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.
This set of scripts demonstrates a solid understanding of the fundamental differences between dictatorships and democracies. Most students successfully identified the key trade-off: dictatorships offer speed and strict order, while democracies offer freedom and a voice. There were some excellent uses of examples (North Korea, Hitler) and specific terminology (First Past The Post, individual liberty). However, a number of responses need to focus on explaining *why* a point matters, rather than just stating it.
'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.
Transcribed Answer
A dictatorship is when one person or a small group of people rule and they gain power through force. They usually treat their people unfairly. Some people may strongly agree with statement because a dictatorship can be quick and efficient. For example, when updating policies they don't have to debate with other political parties.This is an excellent point. You have correctly identified 'efficiency' as the main strength of a dictatorship and explained *why* (no debates). This means that in emergencies - e.g natural disasters - they can have a quick action and deal with things more efficiently. Therefore, a dictatorship is a good way to rule a country.This is a perfect example. Linking efficiency to 'natural disasters' shows you understand the practical application of the point. However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because in a dictatorship, people can abuse their power and give up on human rights.A clear counter-argument. For example, a dictatorship is often lead by one person or a group of people. This means that there's no one to go against their decisions and that the leader could make choices to benefit themself instead of their people.You have explained the concept of 'unchecked power' very well here. This could also lead to corruption and possibly violence. Therefore, a dictatorship may not be the best option to rule a country. To conclude, I personally believe that a dictatorship is not the best way to rule a country as it doesn't give people a say on how their country is run and it doesn't give them a chance to select vote for a new leader.A solid conclusion that summarizes your main reasons for disagreement (lack of voice and vote).
Furthermore, this lack of accountability can lead to severe human rights abuses.This sets up the point. For example, in Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler used his absolute power to persecute minorities and start wars, and because it was a dictatorship, no one could stop him legally.This adds a specific historical example to prove your point. This demonstrates why having no one to "go against their decisions" is so dangerous for the safety of the people.This links the example back to your argument.
Transcribed Answer
A dictatorships means when you rule through force and power. Some people may agree with this because when you rule through power this might mean that you have more experience in ruling as you are more stricter and that could be the reason why you have claimed the throne.This is an interesting point. You are suggesting that ruling by force implies strength and strictness, which some might see as good leadership qualities. Because you would not want a unserious, inexperienced leader who just want to go to new... you would want a serious good descion maker and experienced leader. Whereas some people might not agree with this as coming in power as a leader might be the best can cause lots of controversy throughout your time as a leader as you could be so strict which will lead to your people not liking you.A good counter-argument focusing on how strictness can lead to unpopularity and 'controversy'. Also a democracy is when you have the right to vote for the leader that you want to be the one who makes your decions.You clearly define the alternative system. In conclusion i disagree with this statement because i think that a democracy is better than a dictatorship as you get to vote for who you want to do that in a dictatorship.A clear conclusion based on the right to vote.
On the other hand, a strict dictator often causes problems because they do not listen to the people.This is a clear topic sentence. If a leader is too strict and unpopular, it causes "controversy" and anger among the citizens. In extreme cases, this anger can lead to riots or a revolution to overthrow the leader.This explains the consequence of the point you made. Therefore, a democracy is safer because people can simply vote for a new leader if they are unhappy, avoiding violence.This links it to the benefit of democracy.
Transcribed Answer
In this statement, the word 'dictatorship' means that a leader has usually come into power through force or Inheritance... and does not allow people their individual liberty or freedom of speech. Some people may agree with this statement since they believe that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country. For example, a dictatorship allows discipline and strict rules for their country, in which people would abide by these rules, enforcing harsh discipline.This is a strong point. You are arguing that strict rules lead to a disciplined society. This would mean that a dictatorship can make their country a better place through force and power. Therefore, some people may agree... because they believe that a dictatorship can be the best way of shaping their country and quality of life. On the other hand, some people may disagree with this statement since they believe that the best way is a democracy... This would mean that this allows people their freedom of speech, individual liberty, human rights, and also the say to vote who you want to be elected.Excellent use of key terms like 'individual liberty' and 'human rights'. Therefore, some people may disagree... because they believe that a democracy is the best way of making their country a better place for all. To conclude, I think that a democracy is the best way of running a country due to the fact that although a dictatorship enforces harsh discipline and strict laws, a democracy allows people to express themselves and gives people their human rights.A very strong, evaluative conclusion. You weigh the 'discipline' of a dictator against the 'expression' of democracy and make a clear choice.
Some people argue that the strict discipline of a dictatorship creates a safer society.This sets up the point. For example, in Singapore (which has very strict laws), crime rates are incredibly low because people know they will be punished severely for breaking the rules.This adds a real-world example to support the point. Some might believe this trade-off—giving up some freedom for a safer, crime-free environment—is worth it, making dictatorship an attractive option for them.This explains the reasoning behind the argument.
Transcribed Answer
I agree with this partly because it causes less argument between citizens since they don't get to choose who rules their country.This is a clever point. You are suggesting that having no choice removes the conflict/arguments that happen during elections. I also don't agree because it's not fair that they become the leader of the county Just because they have got money... and it's also unfair on the citizens because they don't get to choose who rules their country.A clear point about unfairness and the influence of money/power. When the country is ran by a dictatorship most of the citizens rights get taken away or reduced this is because the leader wants more control over the people. A democracy on the other hand is better because the citizens get to choose who runs their country.Good contrast. A democracy can also cause many arguments between people because they think that the person they voted for is better than the person someone else voted for and could cause them to fight. my overal conclusion is that a dictatorship is and is not the best way to ran a country.This conclusion is a bit 'on the fence'. You need to make a final decision on which side is stronger.
In conclusion, although I recognize that democracy can cause arguments between citizens, I still believe dictatorship is the worst option.This acknowledges your counter-argument but states a clear opinion. The fact that a dictator takes away citizens' rights and rules unfairly is a much bigger problem than the disagreements that happen during an election.This weighs the two points against each other. Therefore, having freedom and a choice is worth the cost of occasional arguments.This justifies your final decision.
Transcribed Answer
Some people may Argee with this statement because, In some countries rules Are Always broken. Stealing, hate crimes, killings happen frequency in those countries.You are setting up a scenario where a country is chaotic/lawless. Which makes People to have A Leader, which came into Power Because dicatorship Which means A leader Who gives less freedom, to do whatever but rules to keep things in order. However some people may strongly with this statement Because. In countries Which crimes Aren't commited as much, they want freedom. Freedom to do more but the person in charge won't let them, causing prostest And Outrage.This is a good point. You are saying that if a country is safe, people prioritize freedom over strict rules. To Conclude I personally belive "Dicatorship isnt the best way to run A country". As most countries need freedom to Keep the countries Alive. Not rules stop them.A clear conclusion.
Some people might agree with dictatorship if they live in a country with a lot of crime and chaos.This clearly states the condition. If there is constant stealing and killing, people might prefer a strict dictator who takes away freedom but uses force to "keep things in order" and make the streets safe again.This explains the trade-off: less freedom for more safety. In this specific situation, a dictatorship might be seen as the only way to fix the country.This links it back to the question.
Transcribed Answer
A dictatorship is when a single leader comes into power through force or inheritance. A dictator usually removes the majority of their people's freedom. Some people may strongly agree with this statement because dictators make all the decisions and often implement strict laws to keep citizens in check. Many people may think that this is the best way to maintain order.A clear and concise point. You identify that strict laws are a tool to "maintain order," which is a key argument for dictatorship. However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because many dictators are often tyrannical and ruthless.Good vocabulary ('tyrannical', 'ruthless'). People may consider democracy as the best way to run a country because it allows citizens to voice their concerns and have a say in how the country is run. This can be beneficial as leaders elected by the public could improve laws and the quality of life.Excellent explanation. You link the 'say' people have to the result: improved laws and quality of life. To conclude, I personally believe that a democracy is the best way to run a country because it enables the people to choose who is in charge and this can prevent people with bad intentions from leading the country.A strong conclusion. The idea that democracy "prevents people with bad intentions" acts as a summary of your argument against ruthless dictators.
However, history shows that dictators are often tyrannical and ruthless because no one can stop them.This sets up the point. For instance, Adolf Hitler ruled Germany with absolute power and led the country into a devastating war. In a democracy, such a leader could be voted out before causing so much damage.This adds a specific historical example. This is why democracy is safer: it allows citizens to voice their concerns and remove leaders who do not improve their quality of life.This connects the example back to your main argument.
Transcribed Answer
I disagree because people in contry be asride [afraid?] and want differ Person to run some contrys.It seems you are arguing that people would be afraid and want a different leader. This is a valid point. They might say you evil a dictator is a person does bad for the contry. A Dictatorshhip is a Leader do a wrong things that does anything with out care about the people. civil war doesn't wanto they run contery bad aways go to war kill People exmply hi also hitler he kills Jevism people go to war every day try rule every contry.You have used a specific example (Hitler) and mentioned killing people/war. This supports your view that dictators are bad.
Some people might agree with a dictatorship because one leader can make decisions very quickly. This means they can solve problems fast without waiting for a vote.This gives a clear reason to agree.
However, I disagree. Dictators like Hitler caused wars and killed many people. It is better to have a democracy where we can vote for a good leader.This gives a clear reason to disagree.
Transcribed Answer
I disagree that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country because a dictator is a person who usually rises to power either through force or inheritance and the people who usually live in those type of societies go usually are struggling with poverty, famine and general sadness/depression.
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because not all people like the fact that people are being forced to live in and poverty and famine and it should be a society where everyone is treated equally and isn't be living in poor conditions.Wait, you said "people may strongly AGREE" but then you gave reasons to DISAGREE (poverty, famine). You have confused your connectives. You are arguing against dictatorship here.
Some people might actually agree with the statement because they think a dictatorship is efficient. A single leader can fix problems like poverty very quickly if they want to, because they don't need to ask for permission.This is a valid reason to AGREE.
However, most people would disagree. As I mentioned, dictatorships often result in famine and sadness because the leader doesn't care about the people. In a democracy, we can vote to ensure everyone is treated equally.This is your original point, correctly labelled as DISAGREE.
Transcribed Answer
I do not agree that a dictatorship is a good way to run a country... Some people may strongly agree with this statement beacause it helps keep the country organised and in order and there is less likly for there to be problems and it would be easier to rule the country.This is a good point. You identify "organisation" and "order" as the key benefits of a dictatorship. However some people may strongly dissagree with this statement beacause dictatorships are unfair and the citizens are unable to access some of their rights such as the right to vote.Clear identification of the lack of rights. If a dictator is in place... the citizens are unable to tell the person in charge there isues so they will not get dealt with and they will continue to suffer. they could also get killed if they speak badly about how the person in charge which is unfair as they have a right to speak freely.Excellent point. You link the lack of free speech to fear of death and suffering. To conclude I personally belive that a dictatorship is not the best way to run a country as it is unfair to the citizens and takes away their right and limits their resources such as food and more.A strong conclusion that summarizes your points about unfairness, rights, and resources.
Furthermore, in a dictatorship, citizens cannot voice their complaints without fear.This sets up the point. For example, in North Korea, speaking badly about the leader can lead to execution. This means that if there are problems like food shortages, the people cannot ask for help.This adds a specific example. This lack of communication means problems get worse and people suffer, which is why a democracy, where people can speak freely, is a better system.This links it back to your conclusion.
Transcribed Answer
yes because people get to vote and decide who the want to be a leader to run the country. and to see who is the Best leader.You clearly support democracy (voting). the reason I said that is Bescause to see what the leader will do Before they vote. If they wasn't a dicatatorship it won't be the right way to rule a country and they will be so many protest against the leader that is why we need dicator ship so people could get to vote for who they want to be leader. 1. think u should be able to vote at 18+ bes ca use they get to understand how dictatorship works and learn our to vote.This is a bit confused. You seem to be using the word 'dictatorship' when you mean 'democracy'.
I believe **democracy** is the best way to run a country because people get to vote for the best leader.Democracy allows voting. If we had a **dictatorship**, it would not be the right way because people cannot vote, which might lead to protests.Dictatorship prevents voting.
Transcribed Answer
i do not agree because... [This script is largely illegible. It appears to discuss 'fighting' and 'war', and mentions 'people go changed'. It is very difficult to decipher the specific arguments.]
I do not agree with dictatorship because I think everyone should have a vote.
Transcribed Answer
Dictatorships means when a ruler comes into power through force. Some people may agree with this statement because they may believe that the ruler of a country knows what is best for them... for example during the 1930's and 1940's when Hitler was in rule. Many people referred to him as the Supreme leader. For this is because they belive that Hitler would have brought success after there defeat in WW1.This is an excellent point. You are explaining the appeal of a dictator: in desperate times (after defeat), people want a strong "Supreme leader" who promises success. Some people may disagree with this statement as they may want to have a say with what happens in goverment. For example, in the uk the voting system is FPTP [First Past The Post]. This means that whoever gets the most votes will rule goverment.Good specific knowledge of the UK voting system. This shows that lots of people hate dictatorship is not the best way to rule a country as it may not allow people to get what they want. In conclusion, In my opinion, I think that the best way to rule a country is through a democracy as it allows people to have a say... to have a chance to get what they want implemented within thier country.A clear conclusion linking democracy to getting policies 'implemented'.
In conclusion, I believe democracy is the best way to run a country.Clear judgement. Although a dictator might promise success, as Hitler did, they often lead the country to ruin. A democracy is safer because the FPTP voting system ensures that the leader is chosen by the people and must listen to what they want implemented.Weighs the arguments and uses your specific knowledge.
Transcribed Answer
I disagree with this statement as a Dictator ship is ruling with power... which is not the best way to run a country. Some people may strongly agree with this statement because they want to put fear in the civillians body which will make them scared to argue with decisions or revolt against the leader.You have clearly identified 'fear' as a tool for maintaining order and preventing rebellion. They might also agree with this statement because having a dictator-ship be easier as they would not have to do anything but listen.This is an interesting point: some people might prefer the 'ease' of just being told what to do. However, some people would disagree with this statement because with a democracy they have a free vote whereas with a dictatorship you don't have a vote. A democracy also gives the chance to civilians if they want a change to happen.Good, clear contrast between the two systems based on the ability to create change. To conclude I personally believe that the best way to run a country is by having democracy because It is fair and you get to vote who you want your leader to be and the decisions that are happening.A solid conclusion summarising your main points.
However, most people prefer a democracy because it gives them the power to change their lives.Topic sentence. In a dictatorship, if the leader makes a bad decision, the people are stuck with it. In a democracy, citizens can vote for a new leader to make "a change happen." This ability to fix mistakes is why democracy is a fairer system.Explains the value of change.
Transcribed Answer
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because they proably imangine that if you are in a group with people as they have power so they would hope that they would take action for anything that will happen.This is a bit unclear, but you seem to be saying that people hope a powerful group will be able to take decisive action to fix problems. This is a valid point about efficiency/action. However, some people may strongly disagree with this statment. A citizens could want someone to earn their way towards power instead of just forming a group and expected to be treated with lots of power.This is a very good point: power should be *earned* (meritocracy), not just taken by force. To conclude, I personally belive that I disagree with this statment as people should be able to vote for who seems better instead of people forming groups.A clear conclusion based on the idea of voting for the best candidate.
Some people might agree with the statement because they want a leader who can take action quickly.Clear point. They might "hope that they would take action" to fix big problems like war or money issues without having to wait for a vote. They might think a powerful leader is the only one who can save the country.Explains the reasoning.
Transcribed Answer
Dictator ship is when People get elected as leader through Power. Some people may strongly agree with this statment because they might believe that People with alot of Power should rule the country as they have the abilities to.This is a valid point based on the idea of 'might makes right' - that the strong should rule. However, some people may strongly dissagree with this statment because they may believe that democracy is the best way to run a country beccuse citizens can have an opion on who they want to be leader... and that citizens should have the freedom to vote.A clear counter-argument based on opinion and freedom. To conclude I Personally believe that this statem I dissagree with this statment because I believe that people should have freedom of speech to vote and share their opinion on who they think should be leader and why.A solid conclusion.
Some people might agree that the person with the most power should rule.Topic sentence. They might believe that if a leader has the "ability" to take control by force, they must be strong and capable of protecting the country. They might prefer this strength to a weaker democratic leader.Explains the link between power and perceived capability.
Transcribed Answer
A dictatorship is when a person comes into power of the country through force or inheritance. From family and people don't have freedom. Some people may strongly agree with this statement because having a dictatorship is easier and quick, rather than having to vote.A clear point about the speed and ease of the system compared to voting. However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because having a dictatorship means that people don't get to have freedom and they don't get to vote and vote on who they think is the best leader for their country.A clear counter-argument focusing on the loss of freedom and the inability to choose the "best leader". To conclude, I personally believe that a dictatorship is not the best way to run a country because I believe people should have their right to vote is so much better than having no freedom and can't be able to vote for the best leader.A clear conclusion based on rights and selecting the best candidate. because how will people know if this leader is not a good leader after all.
Some people may agree that a dictatorship is better because it is a much faster system.Topic sentence. In a democracy, organizing elections and counting votes takes a long time. A dictator does not need to wait for this, so they can make decisions immediately.Explains the point. This speed could be very useful if the country is in trouble and needs a leader to act straight away.Explains the benefit.
Transcribed Answer
A dictatorship is when a person or ruler has come into power by force and not by the vote of the other people. Some people may strongly agree with this statement because they believe it will get things done quicker. Because Adolf Hitler ruled in dictatorship and although the people didn't like it, he took decisions based by his judjement because he believed he knew what was best for the Nazi empire.This is an excellent point. You use a specific historical example (Hitler) not just to say he was 'bad', but to explain the *efficiency* argument—that he acted on his own judgement without waiting for others. However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because they believe that the people should have a say in how the country's run... If the goverment makes a new law, for example, about transport then it will affect the people as they are the ones who use the transportation.This is a very perceptive point. You explain *why* people need a say: because the laws (like transport) actually affect their daily lives. Some people have disablities or needs and if they don't have a say they won't be able to do much things. To conclude, I personally believe that a dictatorship is not the best way to rule a country... democracy... means power by the people as the goverment will know what the people want and how to adapt to specific people's need making it fair for everybody.A strong conclusion that links democracy to fairness and adapting to "specific needs".
A key reason to support democracy is that it protects vulnerable people.Topic sentence. A dictator who does not listen to the public might ignore the needs of people with disabilities or specific requirements. In a democracy, these groups can vote and campaign to ensure laws are made that help them, such as making public transport accessible. This makes the country fair for everyone, not just the strong.Explains the impact on specific groups.
Transcribed Answer
A dictatorship is where a leader has not been choosen through democarcy. But throught force. some people may strongly agree with because they believe that some leaders would be better. also that voting is not fair because some countries believe that girls should not have the right vote.This is a confused point. You seem to be saying dictatorships are good because democratic voting can be unfair/sexist? It's an interesting angle but needs clearer explanation. Usually, dictatorships restrict rights even more. however some people may strongly disagree with this statment because... people want justice. Because it a human Right that all people should have a right in their saying.Good point about human rights and justice. And that war could happen because other country may come to get rid off that country. To conclude I personally believe that dictatorshnip is not the best way to run a country because it causes problem with the citizen For exsample, Bank rupt, Food, etc.You list some strong negative consequences (bankruptcy, food shortages). And that it could cause low population between a country because people are gonna want to leave the country.
Some people might agree with dictatorship because they think it is a more stable way to run a country.Clear reason. They might believe that voting causes arguments and division between people. A dictator forces everyone to follow one path, which some people might think creates a stronger, more united nation.Explains the reasoning.
Transcribed Answer
A dictator ship is when people vote for the leader of their choice. The leader they have chosen has now controls the country and get a say in what happens.This is an incorrect definition. You have described a democracy, not a dictatorship. Some people may strongly agree with this statement because you get to have a say in who you want your leader to be and what you want to happen in the future.Again, you are arguing for democracy here, but you've labelled it as agreeing with dictatorship. However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because they might think that leaders should be chosen by how powerful they are or by force. because some people might think that getting a leader by force makes it more equal.You have understood the concept of 'might makes right', but the structure is confused. To conclude i personally belive that a dictarship is the best way to run a country because you can have freedom and pick the best leader for this generation.You have concluded that dictatorship is best, but your reason ("pick the best leader") describes democracy. You have confused the two terms.
To conclude, I personally believe that a **democracy** is the best way to run a country because you can have freedom and pick the best leader for this generation.This uses the correct term for the idea you want to express.
Transcribed Answer
A Dictator Ship is when the Citizens do not get a choice on who rules over the country. One person rules... Some people may strongly agree with this statement because they may believe voting is a waiste of time and they may believe only one person should rule rather than multiple.This is a clear, valid point. The perception that voting is a "waste of time" is a reason people support authoritarianism. This person may think it is easier and more simple then having multiple peoples opinions and then having to come to an agreement. Some people may strongly disagree with this statement because they believe they should have freedom of choice. If a country was in a democracy every individual citizen above the age limit would get to vote.Good explanation of the alternative. This gives the citizens freedom. They may also baieve that multiple people / a party should rule in a democray to get more opinions to make the country better.Excellent point. Democracy leads to "more opinions" which leads to a "better" country. To conclude, I personally disagree with this statement because I believe everyone should have an opinion that can be heard and everyone should have freedom of choice.A clear conclusion summarising the main argument.
Furthermore, a democracy allows for many different opinions to be heard, which improves decision-making.Topic sentence. For example, in the UK Parliament, hundreds of MPs discuss new laws. This means mistakes are more likely to be spotted and fixed than if one dictator made the decision alone.Adds a specific example. This variety of ideas is why democracy often leads to better results for the country.Explains the benefit.
Transcribed Answer
I think a dictatorship is not the Best way to run a country Because if you Rotate Prime Ministers it won't work, it could cause Many problems. instead i think a democracy is the Best way to describe Rule a country so everyone can have a Voice so they can vote For who they want to vote.Clear support for democracy based on having a voice. however some people may strongly disagree with this statement because democracy may not be organised the same way a dictatorship is organised.This is a good point. Dictatorships can be seen as more 'organised' or orderly. Some people may agree with me Because in a democracy people can actualy have a voice and opinion. In Conclusion i personally believe that a dictatorship is not the Best way to run a country.Clear conclusion.
Some people might prefer a dictatorship because it is very organised.Point. Because there is only one leader making the rules, everyone knows exactly what to do and there is no confusion or arguing. This can make the country feel stable and orderly.Explanation.
Transcribed Answer
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because people may want a specific leader in power without any competitors so they can have control over everything that they want to happen.A clear point about the desire for total control and no competition. However some people may strongly disagree with this statement because dictatorship is an unfair way of control and power leading to servire dissatisfaction across the contry and possible rebellion or destruction.This is a strong counter-argument. You link 'unfair control' to 'dissatisfaction' and then to 'rebellion/destruction'. To conclude I personally believe that dictatorship is not the best way to run a country but democracy is the best way to run a country because its a fair way to lead and understand peoples opinion keeping most people happy and leading to a better community.A good conclusion that links democracy to happiness and a "better community".
Some citizens might support a dictatorship because they believe that having "no competitors" leads to stability.Restates your point. In a democracy, political parties are always fighting each other. A dictator stops this fighting and "controls everything," which some people might feel is a more peaceful and efficient way to live.Explains the benefit to the people.
Transcribed Answer
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because the person who is ruling the country might be someone that has alot of power or someone who understands how to rule a country efficiently.Good point about efficiency and capability. Because a dictatorship is someone who rules over the country by through power or inheritance. However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because democracy is when someone gets power / gets to rule the country by being elected, so people can vote.Clear definition of the alternative. So many people may disagree with this statement because they are allowed to vote for whoever they think will rule the country well, but on the other hand people might think that dictatorship is better because you don't have to vote. To conclude, I personally believe that democracy is the best way to rule a country, because I don't think that person is able to rule the country just by power and inheritance because that might really feel unfair, so I think democracy is the best way to rule a country because people have a chance to vote for who they want and everyone gets a chance to be voted for, and then it brings a better community better.A bit repetitive, but a clear conclusion based on fairness and community.
Some people support dictatorships because they can rule the country "efficiently".Point. This is because a single ruler does not need to wait for votes or debates to pass new laws. They can fix problems instantly, which makes the country run smoothly.Explanation.
Transcribed Answer
yes because letting people choose who they want to run their country means that they actually believe that the person they mostly picked would be a good representative of the countryYou are arguing FOR democracy (choosing), but positioning it as 'Yes' to the statement? Or are you answering a different question? however some people may disagree with this because you may Pick a representative that you dont know or Might not be a good leaderThis is an argument against voting (risk of bad choice). To conclude I personally believe that I disagree with this statement as people should be able to vote for who seems better instead of people forming groups.Clear conclusion.
Some people might agree that a **dictatorship** is best because there is no risk of the public "picking a representative that they don't know". The leader is already in charge and has total control.Argues for dictatorship.
Transcribed Answer
I do not agree with this statement because in a dictatorship the leader comes in the country using power and don't give people a say in what they do in their everyday life. The leaders disrespect them don't care about their citizens, but also the upper hand it does make people do things, they don't run a country with Love they run a country with Fear.This is a very strong point. You contrast ruling with 'Love' (care) vs ruling with 'Fear'. In a democracy, People could vote, have a freedom of speach and also do what they want... Nobody got told what to do, nobody got judged because what there were wearing, the colour of their skin and what Language they spoke.Good description of freedoms and equality in a democracy. But in a dictatorship on the other hand if they walked the wrong way for example they would get told of and would get embarised possibly even beaten in public as well. A Dictator ship is Not the Best way to run a country, for example Adolf Hitler, Kim Jong-un. Rule a country with a dictatorship and it didn't go Well for Adolf Hitler, lots of people were poor and were endangered because any day he could just take them into concentration camp for experiments.Excellent use of specific examples to illustrate the horror of dictatorship.
However, some people might agree with dictatorship because they believe fear is a useful tool.Topic sentence. They might think that if people are afraid of being "beaten in public," they will not commit crimes. This creates a society that is very strict and orderly, which some people might prefer to the freedom of a democracy.Explains the logic of the other side.
Transcribed Answer
1) some people may strongly agree with this statement because whoever is stronger should be able to rule over the country as they were able to make their way past the previous ruler and that shows if they were able to past the old dictator then it shows how that person wouldn't be able to rule a country properly.This is a valid 'survival of the fittest' argument. If you are strong enough to take power, you deserve it. some people might not like the dictator and could want someone new as you wouldn't have to vote who should be elected. 2) However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because people wouldn't want someone who has no past training how to rule a country.Excellent point. Dictators often lack experience/training compared to career politicians. It would be fair if that person was elected instead since people get to vote who they think is better being president. 3) To conclude I personally believe that democracy is a better way to rule a country since they have more skills and they know what they are doing.Conclusion links back to your point about skills/training.
To conclude, I believe democracy is better because it ensures we have leaders with the right "skills" and "training".Re-states your main point. In a dictatorship, a leader might be strong, but they might not know how to run an economy or help the people. Democracy allows us to check a leader's skills before we vote for them, which is safer for the country.Explains why skills matter more than strength.
Transcribed Answer
I don not agree because in a dictatorship the leaders use fear to obtain loyalty and obedience, this is not a good way to to rule due to the fact that even though their people are obidient and loyal really they will really dislike you as a leader so theregore a higher chance for rebellions.This is a fantastic opening argument. You connect fear -> fake loyalty -> dislike -> rebellion. Very logical. A dictatorship also isn't a good way to run a country because most times dictators come into power by force essentially taking away the citizens rights to vote. Many dictators are violent towards the citizens of their country... However some people may agree with this statement because they think it might be the only way to establish order.You have identified the key argument for dictatorship: establishing order. To conclude I personally believe that dictatorships are not the best way to rule a country.
However, some people agree with dictatorship because it is an effective way to "establish order".Topic sentence. If a country is in chaos, a strict dictator can use their power to stop crime and force everyone to follow the rules immediately. Some might prefer this safety to the freedom of democracy.Explains the point.
Transcribed Answer
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because they might think that them using force to get in charge could show authority and might make them feel like they deserve and fought for that role.Good point. The idea that taking power by force demonstrates "authority" and "deserving" it. However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because they could be thinking that them coming in using force could be pretty upsetting to people who voted for a certion person to be in charge and for them to just take over people would think that there vote has gone to waste.Good counter-point. Dictatorship disrespects the voters and makes their previous votes a "waste". To conclude, I personally believe that a dictatorship is the wrong way to rule a country because the people have no say and the people that they ever took deserve the place they are in.A clear conclusion based on people having "no say".
To conclude, I believe dictatorship is the wrong way to rule.Judgement. Although force might show authority, it ignores the will of the people. A system where people have "no say" and their votes go to "waste" is unfair and leads to a leader who only cares about themselves, not the citizens.Justification.
Transcribed Answer
To be honest I do not know what a dictatorship is so im just going to guess. I do not agree with the idea.