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.
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 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 21976

4/12

Transcribed Answer

I do not agree with this as that one person who runs a country may not be a good ruler and would be better if everyone gets a chance to be fairly voted to rule. When people vote they can see what they want and will be able to vote someone good to rule the country, but a dictatorship may not be the best idea as people might not like that ruler, and that is more fair and equal if people are able to vote for a leader every few time because everyone gets the chance to vote and see how they are at rulling a country next time. For example, if that one person ruling could be horrible and mean but you can't get rid of him because its a dictatorship country.This is the core argument against a dictatorship - the lack of accountability. You've explained it well. However, if you're able to vote you can change a very good leader... so it would be better the country is ruled properly and fairly.You've clearly contrasted the trap of a dictatorship with the flexibility of a democracy. Also if you in a dictatorship country that one person taling will know they cant get rid of them and would overuse their power.

Strengths

You have a very clear point of view and you support it with consistent arguments.
You have an excellent core argument: democracy is better because you can get rid of a "horrible and mean" leader, whereas in a dictatorship you are stuck with them.
You correctly identify that a dictator who can't be removed is likely to "overuse their power."

Targets

Your answer is one-sided. To get higher marks in a "How far do you agree?" question, you must include a paragraph explaining why someone *might* agree that a dictatorship is best, even if you don't believe it yourself.
Your answer is missing a clear, separate conclusion at the end. Try to summarise your main point in a final paragraph.

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

On the other hand, some people might agree with the statement because a single leader can make decisions much more quickly.This introduces the counter-argument. In a democracy, it can take a long time to get everyone to agree on a new law. A dictator, however, doesn't need to debate anyone and can put a rule in place instantly.This explains the point clearly. This speed could be very useful in a national emergency, like a war, where quick, decisive action is needed to protect the country.This gives a specific example of when this efficiency might be a good thing.

Candidate 10681

2/12

Transcribed Answer

An dictator ship is not in my opinoin the best way to rea on caunty because not only one person can make a good choice there has to be a majority of people that vote on the right person.
If only one person votes they my pick the wrong choice but theres not really a wronge choice so if they pick the bad one insted of the good one for people... this the reason why I think the an dictator ship is not the ideal way to ren an county.This is a very confused argument. You seem to be saying that one person making a choice is bad because they might be wrong, which is a good point against dictatorship. However, the logic is difficult to follow.

On the other hand some people may think that an dictatorship is an right way to run the country maybe they are well to it or think its the better option.You have correctly identified that you need to discuss the other side, but you haven't given a clear reason why someone might agree with it.

Strengths

You have tried to structure your answer with a point against and a point for the statement.
You have the right idea in your 'against' point: that one person making a decision is risky because they could make the "wrong choice".

Targets

Your reasoning is very unclear and hard to follow. Try to write in simple, short sentences that make one point at a time. For example: "I disagree with dictatorships. This is because one leader could make the wrong choice. In a democracy, many people vote, so there is a better chance of making the right choice."
You need to give a proper reason for the 'for' argument. Why would someone think a dictatorship is the "better option"? A good reason is that they can make decisions quickly.
Your answer needs a conclusion at the end to state your final decision.

Here's an example of a clearer 'for' paragraph:

On the other hand, some people might agree with the statement because a dictator can get things done very quickly.This gives a clear reason to agree with the statement. Since they do not need to hold elections or have debates, 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 to keep the country safe.This provides an example of when this might be a good thing.

Candidate 17826

9/12

Transcribed Answer

Some people may agree with this statement because in a dictatorship running the country is less complicated and more smooth. This is because the ruler (dictator) has absolute power and cannot be voted off until protested out of leadership unlike in a democracy.A clear point about efficiency, linking it to the leader's absolute power and inability to be voted out. Laws and rules also don't take a long amount of time to be implemented as they aren't disscussed over by a parliament.Another well-explained point about the speed of making laws.

However some people may disagree with this statement because a dictatorship is ruled based on fear and the citizens having power. This would lead to the people of that country trying to escape.A good point, linking rule by fear to people wanting to leave the country. Most of time in a dictatorship, people and their remaining or future bloodline are punished by execution for commiting certain crimes against the leader. Kim Jong Un of North Korea would brutally enforced a law where you have to hang a photo of him in your house and if you let even a single bit of dust form on the photo you would be executed. In rare case Kim Jong Un would punish your bloodline.This is an absolutely superb paragraph. You have used a specific, detailed, and accurate example from the real world to powerfully illustrate what 'rule by fear' actually means in practice. This is a very high-level skill.

In conclusion, I believe that a dictatorship is a terrible way to rule a country because your people will fear you and there might be a low amount of citizens... as they either escape or get killed trying to escape.A strong conclusion that logically follows from your excellent points. Other countries might decide not to associate with you meaning no trades.This is another excellent, sophisticated point, considering the international consequences (isolation, lack of trade) of having a brutal dictatorship.

Strengths

This is an outstanding essay with a clear structure and exceptionally well-supported arguments.
Your use of the detailed and specific example of the law about Kim Jong Un's photograph is superb. It powerfully demonstrates the reality of living under a brutal dictatorship and is a key feature of a top-level response.
Your conclusion is highly developed. The point that a dictatorship can lead to international isolation and "no trades" is a very sophisticated argument that shows you are thinking about the wider consequences.

Targets

It is very difficult to find ways to improve this response. Ensure you are consistently careful with spelling ("disscussed," "enfored") to make sure your excellent points are presented as professionally as possible. This is an exceptional piece of work.

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

In conclusion, I believe that a dictatorship is a terrible way to rule a country, primarily because of the atmosphere of fear it creates.This sets a clear theme for your final judgement. As the brutal laws in North Korea demonstrate, this fear leads to a society where citizens are not safe and may be driven to escape or are killed. This population loss is a clear sign of a failing state.This summarises your strongest point effectively. Furthermore, the actions of a cruel dictator can lead to the country becoming an international pariah, damaging its economy through a lack of trade. For these reasons, democracy is a far superior system.This integrates your sophisticated point about trade to provide a powerful and comprehensive final statement.

Candidate 68207

1/12

Transcribed Answer

Some people may disagree with this statement because some people might want to vote on the decisions that happen and if the king is the only one that makes the decision people might protest. People could say it's unfair.You have identified some key arguments against dictatorship: people want to vote, and it is 'unfair' if only one person decides everything.

Some people may agree since the king should be the only one who makes the decisions for the people.You have stated the 'for' argument, but you haven't explained *why* someone might think this is a good idea.

I think that

Strengths

You have identified some of the key ideas in the debate: voting, fairness, and the power of a single ruler.
You have attempted to look at both sides of the argument.

Targets

Your answer is incomplete and presented as a series of short notes. You need to write in full sentences and paragraphs.
You need to explain your points. WHY is it unfair if only the king makes decisions? WHY might some people agree that only the king should make decisions? (For example, they might think it's faster).
You must add a conclusion at the end to state your own opinion.

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

Many people would disagree with the statement because they believe it is unfair for only one person, like a king, to make all the decisions.This turns your idea into a clear topic sentence. In a democracy, people have the right to vote on decisions that affect their lives. If people feel they have no say, they might protest because they feel the system is unfair.This explains your point in more detail. This is why many believe that a system where everyone can vote is a better way to run a country.This links the point to a conclusion.

Candidate 86702

6/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is a society where one leader is in charge and there are no votes, no protests, no strikes and everything you do on the internet is regularly checked. You may even not be able to chose your belise/faith in a dictatorship.
A democracy is a society where a vote is held every couple of yers, strikes are allowed... the internet is not checked and protests are allowed.

Some people may aghee that a dictetship is the best way to run a country because just one person decides everything and will have no strikes or protests and the whole community's belies are decided for you and the internet is checked.This is a well-explained 'for' argument. You have clearly shown how the features of a dictatorship (one ruler, control) could be seen as a positive (no strikes, no protests, clear rules).

On the other hand some people may disagree and want a democracy because you can have your own belis, protest when you want, go on strike when you want, chose a belis and the internet is not checked.A good, clear contrast to your 'for' paragraph, highlighting the freedoms that democracy allows.

To conclude I personally think that I disagree with this idea and want to have a democracy because I want to vote, strike, protest, and be allowed to have privacy onlne and choose a faith or belis.A strong conclusion that clearly states your opinion and is directly supported by the arguments you made in your 'against' paragraph.

Strengths

Your introduction is excellent. You provide a detailed, point-by-point comparison of the features of a dictatorship and a democracy, showing a very strong understanding of the topic.
You have a very clear and well-balanced structure.
Your conclusion is logical and directly supported by the arguments you have made.

Targets

This is a very solid answer. To improve it further, try to explain the *consequences* of your points. For example, why would someone think having "no strikes or protests" is a good thing? (Because it leads to a more orderly and stable society). Why is it good to be able to "choose a faith"? (Because it allows for personal freedom and happiness).

Here's an example of how to develop your 'for' paragraph by explaining the consequences:

Some people may agree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country because it creates a very orderly and stable society.This is a clear topic sentence for the paragraph. Because one person decides everything and controls things like the internet, there are no disruptive strikes or protests. Rules are clear and everyone knows what to believe.This explains the features of the system. Some might see this as an ideal way to run a country because it avoids the chaos and arguments that can happen in a democracy, making life seem more predictable and secure.This explains *why* someone would value this system, making the argument complete.

Candidate 62017

3/12

Transcribed Answer

I personolly disagree with this statement because if you didnt vote for a leader then that would be unfair. If everyone voted fairly for a leader that would be the best way to run the county...
But if you have a leader unfairly, they would disagree with you and sometimes people to protest to not make you the leader... some people even try to kill the leader so there is a diffrent one.This is a good point, linking an unfair (unelected) leader to protests and political instability. ...So thats why some people hate dictatorships. For example, Hitler was a bad dictatorship he killed multiple people and his reign ended in 1945.

On the other hand people love dictatorships bease some dictatorships might be good. They might there could be some dictatorships that are better than democracy.You have correctly identified that you need to discuss the other side, but you haven't given a reason *why* a dictatorship might be good. You've just stated that some are.

In my opinion I disagree with this statement bease a dictasag is a leader that is not wooled and thus unfair tourds the community so I disagree.A clear conclusion that links back to your main point about fairness.

Strengths

You have a clear point of view and you try to support it with reasons.
You make a good point about an unelected leader causing protests and instability.
You have used a relevant historical example (Hitler).

Targets

Your 'for' argument is not explained. You need to give a reason why some people might "love dictatorships." A good reason to use is that they can make decisions quickly and efficiently.
Your writing is quite repetitive and hard to follow in places. Try to make one clear point per sentence to improve the clarity of your arguments.
Check your spelling of key words like "dictatorship," "unfair," and "because."

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

On the other hand, some people might agree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country because decisions can be made very quickly.This gives a clear reason to agree. A single ruler does not have to waste time with elections or debates in parliament, so they can put new rules in place instantly.This explains the point. This speed could be seen as an advantage in a crisis, like a war, where quick action is needed to keep the country safe.This explains why it could be a good thing.

Candidate 90628

5/12

Transcribed Answer

agree:
Some people would agree with this statement because they think that the proper way to rule without distractions is to rule without letting people vote or go on strikes/protests.This is a well-explained point. You have clearly linked ruling "without distractions" (like protests and voting) to what some people see as the "proper way" to govern.

disagree:
However on the other hand people disagree with this statement because they believe in democracy, a rule which allows people over 18 to vote / you can also go on strikes/protests.A good, clear explanation of the democratic alternative. This is called equality.

My opinion:
In my opinion I think that I disagree with this statement because I believe in equality and in equality everyone is equal and is able to vote and protest for what they want and who they think the best person to be Government/president.A strong conclusion that clearly states your judgement and is well-supported by your 'disagree' point about equality and the right to vote.

Strengths

You have a very clear and well-organised structure, using headings to separate your points.
Your arguments for both sides are clear and directly address the question, focusing on the key debate between control and equality.
Your conclusion is logical and effectively summarises your personal viewpoint.

Targets

To improve your mark, you need to move from a headed, note-style format to writing in full paragraphs, using transition words like "On one hand..." and "However..."
Try to add a specific example from the real world to make your points more convincing. For example, name a country that is a democracy or one that is a dictatorship.

Here's an example of how you could combine your points into an essay-style paragraph:

On one hand, some people would agree with the statement because they believe the proper way to rule a country is without distractions.This is a clear topic sentence. In this view, things like voting, strikes, and protests are seen as messy and inefficient. A single, powerful dictator can make decisions without these delays, creating what some would see as a more orderly and stable society.This explains the point in more detail. However, most people would disagree, arguing that these so-called 'distractions' are in fact vital rights. They believe in democracy, where equality means everyone has the right to vote for their leaders and protest if they are unhappy.This smoothly transitions to the counter-argument within the same paragraph.

Candidate 89670

3/12

Transcribed Answer

I farly disagre with this point of view since dictators can sometimes be bad since ruling a country by yourself con lead to alot of pressure with no help... and dictators can create chaos.These are two strong points against dictatorship: the 'pressure' on a single ruler and the risk of 'chaos'. Sometime rulling a countrie by yourself can lead to conflicted between other cantrie for example Russia and Ukraine.Using the example of Russia and Ukraine to illustrate how a single leader's decisions can lead to conflict is a good, topical point. Dictatorship is also not the best way to rule a cantre since then we would be controlled by that person and may lead into fights or much more.

Some people may not agree with this statement since they may think that Dictatorship is a better way to rule a cantrie since some time is better way to live and or they wont everyone to follow their commands.This point is very unclear and difficult to understand. You need to clearly state a reason why someone would support a dictatorship (e.g., it is faster).

Strengths

You make several good points for disagreeing with the statement, including the pressure on a single ruler and the risk of them causing chaos or conflict.
Your use of the Russia-Ukraine conflict as an example is relevant and shows you are thinking about current affairs.

Targets

Your answer is missing a conclusion. You must always end with a short paragraph stating your personal opinion.
Your argument for agreeing with the statement is very confusing and needs to be rewritten. Focus on a simple, clear reason, like "Some people agree because a dictator can make decisions quickly."
Try to structure your answer with a clear introduction and separate, well-explained paragraphs for each side of the argument.

Here's an example of how to develop your point about a dictator causing conflict:

I disagree with the statement because a single, unchecked ruler can easily create chaos and conflict.This is a clear topic sentence for your point. A dictator does not have to listen to anyone else, so they can make reckless decisions that lead to war. For example, President Putin's decision to invade Ukraine, which has had devastating consequences, was made without the democratic consent of the Russian people.This uses your example to support your point very effectively. This demonstrates the danger of placing so much power in the hands of one person, which is a strong argument for democracy.This explains why this is such a powerful argument against dictatorship.

Candidate 16977

4/12

Transcribed Answer

Some people might agree with this statement because the royal family is wealthy and we actually know them... Also because if we end the royal family we'd be ending hundreds and thousands of tradition and history.This is a very interesting and original argument. You are linking dictatorship (in the form of a monarchy) to stability, tradition, and having a familiar leader. These are good points. The people might think that they don't want a stranger ruling/leading their country.

Some people might disagree with this statement because its not fair that just because you are born into the royal family.This is the core counter-argument: it's not fair. There are people who work hard study have a degree but could never rull because their mum is not "The Queen".This is a brilliant and very effective way to explain *why* it's not fair. You have clearly explained the idea of meritocracy (ruling based on skill) versus aristocracy (ruling based on birth).

Strengths

You have made some very original and thoughtful arguments on both sides.
Your 'against' point is particularly excellent. The way you contrast someone who works hard and gets a degree with someone who can't rule because their "mum is not 'The Queen'" is a perfect explanation of why inherited power is seen as unfair.
You have a clear, balanced structure.

Targets

Your answer is missing a conclusion. This is a real shame, as your points are very good. You need to add a final paragraph where you weigh up your two arguments and decide which is more important: tradition, or fairness?
Be careful to link your points explicitly to 'dictatorship'. While a monarchy is a form of inherited rule, it's good to use the key words from the question.

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

In conclusion, I personally disagree that a dictatorship or monarchy is the best way to run a country.This starts with a clear judgement. While I understand that continuing a royal family provides tradition and a familiar leader, I believe the argument for fairness is much more important.This shows you are weighing up the two sides that you have discussed. It is fundamentally unfair that a talented person who has worked hard cannot lead, simply because they were not born into the right family. Therefore, a democratic system where anyone can be chosen is the better way.This uses your excellent point to justify your final decision.

Candidate 117809

3/12

Transcribed Answer

I somewhat agree with this statement.
Dictatorship is when a leader has absolute control of the people under them, like being able to control what they see online.A good definition with a modern example.
While dictatorships are very respicting, dictatorships allow a more alligned society with less diividues due to the leader enforcing a specific mindset.This is a very sophisticated point, arguing that a dictatorship creates an 'aligned society' with fewer divisions. A dictatorship also may end up having less work due to being secluded from the outside.

While all theese factors are good a dictator-ship has many disadvantages. If a dictator dies rebellions against a dictator can easily go wrong happen due to how oppresive they can be.You've identified a key weakness - the instability that can happen when the dictator dies. This may lead to the dictator being assasinated. People under the dictator may also become close-minded.

In conclusion, dictatorships are a very risky way to rule that is only somewhat beneficial.A good summary, but it doesn't make a final, decisive judgement on whether it is the 'best way' to rule.

Strengths

You make some very sophisticated points, particularly the idea that a dictatorship creates a "more aligned society with less divides."
You have a clear structure, looking at positives and negatives.
You correctly identify a key weakness of dictatorships: the potential for chaos and rebellion when the leader dies.

Targets

Your conclusion needs to be more decisive. "Risky" and "somewhat beneficial" is a good analysis, but you need to answer the question directly: based on your analysis, do you agree or disagree that it's the *best* way?
Some of your points are a bit contradictory or unclear. For example, why would a dictator having "less work" be a good thing for the country? Be careful to explain the logic of your points clearly.

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

In conclusion, although a dictatorship can create a more aligned society, I ultimately disagree that it is the best way to run a country.This gives a clear, final answer to the question. The benefits of unity and efficiency are completely outweighed by the enormous risks.This shows you are weighing up the two sides. As I have argued, the system is inherently unstable, often leading to oppression and rebellion, especially when the leader dies. Therefore, it is far too risky to be considered the 'best' way to govern.This uses your own strong point to justify your final decision.

Candidate 68129

2/12

Transcribed Answer

In my opinion, I think a dictarship shall run a country only if they are a good, respect the nues person. To be really honest it acctually depends because if the dicatorship would want to take over the country they would tecnically be like a king, aswell as if the dicatorship was an actual bad undercovered person who wanto to rule the country for wrong reasons, it would be a total disaster. So I think I agree with this like 6-7 approximately, but as I said it depends a lot.This is a personal reflection rather than a structured essay. You are exploring the conditions under which a dictatorship might be good or bad, but you are not presenting a balanced argument about the system itself.
Sincerly Jennifer

Strengths

You have considered that a dictator could be either 'good' or 'bad', showing that you are thinking about the nuances of the question.

Targets

This is not a structured essay. You need to answer the question by looking at the arguments for and against the *system* of dictatorship, not just the personality of the individual leader.
You must have a paragraph explaining why someone would agree that dictatorship is the best way (e.g., it's efficient), and another paragraph explaining why someone would disagree (e.g., it's unfair).
Your conclusion needs to be a final judgement based on those arguments, not a score out of 10.
The essay should not be written as a letter ("Sincerely Jennifer").

Here's an example of how you could structure a proper paragraph for your essay:

Many people would disagree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country. The main reason is that it can be a "total disaster" if a bad person takes charge, as you mentioned.This links to your original idea. Because there are no elections, the people have no way to remove a cruel or incompetent leader. This is why many people believe that democracy, where you can vote a bad leader out, is a much safer system.This explains the point and contrasts it with democracy.

Candidate 97680

3/12

Transcribed Answer

I disagree with this idea because dictatorship is when you rule a country by force (you were not voted to be the monarch) and certain people might not want that person to rule.You have given a clear reason for your disagreement. Dictatorship is when your unable to vote, go on strike, unable to protest and news papers are controled, some people might not want to protest about something or to vote on something but there unable to do that due to dictatorship.
If it was a democray situation it would be more fun because people are able to vote and protest about the debate.This is a good contrast, showing the freedoms allowed in a democracy. In democraces you are also able to go on strive and newspapers arent controled either.

So I think dictatorship is not the best way to rule a country because you are unable to do brings that people might want to do (vote, protest, strike), but in a democraycy situation you are able to do those things.A clear conclusion that summarises your main point well. so I disaggree.

Strengths

You have a very clear point of view and you support it consistently throughout your answer.
You have correctly identified a wide range of freedoms that are denied in a dictatorship (voting, striking, protesting, free press).
Your conclusion is logical and effectively summarises your argument.

Targets

Your answer is completely one-sided. To achieve higher marks for a "How far do you agree?" question, you must include a paragraph explaining the arguments for the other side, even if you personally disagree with them.

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

On the other hand, some people might agree with the statement because a dictator can enforce rules without opposition.This introduces the counter-argument. By controlling the newspapers and preventing protests and strikes, a dictator can create a very orderly society where everyone follows the rules.This uses your own points to build the 'for' argument. Some might argue that this level of control and stability is a good thing, as it avoids the messy disagreements that can happen in a democracy.This explains why someone might hold this viewpoint.

Candidate 67790

3/12

Transcribed Answer

I do strongly agree with this statement... a dictatorship is when you take power by force... for example you invade the contrey and take power by force. Like ad Hitler he was a dictator because he toock controle over jermany and toock advantage of it.
but however, many pepole would agree bease because they belive that society would only listen to you only by force.

... many popole who would of thought it in the middle house they pepole power should be eared not talken by force.This is the core of a good argument: power should be 'earned', not taken.

I disagree house Dictatorsh should not happen. the power should be eared and If I had the choice I would choose to bannek all Dictors in our contrey's.A very clear and decisive conclusion, based on your main point about earning power.

Strengths

You use a powerful historical example (Hitler) correctly.
You have a clear point of view in your conclusion.
Your core idea that power should be "earned not taken" is a very strong basis for an argument against dictatorship.

Targets

Your answer is very confusing to read. You start by saying you "strongly agree," but then your main points and conclusion all seem to disagree. You must be consistent in your argument.
Your points need to be organised into clear paragraphs. You should have one paragraph for the 'agree' side and one for the 'disagree' side.
Many sentences are hard to understand. Try to write in short, clear sentences to explain your ideas.

Here's an example of how you could develop your point about 'earning' power:

However, many people disagree because they believe that a leader's power should be earned, not taken by force.This is your original point, stated clearly. In a democracy, candidates have to earn the people's trust and votes by explaining their ideas and proving they are competent. This means the person who wins is more likely to be a good leader.This explains what 'earning' power means and why it's a good thing. A dictator like Hitler, who takes power by force, is not accountable to anyone and has not proven they are the best person for the job, which makes their rule dangerous.This uses your example to show the danger of the alternative.

Candidate 26089

4/12

Transcribed Answer

Some people may agree with this because they might think that when you have a dictator the country is more even because every body has the same thing and have stricter rules.This is a very interesting point, linking dictatorship to a form of equality (everyone is treated the same under strict rules).

How ever some people may disagree with this statment because the living free but still having roles is better for you as a whole.This point is a bit unclear, but it seems to be arguing for the value of freedom. Because even though some people may disagree when you vote that the country would be better if we lived in a democracy dictatorship. But most might say a democracy is better because we have free will.

I disagree with this statment because not only is it better to have a democracy bearse of the many more options. But if I could deside I would ban dictatorship in every country.A very clear and decisive conclusion.

Strengths

You have attempted to look at both sides of the argument.
Your 'for' argument is quite original, suggesting a dictator creates a kind of equality by imposing the "same thing" and "stricter rules" on everyone.
Your conclusion is very clear and answers the question directly.

Targets

Your 'against' argument is very confused and hard to understand. Try to make a simple, clear point, for example: "However, people disagree because in a democracy, people have the freedom and free will to choose their own leader."
You need to explain your points in more detail. Why is it good if everyone "has the same thing"? Why is "free will" important?
Try to organise your answer into clearer paragraphs.

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

Some people might agree with the statement because a dictatorship can create a more 'even' society where everyone is treated the same under strict rules.This is your original point, made into a clear topic sentence. A dictator can enforce one set of rules for everybody, with no exceptions. This avoids the complex debates about different groups wanting different things that happens in a democracy.This explains the point in more detail. Some might argue that this strict, uniform approach is a fairer and more orderly way to run a country than a system with lots of different opinions.This explains why someone might hold this view.

Candidate 60817

5/12

Transcribed Answer

I dont fully disagree with this statement because there is alot less freedom (almost no freedom). For example you can't even believe what you want to believe in and you're not allowed to go against the leaders word / not allowed to have own opinion.These are strong, clear examples of what a lack of freedom means in practice. And a dictatorship means a place is only ruled by 1 person or small group of people.

However in a democracy you're allowed to believed what you want (religion/faith), you can have a different opinion to the leader.This provides a good, clear contrast with your previous point. and a democracy is ruled by a large group of people which means that if the top leader needs help making decisions they can ask their group of people for help.

All this means that in a democracy the people will live a much happier life knowing that they have freedom but in a dictatorship the people will live a much sadder life.A very effective conclusion that links the political systems directly to the emotional well-being (happiness vs. sadness) of the people.

Strengths

You have a very clear argument that is easy to follow.
You make a very effective contrast between the lack of freedom in a dictatorship and the freedoms (of belief, of opinion) in a democracy.
Your conclusion is excellent. Linking the different systems to whether people live a "happier" or "sadder" life is a simple but powerful way to make your final judgement.

Targets

Your answer is one-sided. While your argument against dictatorship is strong, to get higher marks you MUST also include a paragraph explaining why someone might AGREE with the statement.
Your first sentence says "I don't fully disagree," which is confusing because the rest of your essay strongly disagrees. Be clear and direct in your introduction.

Here's an example of a paragraph for the 'other side' 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 quickly and efficiently.This introduces the counter-argument. Because there is only one leader, there are no long arguments or debates needed to pass a new law. This decisiveness can be useful, for example, in a time of war when the country needs a strong, fast response.This explains the point and gives an example.

Candidate 86792

9/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is a way a country is run by 1 person (or small group) with all the power for decisions. There are no elections and the public/citizens have no say.

A reason why a person may agree with a dictatorship is because during times of major distress or disaster the decisions to combat it are typically faster.A clear and well-stated point about efficiency in a crisis. For example during the Covid-19 pandemic, countries such as China & North Korea were more centralised and made efforts to minimize the situation quicker. This is because due to not having the leader making the decisions they had no debates/meetings which resulted in a faster response.This is a superb use of a specific, relevant, and contemporary real-world example. Contrasting the response in dictatorial countries with the slower response in a democracy (the UK) is a very high-level piece of analysis.

A reason why a person may disagree with a dictatorship is due to the leader having too much power and making violent or unjust decisions.A strong counter-argument focusing on the abuse of power. An example of this is during WW2, Germany came under power of the Nazi-party with their leader Adolf Hitler turning Germany into a dictatorship.Another excellent use of a specific and accurate historical example to support your point. During Hitlers reign Nazi Germany were heavily involved on the Axis side. They commited several war crimes eg the persecution and murder of the Jewish people (referred to as the Holocaust).

In conclusion I believe both sides have major positives and negatives. However due to the result of a bad dictatorship being so catastrophic compared to those of other types of Government. Eg Democracy. I agree with a dictatorship not being the best way to run a country.A good attempt at evaluation. You've acknowledged both sides have 'positives and negatives' but have made a judgement based on the catastrophic risk of a bad dictatorship.

Strengths

This is an outstanding essay that uses excellent, contrasting historical and contemporary examples (Nazi Germany vs. COVID in China) to support its points.
Your analysis is very strong. You clearly explain *why* dictatorships were faster during COVID (no debates) and provide the correct terminology for the horrors of the Nazi regime ("Holocaust," "war crimes").
You have a clear, balanced structure and show good evaluative skill in your conclusion by weighing the potential benefits against the "catastrophic" risks.

Targets

This is an exceptional piece of work. The only point for improvement is to make your final judgement in the conclusion even more explicit. You state you "agree with a dictatorship not being the best way," which is slightly clunky. A more direct "I disagree with the statement" would be clearer.

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

In conclusion, while I acknowledge that both systems have positives and negatives, I strongly disagree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country.This states your final judgement clearly and directly. The potential benefit of a faster response in a crisis, as seen during the pandemic, is massively outweighed by the risk of what a bad dictator can do.This shows clear evaluation by directly weighing the two arguments you made against each other. As the Holocaust demonstrates, the consequences of a single, unchecked ruler becoming evil are so catastrophic that it makes the system far too dangerous to be considered the 'best'.This uses your powerful example to provide a final, convincing justification for your decision.

Candidate 91672

4/12

Transcribed Answer

Something that you can do in a democracy are voting while in a dictatorship you can not vote. I think that voting is an important role to a country because people can state there opons while in a dictatorship you can not do that because he/she would just pass the throne to there son or daughter.You have a very clear argument here, contrasting the ability to state your opinion (vote) in a democracy with the hereditary nature of a dictatorship.

If you can not vote then people might start to rebel against you but while in a dictatorship/democracy you can vote fairly a safe.

To sum up everything I do not agree with the statement "A dictatorship is the best way to run a country". I think that a democracy is a better way to rule a country because, you can gather ideas from the people that vote.A good conclusion that summarises your main point about the value of listening to the people's ideas through voting.

Strengths

You have a very clear point of view and a strong core argument: democracy is better because it allows people to vote and share their ideas.
You make a good point about the risk of rebellion if people are not allowed to vote.
Your conclusion is logical and effectively summarises your main point.

Targets

Your answer is one-sided. To get a higher mark on a "How far do you agree?" question, you must also include a paragraph explaining why someone *might* agree that a dictatorship is the best way to rule, even if you don't personally agree.
Some of your sentences are a little confused (e.g., "in a dictatorship/democracy you can vote fairly"). Be careful to keep the two systems separate in your explanation to avoid confusion.

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

On the other hand, some people might agree with the statement because a dictator can make decisions quickly and without any argument.This introduces the counter-argument. Because they don't have to hold elections or listen to lots of different opinions, they can pass laws instantly. This means that in a crisis, a dictator can respond much faster than a democratic leader.This explains the point and gives a reason why it might be a good thing.

Candidate 91768

6/12

Transcribed Answer

I do not agree that dictatorship is the best way to run a country because they rule by force or by inheritence.
Dictaters don't give people freedom for example Joseph Stalin he didn't give any.Good use of a specific, accurate historical example to support your point. and Also in dictatorship you can't be what religion you want to be and you can not vote. Also dictator leaders take control of everything.

But I agree with another leadership called democracy. Democracy is when leaders don't rule by force or Inharitace. Instead they rule by votes.A good, clear explanation of the democratic alternative. In this leadership leaders don't take control of everthing so it is fair. In democray people have freedom for example they can be their religon and they can be themselfs.

This is why I dont agree that dictatorship is the right way to run a country.A clear conclusion, though it could be more developed.

Strengths

You make a very clear and effective contrast between dictatorship and democracy, using parallel points (freedom of religion, control vs. fairness) to show the differences.
Your use of Joseph Stalin as an example of a dictator who denied people freedom is excellent.
Your argument is clear, consistent, and easy to follow.

Targets

Your answer is one-sided. While your argument against dictatorship is strong, to get a higher mark you MUST also include a paragraph that explains why someone might AGREE with the statement.
Your conclusion is a little simple. Try to summarise your key reasons for disagreeing. For example, "...because the loss of freedom and the right to vote is too high a price to pay."

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

On the other hand, some people may agree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country because the leader can maintain strict control and order.This introduces the counter-argument. A dictator like Stalin, for example, had total control over the country, which meant there were no political arguments or strikes. Some people might argue that this strict control is a good thing because it creates a stable and predictable society.This uses your own example to build the 'for' argument and explains the reasoning behind it.

Candidate 79168

5/12

Transcribed Answer

I slightly agree because a dictatorship is a more quick and efficent way to rule a country.A clear point in favour of the statement. In a dictatorship voting, protesting and going on strike is not allowed & newspapers are very controlled and the internet was checked. Downsidy of a dictatorship may be that people don't have alot of freeden... However, benefits of a diectorship are that choices by the goverment are made quicker to avoid wasting time.You have correctly identified the main trade-off: less freedom in exchange for more speed. This is a good piece of analysis.

In a democracy people vote for a new leader, This is called an election.A clear explanation of the democratic process. ...people are allowed to vote, protest and go on strike. The internet is not checked and newspapers can say what the please. Downsids of a democracy is that descion time are slower and this may waste time. for example, During Covid-19 they took a while for them to do something which caused the death of millions.

Ultimately, I believe a democracy is the best way because we have more freedom.A clear conclusion that makes a choice between the two values you have been discussing (speed vs. freedom).

Strengths

You have an excellent structure, using a point-by-point comparison of dictatorship and democracy and looking at the 'benefits' and 'downsides' of both.
You correctly identify the central trade-off: dictatorship is faster but has less freedom, while democracy has more freedom but is slower. This is a key analytical point.
Your conclusion is strong because it makes a clear choice, deciding that freedom is more important than speed.

Targets

Your example about the COVID-19 response causing deaths because it was slow is a very good one, but you have put it in your 'against' paragraph, where it reads as a criticism of democracy. This point actually supports your 'for' argument, as it shows why a faster, dictatorial response might be better. Be careful to place your examples in the correct paragraphs to support the right argument.

Here's an example of how you could have used your COVID point to strengthen your 'for' paragraph:

Some people may agree that a dictatorship is a more efficient way to rule, because government choices are made quicker to avoid wasting time.This is your original, strong point. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, some democratic governments were criticised for being too slow to make decisions, which may have cost lives. In contrast, a dictator could have enforced a lockdown instantly, without debate.This integrates your excellent example to support the 'for' argument very effectively. This shows that in a crisis, the speed of a dictatorship could be a major benefit.This provides a strong concluding sentence for the paragraph.

Candidate 10978

6/12

Transcribed Answer

A dictatorship is when a leader rules a country by force/power. It is often used after a battle.

Some may argue that a dictatorship is not the best way as there are other methods, for example you can have a democratic contry as the people could also vote for what they think is right.A clear explanation of the democratic alternative. People often are mistaken of someone might perceive a dicttorship as a negative. for example Hitler people would also say that a dictator would be too strict with rules because they are a bad leader.This seems to be a point against dictatorship, but you have placed it in a confusing way.

On the other hand, some can argue against that as if a democratic option relies on more than one person, it could take some time... whereas a dictator will be immediat, clear and straight to the point.This is a very well-explained argument for the efficiency and clarity of a dictatorship. This wastes less time in lethal and hazardous situations such as staying inside because of a deadly disease... a dictator can shut down most places and incite fear... less people would be killed and thus could all be safe.

Overall, I would suggest a dictator isn't really a bad one or a good one as they can be strict but also protective.This is a good summary of your analysis, but it doesn't quite answer the question of whether it is the 'best' way. A final, decisive judgement is needed.

Strengths

Your 'for' argument is excellent. You clearly explain that a dictator is "immediat, clear and straight to the point" and you use a very good, relevant example of a "deadly disease" to show when this speed would be beneficial.
You have attempted to look at both sides of the argument and have a clear structure.
You show good evaluation by acknowledging that a dictator can be both "strict but also protective."

Targets

Your 'against' paragraph is a little confused and includes an argument about Hitler that seems out of place. Try to make one clear point per paragraph.
Your conclusion needs to be more decisive. After weighing the evidence, you need to state whether you agree or disagree that dictatorship is the *best* way to rule, not just that it has good and bad points.

Here's an example of a more decisive conclusion based on your points:

In conclusion, while I understand that a dictator can be both strict and protective, I disagree that it is the best way to run a country.This gives a clear, final answer to the question. Although being "straight to the point" is useful in a hazardous situation, this benefit does not outweigh the fact that the people have no say in what is right for their own country.This shows you are weighing up the two sides. The right to vote for what you believe in is more important than the efficiency of a single ruler.This provides a final justification for your decision.

Candidate 20689

3/12

Transcribed Answer

Some may argue not to agree with this statement because a dictator ship is when a person or a group of people controlling a country without the civilions chance to vote for them.A clear point against dictatorship based on the lack of voting. If you were in a country that was controled by a dictator, you couldn't do many things, for example you had no right to vote... you couldn't use the internet, you would be watched on very closely. The examples of dictators are Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

Democracy is when a country is not being controlled by dictators. If you were in a without dictators country you could do many things, for example, you could believe in any religion like christianity, you would be watched on daily, not all the time... Everyone would have the same amounts of rights.This is a good, detailed contrast showing the freedoms that are available in a democracy. Here are some examples for people who arent dictators. Sir Keir Starmer, Donald Trump, Queen Elizabeth 1st, Barack Obama.

Overall, in my opinion i think that Democracy is better than a dictatorship because it would be much mor peacefull than a dictatorship.A clear conclusion with a simple justification.

Strengths

You have a very clear point of view and you argue it consistently.
You make an excellent, detailed comparison between life in a dictatorship (no internet, being watched) and life in a democracy (freedom of religion, rights).
You have used some accurate examples of dictators (Stalin, Hitler).

Targets

Your answer is completely one-sided. For a higher mark, you MUST also include a paragraph explaining why someone might AGREE with the statement, even if you don't believe it yourself.
Be very careful with your examples. You have listed several famous democratic leaders (Starmer, Trump, Obama) and a monarch (Queen Elizabeth) as examples of "people who arent dictators." While correct, this is not a useful list. It's better to use one of them as an example of how a democracy works.

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

On the other hand, some people might agree with the statement because a dictator can bring order and control to a country.This introduces the counter-argument. By controlling the internet and preventing protests, a dictator can ensure there are no arguments or disagreements, which makes society seem very peaceful and stable on the surface.This uses your own points to build the 'for' argument. Some people might prefer this strict control to the messy and argumentative nature of democracy.This explains the reasoning behind this viewpoint.

Candidate 29187

1/12

Transcribed Answer

I do on this country I can do vote and protest and same use news paper and the leader of ta local council and same country have a dictatorship like UK and China and Spain, & Gremeny.
dictatorship mean is member of dictatorship agree to laws that make sure services (eg fire services). dictatorship mean like people can do vote and protest. and like you can watch news.
I do run th government propose and discuss news laws and you represents the UK in important information. I think good dictatorsh dictatorship is King John.
Democracy is a leader of came contcollect be come powerful though person and you not allowed to news and vote and protots and worship in any faith.
I found that Democracy to who leader of Democracy I think is King John.This answer shows a fundamental misunderstanding of all the key terms. Dictatorship and democracy are confused with each other and with other concepts. The examples given are incorrect (e.g., the UK is a democracy, not a dictatorship; King John was a monarch, not a democratic leader).

Strengths

You have attempted to use some of the key words from the topic, like 'dictatorship', 'democracy', 'vote', and 'protest'.

Targets

This answer shows a complete confusion of the key terms. You need to learn the basic definitions. Dictatorship means rule by one person with no voting. Democracy means rule by the people with voting.
Your examples are incorrect. The UK is a democracy. King John was a monarch from the Middle Ages.
You need to structure your answer as a proper essay, with an introduction, a paragraph for each side of the argument, and a conclusion.

Here is a very simple definition to help you start:

A dictatorship is when one person, like a king or a general, has all the power. Nobody gets to vote for them. For example, North Korea is a dictatorship.In a dictatorship, there is ONE ruler and NO voting.

A democracy is when the people have the power. Citizens get to vote for their leaders. For example, the UK is a democracy.In a democracy, there are MANY voters and there are elections.

Candidate 79261

4/12

Transcribed Answer

I personally disagree with this idea.
The reason why I disagree is because a dictatorship comes in a dictatorship people can't vote for a leader instead as for in democracy people a free to vote for a new leader.
Also, in dictatorship a person comes in power by inhiratance or by force... people didn't vote for them to be selected.You have a clear understanding of the key difference between the two systems. a dictator can also make rules that people have to follow and they check the newspaper and social media to see if people are saying something against them and people can't protest against them.

But other people might agree with this statement because some dictators might have ideas that people agree and but people also might disagree because they aren't right might think that dictatorship is too controling or maybe because the leader is not doing things to help people.This is a very confusing paragraph. You have tried to look at the 'agree' side, but you have immediately filled it with 'disagree' arguments. You need to keep the two sides separate.
This is the reason why I believe that dictatorship is not the best way to run a country.

Strengths

You have a very clear point of view and a good understanding of the features of both a dictatorship (inherited power, controlling the media, no protests) and a democracy (free to vote).
You correctly identify that you need to discuss the opposing view.

Targets

Your paragraph trying to explain the 'agree' side of the argument is very confused and is actually filled with reasons to disagree. You must have one separate, clear paragraph that only contains reasons why someone might SUPPORT a dictatorship.
Your answer is missing a final conclusion. You need to add a short paragraph at the end to summarise your judgement.

Here's an example of a clear paragraph for the 'agree' side of the argument:

On the other hand, some people might agree with the statement because a dictator can make decisions much faster than a democratic government.This introduces a clear reason to agree. Because they do not need to listen to anyone else's ideas or hold a vote, they can implement new rules instantly. For example, a dictator might have "ideas that people agree" with, and can put those good ideas into action straight away without any delays.This explains the point and links to your own idea.

Candidate 10679

4/12

Transcribed Answer

Some people dissagree with this statement because dicatorship is when a person becomes a leader by sorce and people might get angry by this because the dictator cant vote and protest.You have correctly linked the method of gaining power (force) with the denial of rights (voting, protest). and they might make bad decisions or some good ones like Hittler did. Even though, they wurnt elected by the people some dictators are strong and poweraul.

Although some people may agree with this because they some dictators are very powerful and can lead on without voting and protesting some people may be happy with this because they think they are protected.This is a very good point. You have clearly explained the argument that a powerful leader can make people feel 'protected', which is a key reason why some people support dictators.

In my opion I think I disagree with this stateament because some people want a democray a leader they voted for and unlike dictators they can vote, protest.A clear conclusion that states your preference for a democratic system. ...I think that is more safer to have a docracy than a dictator because we don't know much about a dictator because we didnt vote for them.

Strengths

You have a clear, balanced structure with arguments for both sides.
Your 'for' argument is very well-explained. The idea that a "very powerful" leader makes people feel "protected" is a strong, valid point.
You use a relevant historical example (Hitler).

Targets

Your paragraphs are a little bit jumbled, with 'for' and 'against' ideas appearing in the same section. Try to keep one paragraph for all the reasons to agree, and a separate one for all the reasons to disagree.
Your final point in the conclusion ("we don't know much about a dictator") is a good one, related to trust. Try to explain it more fully - why is it safer to have a leader you have been able to scrutinise and vote for?

Here's an example of how you could develop your final point into a stronger conclusion:

In my opinion, I disagree with the statement because a democracy is a much safer system.This is a clear topic sentence for your judgement. While a powerful dictator might make people feel protected, that power is unchecked and has come from an unknown source. We don't know if we can trust them because we didn't vote for them.This explains your point about not 'knowing' the dictator. It is safer to have a leader who has been chosen by the people, because this gives them a reason to be trustworthy and to act in the public's interest. The right to vote is a vital protection against tyranny.This provides a powerful final thought.

Candidate 72198

3/12

Transcribed Answer

I disagre because with a dictatorship you will not be abail to vote or to belive in diffrent faiths and you don't have an election.You have identified several clear and important arguments against dictatorship: no voting and no freedom of religion. while in democracy you are allowed to vote and belive in diffrent faiths and rules.

While in the other hand someone people will agree cause they will not care about votaing they will just do what the dictatorship says and they will follow the rulls that the dictator ship says.This is a valid point. You are suggesting that some people might prefer the simplicity of just being told what to do.

For example in the dictatorship you will b just belive in one faith while in democracy you belive in diffrent faiths and in democracy your voice counts and in dictator ship doesn't.

Strengths

You have identified several key differences between the two systems, including voting and freedom of faith.
You make a valid point for the 'agree' side, suggesting some people might prefer the simplicity of following a dictator's rules.
You have attempted to structure your answer by looking at both sides.

Targets

Your answer is missing a conclusion. You must always add a final paragraph to state your own personal opinion on the question.
Your answer is very jumbled and reads like a list of points rather than a structured essay. You need to group your points into clear paragraphs: one for the 'agree' arguments and one for the 'disagree' arguments.
Explain your points further. WHY is it important to be able to believe in different faiths? Why would some people "not care about voting"?

Here's an example of how you could structure your points into clearer paragraphs:

On one hand, some people might agree with a dictatorship because they prefer the simplicity of just following the rules.This is your 'for' argument, made into a clear topic sentence. They may not care about voting and would rather have a leader who tells them what to do, as this might feel easier and more orderly.This explains the point.

On the other hand, many people would disagree because a dictatorship takes away important freedoms.This is your 'against' argument, made into a clear topic sentence. For example, citizens are not able to vote and may not be allowed to believe in different faiths. In a democracy, your voice counts, and this freedom is why many people believe it is a better system.This explains the point with your examples.