.A good conclusion that logically follows from your point about the fear of 'civil wars'.

Strengths

You have a clear, balanced structure, looking at arguments for and against before drawing a conclusion.
Your points are relevant and clearly stated, particularly the idea that a dictator might be seen as "brave and powerful" and the counter-point that dictatorships lead to "fear of civil wars."
Your conclusion is logical and directly supported by your argument about war.

Targets

Try to explain your points in more detail. WHY would people want a "brave and powerful" leader? (e.g., they might feel it makes their country safer from attack). Why does democracy allow "everyone to have a choice"? (Because of elections).
Using a specific, named example would make your arguments much more convincing.

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

On the other hand, most people would disagree because dictatorships can be very unstable and lead to citizens living in fear.This is a clear topic sentence for your point. Because the leader has taken power by force, they are often paranoid about being overthrown by force. This can lead to civil wars and the violent suppression of anyone who disagrees with the government.This explains *why* dictatorships can lead to fear and war. A democracy is much more stable because it allows for peaceful change through elections, which is why most people would prefer to live in one.This contrasts the two systems and explains the benefit of the democratic alternative.

Candidate 16780

9/12

Transcribed Answer

I strongly disagree with the idea that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country. Democracy and Dictatorship stand as contrasting forms of governance... A dictatorship is characterised by a single or small group wielding absolute power. They often suppress individuals freedom and dissent. Decisions are made unilaterally, without input or concent of the governed.

However, some may agree. Individuals could agree because of their lack of trust in humanity, thinking that everyday people could never be in the right mindset to vote or share their opinions, so they simply put the trust in the people who they think is professional/experienced.This is a superb, highly sophisticated argument for dictatorship. The idea that it stems from a 'lack of trust in humanity' and a desire to leave decisions to 'professionals' is a very insightful piece of political philosophy. People who manage to rule a country with dictatorship usually win their spot on the throve through war and violence. Some think that this indicaty bravery and determination.

Democracy empowers citizens through participation, representation and protection of rights.A clear and well-summarised argument for democracy. In a democratic system, power is distributed acant various branches of government, ensuring checks and balances that prevent any single entity. Citizens have the right to vote, use their voices and hold their leaders accountable through regular elections.

While democracy may have challenges... their commitment to industry offers a more equal and just society - and that is why I disagree with the statement that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country. however I can see and understand why people could agree with it.A very good, nuanced conclusion. You clearly state your judgement but also show that you understand the logic of the opposing view, which is a high-level skill.

Strengths

This is an outstanding response, written with a very mature and sophisticated understanding of political ideas.
Your vocabulary is excellent ("contrasting forms of governance," "wielding absolute power," "unilaterally," "empowers citizens").
Your argument 'for' dictatorship is superb and highly original. Explaining it as a result of a "lack of trust in humanity" is a very insightful piece of analysis that shows you are thinking like a political theorist.
Your conclusion is nuanced and evaluative, as you clearly state your own view while also showing that you "can see and understand" the opposing argument.

Targets

This is an exceptional piece of writing for this level. The only minor improvement would be to add a specific, named example to your points to anchor your excellent theoretical analysis in the real world. For example, when discussing the "bravery and determination" of a dictator who wins power through violence, you could name a figure like Fidel Castro.

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

However, some may agree with dictatorship, perhaps due to a lack of trust in the wisdom of ordinary people.This captures your original, sophisticated point. They might believe that complex decisions should be left to 'experienced professionals' rather than the general public. In this view, a historical figure like Napoleon, who seized power through military force, could be seen as a great leader because his 'bravery and determination' proved he was an expert in leadership, unlike ordinary citizens.This adds a specific historical example to illustrate the philosophical point you are making. This elitist view, that only certain experts should rule, is a key philosophical argument used to support dictatorships.This provides a powerful summary of the idea.

Candidate 18720

7/12

Transcribed Answer

Some People Might agree with this statement because dictators make strict rules that are for benefitting the country and keeping the citizens in check.A very clear and well-explained argument, linking strict rules to control and the country's benefit. Sometimes country's may when they take over it could be for the better because maybe the leader before them was a malicious/manipulative leader... and used propaganda as bribery.

However some people disagree because nearly all of the time in modern history dictator are manipulative leader who opress their peole and don't allow them to do much.A strong counter-argument, pointing out the historical reality of oppressive dictators. In some countrys they aren't allowed acess to the rest of the world not even through internet & they get punished for wanting to leave.This is an excellent point, supported with specific, real-world examples of the restrictions people face under dictatorships.

To conclude I personnaly believe that dictatorships shouldn't exist because people deserve to have a choise of who represents their country rather than forced under strict rules by bloodline of evil people.A strong and well-reasoned conclusion based on the principle of choice. They should be able to leave the country with riscing getting killed. they should be aloud to interact with the rest of the world without the fear of them being caught and killed.An excellent, detailed conclusion that powerfully summarises the human cost of dictatorships by listing the freedoms that are denied.

Strengths

You have a strong, clear structure and your arguments are well-developed.
Your 'against' paragraph is excellent. Using specific examples of oppression like being denied internet access or the right to leave the country makes your argument very powerful and convincing.
Your conclusion is superb. It is passionate and detailed, summarising the importance of choice and freedom of movement to justify your disagreement with the statement.

Targets

This is a very good response. To improve further, try to use a named example. When you talk about people being unable to access the internet or leave the country, which country is a good example of this? (e.g., North Korea). Adding a name makes the point even stronger.
Check some of your spelling to ensure your points are as clear as possible (e.g., "malicious," "oppress," "access").

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

However, most people would disagree, as the reality of modern dictatorships is that they are manipulative and oppressive.This is a clear topic sentence for your point. For example, in a country like North Korea, the government controls all information. The citizens have no access to the global internet and they are punished, or even killed, simply for trying to leave the country.This adds a specific, powerful real-world example to your excellent point. This total control and violation of basic human rights is a compelling reason to believe that dictatorship is not the best way to run a country.This explains why this is such a strong argument.

Candidate 62978

3/12

Transcribed Answer

Some people may strongley disagree because they might not like the way he rules or also might not like his rules of how how viocent he is.You've identified two clear reasons to disagree: the style of rule and the potential for violence. but I belive that demorcratic leader is way better becauseu can chose that leade you want and most of them make fair oles and also respects your for speak up for what you want and u know that every vosce matters.This is a good summary of the benefits of democracy: choice, fair rules, and respect for people's voices.

Strengths

You have a very clear point of view.
You have identified several key arguments for democracy, including the ability to choose your leader, having fair rules, and the fact that "every voice matters."

Targets

Your answer is one-sided. For a "How far do you agree?" question, you MUST also include a paragraph explaining why someone might AGREE with the statement, even if you don't.
You need to add a conclusion at the end to summarise your final judgement.
Try to organise your points into clear paragraphs with an introduction, a 'for' section, an 'against' section, and a conclusion.

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

On the other hand, some people might agree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country. They might believe that a strong, even violent, leader is necessary to maintain order and control.This introduces the counter-argument. In this view, a dictator can make decisions quickly and enforce laws strictly, which could lead to less crime and a more stable society, which they see as the most important goal of a government.This explains the reasoning behind this viewpoint.

Candidate 19678

6/12

Transcribed Answer

I disagree with this statement as a dictatorship is often someone who comes into power through force and they will often deny the people's rights.

Some people may agree with this statement because dictators are usually brutal meaning that the people will obey so they won't face consequences. This can be an advantage as they won't have to deal with people disobeying as they are to scared.This is a very well-explained argument. You have clearly shown the logic: brutality leads to fear, which leads to obedience, which means the leader doesn't have to deal with dissent. However, this may lead to rebellions and people trying to overthrow the ruler.Excellent counter-point. You are showing that this rule by fear can backfire and lead to instability.

some people may disagree with this statment because a dictator usually comes into power through force or inheritance, this means the people can't elect their leader and share their opinions.A clear point about the lack of democratic choice. Often, dictators are ruthless and don't care for the well-being of their people. They usually deny the rights of the people.Good points about the selfish nature of dictators and their disregard for rights.

In conclusion, a dictatorship is not a society that anyone wants to live in due to the horrible things a dictater does.A clear conclusion that summarises your overall feeling about this system of government.

Strengths

You have a clear, balanced structure with arguments on both sides.
Your 'for' paragraph is particularly strong because you explain the logic of ruling by fear, and then you cleverly show the weakness in that same paragraph (that it can lead to rebellion). This is a good analytical skill.
You make several strong points against dictatorships, including the lack of elections and the leader being "ruthless."

Targets

To improve your answer, try to use a specific, named example from the real world. When you talk about a ruthless dictator who denies people's rights, can you name one?
Your conclusion is a bit simple. Try to make it more evaluative by weighing the arguments. For example: "In conclusion, although a brutal dictator can force people to obey, this is not a good way to run a country because it leads to rebellions and the denial of people's rights."

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

In conclusion, I strongly disagree that a dictatorship is the best way to rule a country.This is a clear topic sentence for your judgement. While the argument that a brutal leader can create an obedient society seems logical, it ignores a fundamental truth: ruling by fear is unstable and often leads to rebellion.This directly weighs the 'for' argument against your own counter-point. A society where people cannot elect their leader or have their rights protected is not a well-run society, regardless of how obedient its citizens appear to be.This provides a powerful final justification for your opinion.