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 (or Dictatorship).
This shows an argument AGAINST the statement (or Democracy).
This shows your Conclusion or overall Judgement.
Hover over any highlighted text to read the teacher's detailed commentary.
This set of essays demonstrated a strong foundational understanding of the differences between dictatorships and democracies. Most students successfully structured their essays using the "For, Against, Conclusion" format, which is excellent for Year 7. Many of you effectively used specific examples (such as the COVID-19 lockdowns, China, or Afghanistan) to back up your points.
I strongly disagree with the statement that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country.The essay begins with a clear, decisive judgement. The most significant flaw in a dictatorship is the complete removal of human rights and civil liberties. In nations like North Korea, citizens are unable to vote, protest, or speak freely without fear of imprisonment or execution.Specific examples (North Korea) and specific rights (voting, speech) are used to back up the point. This creates a climate of fear rather than safety, suggesting that while the country may be "orderly," it is not being run in the best interests of its people.This sentence explains the *consequence* of the previous point – moving from 'what happens' to 'why it matters'. However, some might argue that dictatorships can be more efficient than democracies.A clear connective introduces the counter-argument. Because one leader holds absolute power, decisions can be made instantly without the delays of parliamentary debate.This explains the 'mechanism' of the efficiency. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, authoritarian governments could enforce strict lockdowns immediately, potentially slowing the virus faster than democracies which had to debate the rules first.A relevant, contemporary example is used to support the counter-argument. Additionally, crime rates are often reported as lower in dictatorships due to harsh punishments acting as a deterrent.A second valid point for the opposing side. Despite these points, I maintain that a democracy is superior.The conclusion returns to the student's own judgement. Efficiency is not worth the cost of freedom. In a democracy, if a leader makes a mistake, the people have the power to remove them through elections, ensuring accountability.This evaluates the arguments: Accountability > Efficiency. Therefore, a system that listens to its citizens is ultimately better than one that silences them.A strong final summary statement.
I disagree highly with this statement. I feel that a democracy is rather the best way to run a country.Clear statement of opinion to open the essay. This is because democracies provide citizens with their own human rights which dictatorships revoke. A dictatorship is a country with one leader which is in complete power.Good definition of key terms. This isn't a good way to run a country since it heavily censors things which don't need censoring and gives people a lack of freedom. This can affect people's mental health and create an unhappy society to express themselves.Excellent point linking political structure to social well-being (mental health). Theocracies - a type of dictatorship - is also not a good way to run a country since it can limit citizens' choices concerning religion.Great use of specific terminology (Theocracy). For example, Afghanistan does not allow its people to follow a religion other than Islam. Women in Afghanistan have been killed and prosecuted over 'not following Islam properly'. This is bad since majority of theocracies enforce sexist laws which make life very difficult for women.A very strong, specific real-world example effectively applied to the argument. On the other hand, dictatorships have good aspects which are why some people completely support the idea of dictatorships.Clear transition to the counter-argument. These include their free healthcare, high literacy rates and overall low crime rates. People see these as reasons that dictatorships are a good way to run a country.You have identified standard arguments for dictatorships, though expanding on *why* crime is low (fear/punishment) would strengthen this. I personally feel that there are reasons that go towards the advantages of dictatorships, which I have previously named, yet these don't completely make dictatorships overall positive.Good evaluation within the paragraph. I also feel that democracies are the best way to run a country. This is due to how democracies give its citizens a say in which laws are passed, and how a country is run. This is done via the house of commons, which is a large collection of commoners which represent the ideas and propositions of citizens and their respected constituencies.Excellent specific knowledge of the UK political system adds weight to your conclusion. I prefer this since it lets the people of the country somewhat rule their country. Despite this, democracies do tend to have high crime rates and lower literacy rates.A nuanced conclusion that admits the faults of democracy while still supporting it. In conclusion, democracies...Essay trails off slightly here, but the conclusion was effectively made in the previous paragraph.
On the other hand, dictatorships have good aspects such as free healthcare and high literacy rates.Your original point. Because the leader has total control, they can force all children to attend school and direct all money towards hospitals without anyone arguing against it.The Improvement: I added the "mechanism" (total control) to explain WHY the literacy rates are high. Consequently, while citizens lack freedom, their basic physical needs are often met more efficiently than in some democracies.This adds a "consequence" that weighs the pro against the con.
I dissagree because a dictatorship is when someone takes the power of a country by force or inherritence. This is a bad thing as if you didn't know what background the leader of your country had then you wouldn't know weather your country would be in jepardy.Good definition of how power is acquired (force/inheritance). For example, in a dictatorship the people have no power in what the government says and have almost no rights. Unlike a democracy, people in a dictatorship are not heard at all and are just told what to do.Clear contrast drawn between the two systems. But if someone tried to object a dictator, they would suffer deadly consequences.Valid point about the use of fear. On the other hand, people might say that living in a dictatorship is benificial because of the advantages.Standard introduction to counter-arguments. For example, the educational literacy rate is 98%, they pay low taxes and get free healthcare as well as amazing job opportunities.Good use of statistics (98%), though be careful to specify *which* dictatorship this applies to (likely Cuba or historic examples). Another reason people might argue that a dictatorship is the safest way to rule a country because the people of the country can not disobey the leader so automaticly the crime rate in a dictatorship is low.This is a strong logical link: inability to disobey = lower crime. In conclusion, I think that overall living in a dictatorship is better on some occasions as it is safer than any others.Your conclusion contradicts your introduction ("I disagree"). Consistency is key!
Another reason people might argue that a dictatorship is the safest way to rule a country is because crime is low.Your original point. This is because the punishments for breaking the law are often severe or violent, which acts as a terrifying deterrent for potential criminals.The Improvement: I used "deterrent" to explain exactly how the fear works. Therefore, citizens might feel physically safer on the streets, even if they are not politically free.This adds nuance—you are safe from crime, but not from the government.
I do not agree with this statement.Clear opening stance. The reason why I think a dictatorship is not the best way to rule a country is because the people in the society may feel trapped and unable to express themselves.Good focus on the emotional/social impact on citizens. A Dictatorship is a country ruled by a leader who has become one by force and there is only one in charge or a small group. The leader cannot be elected by society.Accurate definition provided. Some people might disagree as dictatorships have strict rules and the crime rates are lower, in other words, dictatorships are more safer than Democracys or any other type of society.You have identified the key argument for dictatorships: safety/low crime. In Dictatorships people do not protest because if they do they could be in serious trouble.Explains the lack of civil unrest. However this also means people would not be able to express themselves and are controled in everything they do. In other words people in Dictatorships do not have as much rights as others in Democracys.This serves as a conclusion, re-stating the main flaw of dictatorships.
The reason why I think a dictatorship is not the best way to rule a country is because the people in the society may feel trapped.Your original point. For instance, in countries where the media is censored, citizens are unable to voice their complaints about the government without risking imprisonment.The Improvement: I added a specific example (censorship) and a concrete consequence (imprisonment). This creates a society where the "peace" is actually just fear.Summary sentence.
I disagree to an extent with this statement. A democracy is a better way to run a country because in a democracy you have freedom, human rights and freedom of speech.Good listing of democratic values. Whereas, in a dictatorship you have censorship, limited education and no right to vote. In a dictatorship the person in charge gets in through inheritance or force and in a democracy the leader gets through with the peoples opinions (Voting).Clear comparison of how power is obtained. I think a democracy is better because it gives you freedom and respects the peoples opinion and choices. They do not limit your knowledge on what you learn or choose to do in a democracy they listen to what you want for example in a democracy they have an election every few years based on what they know also in a democracy they have a person who represents the people during meeting with the parliamentRun-on sentence, but good content regarding representation and elections. but there are also good things about a dictatorship and bad things about a democracy.Transition to evaluation. Some people might disagree and say a dictatorship is better because they have clear knowledge on what is going on without the peoples opinion for example during the lock down the leaders acted imediatly called a lockdown instead of having a discotion while their people died like a democracyExcellent use of the COVID-19 example to argue for efficiency. they also have censorship which can help children grow up to be less corrupt.An interesting and unique argument regarding censorship! But there is also a bad side to a dictatorship like for example no control over your life, you cannot speak out of term about their leaders, the leaders do not care about the peoples opinions and no privacy on phone calls platform like tiktok or instagram might be banned or censored.Relevant modern examples (TikTok/Instagram). In conclusion a democracy is slightly better than a dictatorship and I would rather live in a democracy than a place where you have no freedom or space.A clear personal judgement to finish.
Some people might say a dictatorship is better because during the lock down the leaders acted immediately.Your original point. In a democracy, politicians had to debate the rules, which took time. In a dictatorship, the leader could simply order people to stay home, potentially stopping the spread of the virus much faster.The Improvement: I clarified exactly *why* the dictatorship was faster (ordering vs debating). This shows that sometimes, absolute power can save lives in an emergency.A strong summary sentence.
A dictatorship is when a leader takes power by force or through inheritance, a democracy is when the people of a country are allowed to chose thier leaders.Clear definitions to start. I strongly disagree with this statement because I think the best way to rule a country is democratically. If a country is democratic, they are respecting human rights, letting people choose for themselve.Clear stance established. However, someone might argue that dictatorship is the best because of cencoring. Censoring is blocking or suppresing information that may be harmful, sensitive or inconvenient for people in power.Excellent definition of censorship. The censorship might protect children from seeing harmful things online however they are not allowed to express themselves or riot or they might be assassinated for causing "inconveniences" to the leader.You successfully turned a 'pro' (protecting children) back into a 'con' (assassination). Good evaluation. Examples of dictatorships are theocracies - a theocracy is a type of government with one person in power who is the leader of the countrie's religion. A way to solve dictatorships might be international sanctions.You drifted slightly into 'solutions' rather than evaluating if it is the 'best way', but the definition is good. Overall, I think that democracies are better because we have human right although there are good things about dictatorships.Concise conclusion.
If a country is democratic, they are respecting human rights.Your original point. This means that every citizen has the right to a fair trial and freedom of speech, preventing the government from abusing its power.The Improvement: I expanded on *which* rights are respected and *why* that matters (preventing abuse). Consequently, people feel safer knowing the law protects them, not just the leader.Consequence explained.
I think a dictatorship is not the best way to run a country. This is because if that one leader spends all the money they made into something that doesn't benifit the country then it would anger the citizens inside the country living under that leader.Valid point about resource mismanagement. People inside the country wouldn't get to say their share of what should improve.This links to the lack of a voice/vote. On the other hand, people would agree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country. This is because they would think changing the govern would waste time than fixing problems inside the country.This is the 'efficiency' argument - that democracy is too slow. Since Theocracys is apart of dictatorship, people who are religious would want a religious leader to rule over their country.Good point about religious preference in Theocracies. Overall, I think a dictator ship is not the best way to rule a country as I think the citizens should have their voices heard and vote for who they think one best to rule.Clear conclusion based on the right to vote.
On the other hand, people would agree... because changing the govern would waste time.Your original point. In a democracy, passing a new law can take months of debate. In a dictatorship, the leader decides instantly.The Improvement: I contrasted "months of debate" with "decides instantly" to clearly show the time difference. This means that in a crisis, a dictatorship can react much faster to solve problems.Explains the benefit of the speed.
I mostly do not agree with this statement, this is because a dictatorship is a leader who becomes inherrited through power or leadership etc, you have regular elections and you are allowed to have protest.A bit confusing here - you seem to be mixing definitions. Dictatorships don't usually have regular elections. I think its slightly good because crimes are very low and education as well and if you dont do it then there are consequences.Good point on low crime/enforced education. Where as in Democracy you discuss laws and it takes a long time but in dictatorship you dont discuss laws and if you dont like it you have to.Good contrast of efficiency vs force. Forexample in the UK you have a right to vote every 5 years, you have a say in parliament but in dictator ship that does not occur and some people like it.Specific example (UK/5 years). you also dont have alot of problems etc, there is good healthcare, good education 98% can read and you pay low taxes, most people work and have a roof over their head.Strong list of economic benefits of dictatorships. However, if I had to pick one I think Dictatorship is the best because even though you dont get to vote or have a say in parliament, education is very good almost everyone can read, people have somewhere to live and a roof over their head, health care is very good and its free.A surprising conclusion! You argued FOR dictatorship based on living standards. This shows independent thought. Some people may not agree with this because if people do want to vote and have a Say in parliament they should be allowed because everyone has human rights and Theats a part of voting, and if people do not respect rights i believe they should be punished.You acknowledge the opposing view well here.
I think its slightly good because crimes are very low.Your original point. Because the consequences for breaking the law are so severe, people are too afraid to commit crimes.The Improvement: Explaining the "why" (fear of severe consequences). This creates a very orderly and safe society, even if it is based on fear.Evaluation of the point.
I agree as you wouldn't have to wait months for your problem to be fought over in parlement.Good opening point about efficiency/speed. Also some would say that the other Theocracy and Communism is absolute garbage so that what they like."Garbage" is too informal for an academic essay. Use terms like "ineffective" or "flawed". Although, people would say a Theocracy is good as they're people who fight for your problems and there are allowed human rights whereas a Dictatorship.Sentence trails off. Also, Theocracies often have strict human rights limits. Some would Democracy is good as you can riot and protest you are also medically treated for free.Democracies allow protest, yes. Dictatorships often have free medical care too, so this distinction is a bit blurred. On the Hand, The education in a Dictatorship is much higher and the medical care is also very high. People also dont commit crimes so it is very peaceful in a Dictatorship.Good points (education/low crime/peace). To conclude all I have said, I think a Dictatorship is better than a Democracy and Theocracy due to all the reasons I have spoke of.A clear, if controversial, conclusion.
I agree as you wouldn't have to wait months for your problem to be fought over in parlement.Your original point. In a democracy, decisions can be delayed by endless debates. In a dictatorship, the leader acts immediately to solve issues.The Improvement: I used formal language ("debates", "acts immediately") to explain the point clearly. This efficiency can be crucial during emergencies.Added a concluding thought.
I agree because A dictatorship is a goverment ruled by One leader with absolute power.Definition is correct, but you said "I agree" - did you mean you agree it is the BEST way? As of England having a population of 60 million and a police force of 100,000. And lots of people left the country during this time to find a better life abroad-leaving behind brothers sisters, parents and grandparents who sit still misses them. people were also very afraid and sometimes paranoid.This is a bit confusing. England is a democracy. Are you describing a dictatorship here? There was a rumor that if you were drinking in a bar and three people had a brown beer bottle but the fourth had a green bottle, then the fourth person was a police informer.This is a very specific anecdote (likely from a history lesson or book). While interesting, it needs to be linked to a specific country or argument. However, There were shortages of almost everything as Serbia was under international sanctions. This means that their banks could not do business and to not buy food, clothes and they were poor.Good specific knowledge about Serbia and sanctions. Overall I believe that rights Should be use carefully and if your doing it in a way that's harming, People, pets etc then you should have a punishment.The conclusion is about 'rights' generally, rather than answering "Dictatorship vs Democracy".
There was a rumor that... the fourth person was a police informer.Your original point. This example shows how dictatorships create a "surveillance state" where nobody trusts each other.The Improvement: I explained what the story *means* (lack of trust/surveillance). This constant fear prevents people from speaking out against the government.Linked back to the argument.
I disagree mostly because citizens have barely any of their rights, sites are blocked, and either the leader or/and the police have too much power.Strong opening listing the negatives. In some cases, there is a shortage of food, water, clothes and resources. medical care is high However People are paranoid of their surroundings in an environment like a dictatorship.Good description of the atmosphere of fear/paranoia. However, others could say that a dictatorship isn't as bad as people say it is because they have a higher percentage of people that can read in a democracy.Literacy rate argument. Also, dictatorships have good health care and education, people obey and crime rates from citizens are very low compared to most democracies.Good comparisons made. An example is during COVID-19, democracies dicussed about, and lots of people died. However, dictatorships immediately went on lockdown and saved millions of lives.Excellent use of the COVID-19 example to demonstrate efficiency vs debate. Ideally, you would name a specific country (like China) here. In conclusion, dictatorships are still not the best way to rule, but it has...Essay cuts off, but the judgement is clear.
In some cases, there is a shortage of food, water, clothes and resources.Your original point. This often happens because the dictator prioritizes military spending or their own wealth over the basic needs of the people.The Improvement: I explained the *cause* of the shortages. As a result, while the leader lives in luxury, the citizens suffer in poverty.Developed the consequence.
No because the Dictatorship is not the best way to run a country because need to have important sheets to run to one country or other.This response is too short to grade effectively. I think you meant "important seats" or "checks"?
No because the Dictatorship is not the best way...Your opening. A dictatorship is dangerous because one person has all the power. For example, they can change laws without asking anyone.The Improvement: I added a reason and an example. This means citizens have no way to stop bad decisions.Explanation.
I disagree with this satment as it is a cruel way to live I geel people should have a right to express themselves as a dictatorship is a way to keep everyone in line and not commiting crimes.Good start focusing on cruelty vs order. democracy is someone who has right toward someone that could be goodPhrasing is a bit unclear here. but there some good reason why a dictorship is good there is less crime and good helathcare but it can be bad as if your in school and you don't follow the rules then you can get in serious trouble Sa a deictorship is good while it can also be bad.Good analogy using school rules to explain the strictness. Another example of dictership Is therocracy that is where a type of government with one person in power who is the leader of the contrey religon.Definition of Theocracy included. So there is different types of dectorship as some are good but some are bad. Some people will say I like living in a dictatorship as the streets are safe everyone has a right to heath cure and education but some say they don't like to live in a dictatorship as they don't have free will and can't do what ever they want.Balanced view presented. In conclusion People will like to live in a dictatorship but some wont as the don't have human right. But they like living in a dictatorship as it keeps People in control and stops them from making mistake.Conclusion is a bit repetitive but understands the core trade-off (Control vs Rights).
Some people will say I like living in a dictatorship as the streets are safe.Your original point. With strict police presence and harsh punishments, criminals are deterred from breaking the law.The Improvement: I explained *how* the safety is achieved. This allows law-abiding citizens to walk outside without fear of robbery or violence.Shows the benefit clearly.
Personally I disagree with this statement. I disagree because in a dictatorship it is only one person making all the decisions. The leader in a dictatorship who isn't elected so the country can't express thier opinion.Correct: lack of elections and expression. Also other examples of a dictatorship is when the country can't give out ideas and all laws are made without discussion, you can't vote and also in some dictatorships these laws are based off of scripture and the country is run by religous leaders (Theocracy) so people have to be a certain religion.Good detailed explanation of Theocracy and how it limits religious freedom. Some people on the other hand may strongly agree with this statement. They might think that a dictatorship is good as you don't have to worry about voting as someone is just using force to control.Interesting point – the "freedom from choice" argument. A few other things people may like is that in a dictatorship certain websites are banned, no riots happen as there is no disagreements, no protest and also the fact that the laws are made for them. They will think this is better as it is a more civilised way of stopping problems but they don't see it is restricting rights.Excellent analysis of why some might prefer it ("civilised way of stopping problems"). In conclusion, I believe dictatorships are a more cruel way of ruling and it takes away rights.Clear final judgement.
The leader in a dictatorship isn't elected so the country can't express thier opinion.Your original point. This means that if the leader makes a terrible decision that hurts the economy or starts a war, the citizens are powerless to stop it.The Improvement: I explained the *danger* of not being able to express opinions. Without accountability, a country can be ruined by one person's mistakes.Consequence.
a dictatorship is not the best way to rule a Country because why should only one person get to mak rules because People most likely Wont agree with them then Can get arrested for not following the rules and it Could Cause a riot or for a new rulerOne long sentence. Valid points about unfairness and potential for unrest. The best Way to run a Country is to have a ruler but also People in Parliament.This suggests a Constitutional Monarchy or Democracy. Good alternative offered. but People May agree with that Statement because they would think its better no to vote but i think its good to vote to get everyones opinion and it Can leave to lead to a democracasy because of the ruler not letting any one vote.This part is quite confused. You are mixing up the arguments for and against.
why should only one person get to mak rules because People most likely Wont agree with them...Your original point. If one person makes all the rules without asking anyone, they are likely to make mistakes or ignore the needs of the poor.The Improvement: I explained the negative outcome of one-person rule. This inevitably leads to anger and riots, making the country unstable.Consequence explained.
No because the country will not be a democrazy meaning no one can vote and there will be desisons that people would not like. Some people would want changes and want a new goverment.Basic definition of the lack of choice. Some people may be on the verge of death because of starvation if the people cant use there voice to say they need help. And your human rights are effected badly.Extreme example (starvation), but valid point about lack of voice. Yes because if a religious country has a religious president and it changes because of the Some others would be upset and it cause a riot which damages there country.Argument about religious stability/Theocracy. In situations like covid the goverment immitently put the country in lock down saving millions when in a democrazy it takes time which killes people in seconds.Strong efficiency argument using the COVID example. Crime rates will instanly drop and people would feel safe.Standard "safety" argument. (Continued) Kids and adults are very smart due to the not being allowed to misbehave which is good as you can expand what job oppertunitys you will be offered.Argument about discipline leading to education/jobs. In my opinion I think democracy is better because in a dictatorship you dont have human righs and hearing what the citizens want is the most important.Clear conclusion.
Some people may be on the verge of death because of starvation if the people cant use there voice...Your original point. In a dictatorship, if the government's policies cause a famine, the press cannot report on it and people cannot protest.The Improvement: I explained the mechanism (no press/protest) that leads to the starvation problem. This means the government can ignore the suffering of its people without consequence.Consequence explained.
I disagree because a dictatorship is when a person is in full power, control such as Adolf Hitler's Germany.Good use of a specific historical example (Hitler). I don't think this is the best way to rule a country because you are being told you have to something against your will. And if you disagree you either get imprisoned or killed.Clear explanation of the lack of choice/free will. Although in a dictatorship, health care is free which means you dont have to pay for medicine. Also 98% of children go to school and get a advanced education.Good use of statistics (98%) to back up your point. Adding to that in dictatorships crime life is really rare unlike a democracy where crime life increases.Standard argument regarding low crime rates. After listening to both points I still disagree because I think everyone should have free will and not be controlled.A clear conclusion that values freedom over the other benefits mentioned.
Adding to that in dictatorships crime life is really rare.Your original point. Because the legal system is strict and the police have absolute power, criminals are terrified of being caught.The Improvement: I explained *why* crime is rare (fear of strict police). This leads to safer streets, although it comes at the cost of personal privacy.Added a trade-off.
I partially agree with this statement. I don't fully agree because absolute power and control can be overwhelming. A dictatorship is one a goverment ruled by one leader with all the power.Good opening definition. A dictatorship isn't the best because the leader usually comes to power or force or inheritance. they do not listen to citisens or take any suggestions. An example of a dictatorship is Adole Hitler.Historical example used correctly. while a democracy is leader who got power from an election and listen to parliment and takes suggestions from them.Good contrast between the two systems. It could be argued a democracy is better because everyone is equal under the law, the Labour party is the most liberal democracy.Specific knowledge about UK political parties (Labour/Liberal). In conclusion, I belive a dictatorship is better due to the fact that complete control is better than partial control the strict rules benifit the future of the country and reduces crime rate.This conclusion contradicts your earlier paragraphs! You spent most of the essay saying dictatorship "isn't the best," then concluded it IS better.
I believe a dictatorship is better due to the fact that complete control is better than partial control.Your original point. With complete control, a leader can push through long-term plans for the country without being stopped by opposing political parties.The Improvement: I explained the benefit of "complete control" (long-term planning). This stability can lead to faster economic growth.Consequence.
I disagree with the statement 'A dictatorship is the best way to rule a country'. Most people will disagree with this statement due to the lack of freedom.Clear opening. In dictatorships, what you see online is censored to help leaders maintain control.Good point on internet censorship. Also, In dictatorships there are low crime rates, better grades at school and everyone is good so they dont face the consequences.Arguments for the 'For' side. However, In democracies, everyone has the right to vote (unlike dictatorships) and have all their human rights (unlike dictatorships).Direct comparison. Furthermore Democracies have a goverment led by the Prime Minister. The goverment create laws by debating in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister is usually elected and doesn't come to power through violence.Excellent specific detail about the UK system (PM/House of Commons). In Conclusion, while dictatorships usually are not that bad I believe living in a Democracy is better due to more freedom.Balanced conclusion.
Also, In dictatorships there are... better grades at school.Your original point. This is often because the state enforces a strict curriculum and truancy is punished severely, ensuring every child attends classes.The Improvement: I explained the "why" (strict curriculum/punishment). This results in a highly literate population, even if they are not taught to think critically.Evaluation.
I disagree with this idea, because although a dictatorship creates a stable country a democracy has more advanteges.Nuanced opening acknowledging stability. Some people may disagree with this statement because a dictatorship means that the person with authority got power through force or inheritance meaning that human rights are taken away from the public. For example censorship, the process of blocking or suppressing information that politicaly inconvent for people in power.Excellent definition of censorship. this could be seen as unfair or wrong because it blocks one of the human rights create power for the leader. An example of a dictatorship is a theocracy.Good connection to Theocracy. Whereas some people may agree with this statement because a dictatorship means that the public are obediant and there arent riots, or even protests meaning that it can be seen as safer and smart. for example, The people are less likely to fight or commit crimes, making this system good. eg China.Specific example: China. I think the best way to rule a country is democracy, this is a effective political system because of its key feature such as equal chances to vote and have an opinion.Clear evaluation. where as some people may think that although a dictatorship is strict it can be just as benifitial as a democracy. Because the obedience of the country can be seen as a good thing... A dictatorship can sometimes bee seen as a good political system because in case of a global emergance the leader can make a quick dicison where as a democracy couldn't do that. eg. covid-19.Outstanding point using COVID-19 to explain "emergency powers". This is a Year 9+ level argument. In conclusion... This political system is better than dictatorship because everyone gets a equal chance to vote and have an opinion.Solid conclusion.
This could be seen as unfair... because it blocks one of the human rights.Your original point. Specifically, it violates Article 19 of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees freedom of expression.The Improvement: I named the specific right (Freedom of Expression/Article 19) to sound more academic. Without this right, citizens cannot hold their government accountable for mistakes.Explanation.
I dissagree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country because you can't vote. Therefore you can't choose who you think/believe is going to rule the country which you live in the best.Clear point about the lack of democratic choice. Other people may agree with this statment, because loads of people take advantage of their human rights. For excample, China is a dictatorship there crime rate is very low. whilts in a democracy for excample England the crime rate is quite high.Good comparison: China vs England. Another reason is people who live in a dictatorship don't have to deal with riots and protest. This means less noice on their streets.A unique practical point ("less noise"). Some people may dissagree with this statement, because some people like to have a say in their country. For excample, in parliment they like to vote for who is their priminster who runs/represent their country.Reiteration of the voting point. Another reson is people rather pay tax every mounth so if they get sick it is already paied for.This refers to the NHS (Democracy) vs paid healthcare. A valid point about social welfare. In conclusion... I think the best way to rule the country is a Democracy. This is an effective polictical system due to some of it's key features such as, not sensoring what certain people see online and the fact that you can vote and do elections.Good summary of democratic benefits.
China is a dictatorship there crime rate is very low...Your original point. The Chinese government uses advanced surveillance technology, such as facial recognition cameras, to monitor citizens constantly.The Improvement: I explained *how* China keeps crime low (technology/surveillance). This makes it almost impossible to commit a crime without getting caught.Consequence.
I do not agree with this stakement because in a dictatorship people don't have freedom and their human rights are not respected.Succinct opening. I believe a democracy is better than a dictatorship because the people get to choose who they want to rule over their country. I think this is a good thing because the people have a say in how they want their country to be ruled instead of one incredibly powerful person choosing things without an opinion from their people.Strong explanation of the value of representation. Another reason democracies are better is they respect the human rights, they can have the freedom to do what they want, protest against things they don't agree with, but people in democracies just have to blindly follow the leader and slowly get all their freedoms stripped away from them."Blindly follow" is a strong, emotive phrase. Good writing. However, someone may disagree with me because in dictatorships things can get passed quicker. For example, in covid democracies took long to issue a lockdown, debating whether it would be better or not while people died from the virus, while in dictatorships the leader simply said that there would be a lockdown and that was that, saving more people.Superb explanation of the efficiency argument using the COVID example. Someone could also say that dictatorships are better as there are less crimes happening, this is because if someone was to go against any laws them and even their family could be severly punished. This happens in North Korea, where if someone commits a crime their family and their successors will get punished for what they did.Excellent specific knowledge about North Korea's "three generations of punishment" rule. Overall I think democracies are the best way to rule a country because they make sue that their people are happy and most of their population agrees with what is happening...Clear, human-focused conclusion.
...people in dictatorships just have to blindly follow the leader.Your original point. This lack of accountability means that a leader can make selfish decisions, such as building palaces for themselves, while the population starves.The Improvement: I gave a concrete example of what happens when people "blindly follow." Democracies prevent this by allowing the people to vote corrupt leaders out of office.Comparison to democracy.
I do not agree with this statement at all, as whilst dictatorships make descicions quickly, the many negative factors outweigh the one positive one.Sophisticated opening statement acknowledging the counter-argument immediately ("decisions quickly"). For example, Dictatorships comeplely strip away the rights of the people - as only one person is running the country to their own account with no input or regard for citizens opinions and want.Good explanation of unilateral power. Due to this, it is very common in Dictatorships to have the sites you visit, phone calls you make, and overall information you digest monitered and catered in the leaders favour."Information you digest" and "monitored and catered" is excellent, high-level vocabulary. Protesting is also illegal - people often being shot for doing it.Blunt, powerful point. Overall, a dictatorship is a horrible, controlling, and unsafe way to run a country. People should be able to run their own lives, and not fear they are being watched.Strong, emotive conclusion.
Protesting is also illegal - people often being shot for doing it.Your original point. For instance, in Tiananmen Square in China, protestors demanding democracy were met with military force.The Improvement: I linked your general point to a specific historical event. This proves that dictatorships rely on violence to stay in power.Evaluation.
I don't agree with the statement as it is unfair and unequal. A Dictatorship takes away people's rights, so they are unable to do anything at all.Clear stance. For example, people have human rights such as freedom of Speech or to go wherever you want. Furthermore people are treated like robots, unable to protest or object to anything as a country is run by a dictatorship. They are also not allowed to vote. In a dictatorship, the rulers tell you what to do, like programming an AI."Like programming an AI" is a fantastic, modern analogy for lack of free will. In a dictatorship it's mainly peaceful as they are no riots or there will be a harsh consequence.Valid point about enforced peace. On the other hand, there are many examples that some people agree with the statement. In a dictatorship crime is low, although human rights are restricted, and health care and education is high.Good recognition of the trade-offs. A dictatorship mainly takes care of people, making them the rulers making them into a sucessful person. In Addition, a country run by a dictatorship provides things for Survival. In most dictatorship, 90% of the people can read and write, as provided with health care and education.Good stats (90%) and focus on "survival" needs. In conclusion, the statement is probably right, a dictatorship may limit your rights, but provide a safe envioment with healthcare and education also a low crime rate.Interesting twist! You started disagreeing but concluded that the statement is "probably right" because safety is more important.
In a dictatorship it's mainly peaceful as there are no riots.Your original point. However, this peace is artificial. It exists only because people are too afraid of the secret police to complain.The Improvement: I analyzed the *nature* of the peace (it's based on fear). True peace should come from contentment, not terror.Philosophical evaluation.
I do not fully agree with this idea because dictatorships manipulate and oppress the people. A dictatorship is where one Person/Party is in full control, meaning they control the people.Strong verbs: "manipulate" and "oppress". This can limit what the people learn and know based on the dictator(s) beliefs, so they won't think for themselves. Dictators often rule through violence and fear, bending the rules to fit their wants and needs. The rights of the people are disreguarded."Bending the rules to fit their wants" is a great phrase describing corruption/absolute power. However, things will get done quicker in a dictatorship. Should a lockdown be needed, an order is given and that country locks down within the hour, Saving a lot of lives.Excellent, punchy explanation of speed/efficiency. Crime rates are a lot lower in these Countries, there are no protests, education is higher and they have good health care.Standard list of benefits. Although, I still don't Support the idea of a dictatorship being the best way Since people Should have freedom of speech Since it is a basic human right.Clear conclusion returning to rights.
Dictators often rule through violence and fear...Your original point. For example, they may use secret police to spy on citizens and arrest anyone who criticizes the government.The Improvement: I added the specific method (secret police/spying). This creates a society where no one trusts their neighbor.Social consequence.
I don't agree with this idea because the people should vote for there leader because I think they should have a say in who they are listening to.Correct: voting is key. dictatorship is a government elected by the people and that's why I think...Careful! A dictatorship is NOT elected by the people. That is a democracy. But Democracy might also be bad because the people might not think about who they are picking and then not pick the right person.This is a very perceptive point about the "flaw" of democracy (voter error). Some people might agree with this idea because in a dictatorship there is far more less crimes because they are told what to do and if they dont they will be in trouble so the country will be well behaved but the people doesnt get a chance to vote so they can't choose who they are listening to.Good point on crime/behaviour vs voting. In conclusion, I think that a dictatorship is not the best way to run a country because even thought the streets are safe and every one is good no one gets a say in anything they just have to do what they are told and if they don't then they will be in alot of trouble.Good summary.
Democracy might also be bad because the people might not think about who they are picking...Your original point. Politicians often lie to get votes, and citizens might vote based on popularity rather than who is actually the best leader.The Improvement: I explained *how* the voting goes wrong (lies/popularity). This can lead to incompetent leaders running the country.Consequence.
I agree with this Sentence because dictatorship is A government ruled by a leader with absolute power. Its really happy to help you run a country."Happy to help you" is a bit informal/confusing. Another good way to run a Country is democracy. The definition of democracy is spilt in a compound word which mean it is spilt up into 2 parts. "demos" & "cracy". "Demos" Means people while "cracy" means Government.Excellent etymological knowledge (Greek roots)! This is impressive. I think both of these things are the best ways to run a Country because it is very important to run a country and that is called "Theocracy".Confusion here. "Theocracy" is rule by religion, not a mix of both. Some people may agree with this statement because they think dictatorship is very important to them. However, some people don't agree with this statement because they think Democracy is a better Way to rule the country.A bit vague. Why do they think it is important? Overall I think the best way to rule a country is Democracy because it involves Speaker & voting.Clear conclusion.
I think the best way to rule a country is Democracy because it involves Speaker & voting.Your original point. Voting ensures that the government represents the will of the majority. If a leader fails to deliver on their promises, the people can vote them out.The Improvement: I explained the *function* of voting (accountability). This keeps leaders honest and hardworking.Consequence.
I think a Dictatorship is the best way to run a country In some ways because It allows you to make quick Laws and Lower crime ratesGood identification of the two main pros: Speed and Safety. but It also means that you can't speack out If you don't like the Laws however Dictatorship makes It safer to go out at anytime and has high percc more people that can read and wright then any other dictatorships countrig.Trade-off identified: Safety vs Speech. However on the other hand Some people might disagree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country because If your Leader is currapt they can force you to stuff You don't want to also some people feel better when they have a choice option in what rules are made and Think the freedom of speech is also a law So they want to have there human rights witch a dictator ship can't give them.Good point about corruption ("if your leader is corrupt"). So In conclusion I still think Dictator Ship is the best way to run a country It is trust the person who make those rules because If you trust the right person the country can Improve If you trust the wrong person people will stop trusting you and the country can get worse.Interesting conclusion focusing on 'trust'.
I think a Dictatorship is the best way... because It allows you to make quick Laws.Your original point. For instance, in an economic crisis, a dictator can change tax laws overnight to save the economy, whereas a democracy might argue for weeks.The Improvement: I gave a specific scenario (economic crisis) where speed is useful. This efficiency can be the difference between recovery and collapse.Consequence.
A dictator ship isn't the best way to run a country because if a country is run in a dictatorship there is more of a chance of protest as people want freedom.Interesting argument—usually people argue there are FEWER protests due to fear, but you are arguing there is more *desire* to protest. Some people believe that a dictatorship is better as in a chaotic situation the government in a dictatorship could handle it better than a democracy as they could choose to not tell their people about the situation which could make the situation less chaotic like in the covid 19 a dictatorship would have done better than a democracy as the people would be controlled and would not know about the situation.A very sophisticated point about information control reducing panic. I think that it would be better to have the freedom in a democracy as there will be less protests from people and everyone will have rights and be free while in a dictatorship people want to protest to have their rights and not be censored.Good logic: Democracy = Contentment = Fewer protests. In conclusion I think that everyone will have their own opinion about which way is the best way to run country, some people like democracy while some like dictatorship that is my opinion about this question.A bit of a "fence-sitting" conclusion. Try to pick a side!
In a chaotic situation... a dictatorship could handle it better... like in the covid 19.Your original point. By strictly controlling the media and forcing people to stay inside, a dictatorship can stop the spread of panic and the virus simultaneously.The Improvement: I clarified exactly what the dictatorship does (control media/force isolation). While this removes freedom, it prioritizes the survival of the population.Evaluation.