Feedback focussing on Evaluation

Overall Class Weaknesses

Clarity of Expression: Run-on sentences are common, obscuring the argument.
Specific vs General: Evaluations rely on generalizations rather than specific concepts from the text.

Teacher Next Steps

Sentence Construction: Fix run-on sentences to improve clarity.
"Steel Man" Argumentation: Practice arguing for the side you disagree with to improve nuance.

Model Answer (Exemplar)

Evaluation Score: 10/10

Word Count: 335 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

I agree more with Liam O'Connell's argument for social responsibility and a larger state, although Eleanor Vance makes a valid point about economic efficiency.Clear opening judgment. Vance argues that the 'most effective way to create a prosperous society' is through individual liberty and a smaller state.Accurate identification of Vance's first point. There is some merit to this, as keeping taxes low can encourage investment and personal autonomy.Concession/Evaluation. However, this model is unconvincing because it ignores structural inequality. As O'Connell notes, a purely competitive market fails to support the vulnerable.Critical evaluation (Point 1). Vance's idea of 'trusting individuals' works for the wealthy, but offers no safety net for those in poverty, making her vision of a 'secure society' flawed.Refuting Vance. Conversely, O'Connell argues that a successful society 'prioritises the well-being of the entire community' through funded public services.Accurate analysis of O'Connell's first point. I find this more convincing because it recognizes that health and education are 'bedrocks' of a fair society, not just commodities.Strong agreement. While Vance might argue that the state is inefficient, O'Connell correctly identifies that a 'progressive tax system' is a necessary investment in social stability.Evaluation of the counter-argument. Furthermore, Vance argues for 'strong traditional values' and 'clear consequences' for crime.Addressing Vance's second point (Law & Order). While safety is important, O'Connell's focus on 'mutual respect' is a stronger long-term solution.Evaluation of Point 2. Vance's approach is reactive (punishment), whereas O'Connell's approach is proactive (building community).Comparative reasoning. By tackling inequality, the government reduces the root causes of crime, rather than just punishing it.Linking back to O'Connell. Ultimately, O'Connell is right; individual liberty cannot flourish without the social security that a larger state provides.Final judgment.

Quality of Evaluation Excellent. The evaluation is sustained throughout. You analyzed 2-3 key points (Economy/Taxes and Law/Community). You didn't just state the arguments; you weighed them (e.g., "Vance's approach is reactive... whereas O'Connell's is proactive").

Strengths

Clear, sustained line of reasoning.
Integrated quotes.
Nuanced rejection of the counter-argument.

Targets

Maintain this high standard by using more precise vocabulary (e.g., "fiscal responsibility").

Candidate 91708

Word Count: 147 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

I agree with Liam O'Conell due to his opinion on repairing a gap between the poor and rich in order to have a fair and democratic Society in order to give in order to bring those who work just as hard with minimum wage to climb the ranks and earn respect and for those who chose to be lazy to stay at the bottom on the other hand eleanor vance says "the most effective way to create a prosperous and secure society is by trusting indivisuals to make there own decisions" which I disagree with due to the fact that some indivisuals may have mental health so cannot make their own choices which other indivisuals may not trust as everybody has a right to express there opinion causing an uncertain and deceptional Society

Quality of Evaluation Mixed. You have identified a strong logical flaw in Vance's argument: that not everyone is capable of making their own choices (e.g., due to mental health). However, your explanation of this became confused ("deceptional society"). Additionally, your earlier point about "lazy people staying at the bottom" contradicts O'Connell, who wants to help everyone.

Improved Evaluation:
"I disagree with Vance because her argument assumes everyone is capable. In reality, vulnerable people (such as those with mental health issues) may struggle to make safe choices and therefore need the state protection that O'Connell suggests."

Strengths

Engagement: You clearly identify the opposing sides (Rich/Poor gap vs Individual Trust).
Original Thought: You attempted to use "mental health" to critique the concept of total liberty.

Targets

Sentence Structure: The first paragraph is one very long sentence. Break this into three shorter sentences for clarity.
Logic Check: Ensure your own reasons match the writer you are supporting.

Candidate 26817

Word Count: 178 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

Firstly, Eleanor Vance States that the most effective Way to create A Prospesterous And secure Society is to trust in Deviduals To make their own Choices. I Disagree with this Point Because theres no Way you could trust People when they could turn their back on you. Some of the Choices People Make Are Crimes which end them up in Jail. So Theres no way you trust people If the People kill Or Rob Stores. In Concluesion I Disagree with eleanor. But I also Agree with this stAtment She MADE. A Sucsesful saiety Also Repe on the Foundation on traditonal values. I agree because People have to be free. On the other hand, Liam O Connel says that the government has A fundemental responsability to provide for high qualty public services. I Agree because the Gover nent Should be abre to Provide Citisens with good quality Education, trans port And heAlth Care. So In Concluesion I Belive thAt Liam 'O' Connor was Right Because Everyone Deserve the heAlth Care they PAiD for.

Quality of Evaluation Mixed. You engage with the text and have a clear opinion. However, your evaluation of Vance jumps to extreme examples ("people kill") which weakens the argument. A better argument would look at general human mistakes, not just murder.

Improved Evaluation:
"I disagree with Vance's idea of trusting individuals completely. Human nature is unpredictable, and without government regulation (laws), people may make harmful choices. Therefore, total freedom is dangerous."

Strengths

Direct Disagreement: You aren't afraid to challenge the text (e.g., "theres no way you could trust people").
Coverage: You attempted to cover both writers and conclude.

Targets

Develop your Reasons: Instead of saying "I agree because [repeats point]", explain why. (e.g., "I agree because without free healthcare, the poor would suffer.")
Avoid Extremes: Jumping straight to "people kill" is a slippery slope argument. Try to find more common examples of why trust might fail.

Candidate 20967

Word Count: 68 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 3/10

The writer I agree with the most is Liam O'Connel as he states a successful society is one that prioritises the well-being of entire community. He believes it is right that those who have benefited most from our economy learn the highest earning should contribute a larger share. He also believes we build stronger communities through mutual respect support + the understanding that we are all in this together

Quality of Evaluation Minimal. You have identified the arguments you like, but you haven't explained why you like them. You have mostly copied the text from Source D. To get higher marks, you must add your own "because".

Improved Evaluation:
"I agree with O'Connell's view on mutual respect because a society that works together is stronger than one that fights alone. If we support each other, we reduce crime and poverty."

Strengths

Selection: You selected the correct key quotes from O'Connell regarding community and taxes.

Targets

Expand the Answer: This is very short (68 words). You need to analyze Vance's argument as well, even if you disagree with it.
Own Words: Don't just copy the text. Read it, then explain what it means in your own words.

Candidate 72916

Word Count: 165 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 8/10

The writer I agree with Most is Liam O'Conell Liam O'Connell. This is because I agree with Majrity of his statements e.g. Social responsibility and a progressive tax system as the tax system is what keeps UK healthcare (the NHS) free. This means that people who wouldn't have the money or are in a position where income is low can go and get treated for free. On the other hand, some might argue that this system isn't good as the tax amount another person who is struggling is paying is also letting people stay unemployed because the unemployed still get free health care without paying any tax. A weakness of this Some might say a strength of Eleanor Vance's argument is the individual Liberty (personal responsibility and freedom) to its fullest. However, some may disagree as not all parents are good parents so if theres no interference, parents can do whatever like not send their kid to school which is not a safe and moral way to raise a child.

Quality of Evaluation Strong (8/10). This is high-quality thinking. You didn't just disagree with Vance; you found a logical flaw in her argument. You correctly identified that "Individual Liberty" fails when people (like bad parents) act irresponsibly, and you used that to prove why State Interference is necessary.

Improved Evaluation:
"Your logic is excellent (8/10). To push this to a perfect 10, simply make your vocabulary more formal. Instead of 'parents can do whatever', try: 'Vance assumes all parents are responsible. However, without state interference, vulnerable children may be neglected, proving that total liberty is unsafe.'"

Strengths

Testing Assumptions: You attacked the assumption behind Vance's argument (that people will always do the right thing).
Real World Application: Connecting "Public Services" to the "NHS" shows good understanding.
Balance: You were willing to admit that O'Connell's system might encourage unemployment, which makes your argument more trustworthy.

Targets

Vocabulary: Your thinking is sophisticated, but your phrasing is sometimes informal ("do whatever like not send their kid"). Use terms like "safeguarding" or "negligence".

Candidate 10629

Word Count: 142 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

Personally, I tend to agree with Liam O'connell due to the certain benefits. For example, In the Labour Party (which is a left winged Party) provides free health care for everyone mainly because because Some people are less fortunate than others so if free healthcare Was no longer In the country, those people Would Struggle with sicknesses. Another benefit of the labour Party is services like universal Credit. Universal Credit helps those in need by using part of the tax Paid and distributes it amongst those people. (The labour Party/Slightly left wing charges high tax). On the other hand, Eleanor Vance (Conservative) the Conservatives (here represented by Eleanor Vance) believes that Society Should be able to trust individuals to make their own Choices. They encorage Smaller businesses to compete against grander. The Conservative Party believes in low taxes which is per se is looking to Save money. Another benefit is that it has a stable Society ensuring Success.

Quality of Evaluation Good context, less analysis. You clearly understand the real-world politics (Labour vs Conservative, Universal Credit). This is great knowledge. However, the task requires you to evaluate the arguments in the text. You spent a lot of time describing the parties rather than critiquing Vance's logic.

Improved Evaluation:
"Instead of just saying 'Labour provides Universal Credit', link it to the text: 'O'Connell argues for social responsibility. This is convincing because, as seen with systems like Universal Credit, government distribution is the only way to ensure the poor survive.'"

Strengths

Contextual Knowledge: You have a strong understanding of the political spectrum (Left/Right, Labour/Conservative).
Consequences: You correctly identified that without O'Connell's system, the poor would "struggle with sicknesses".

Targets

Focus on the Source: Don't forget to analyze Source D directly. You need to say why Vance's argument about "trusting individuals" might be wrong, not just that she is a Conservative.

Candidate 61089

Word Count: 198 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 3/10

I agree with Liam O'Connell because it is more fair if you contribute a larger share and earn the highese incomes so your not using your mony on your healthcare and education because that shoud be all for free and our shared rights and responsibility's shoud be more focesed on so we could build strong comunnitie's so every one has respect for one and another. The strength Of this argument is tha we could biuid a good large community if we treat everyone correctly with respec and everyone is working and paying the right amount of fair money. One of the weakness of this Argument is people are abie to access things regardless of their income; the reason why I said this is because not everyone should earn anything if their not working for it or atleast trying. I also disagree because in this argement most of their economy and earn the highiest incomes shoud contribue a larger share which is not equcu or fair. In my opinion I think everyone shoud pay the same amount since people work hours to earn all this while people barely worked hard just to pay a little less.

Quality of Evaluation Contradictory (3/10). You started by agreeing with O'Connell (Progressive Tax), but by the end, you argued for Vance's view (Flat Tax/Hard work), saying that O'Connell's system is "not fair". You cannot hold both views at the same time without explaining why.

Improved Evaluation:
"While O'Connell's idea of free healthcare is good, his tax system might be seen as unfair. As Vance argues, people who work hard should keep their money. However, on balance, I think the need for healthcare is more important than low taxes."

Strengths

Engagement: You clearly have strong feelings about fairness and hard work.
Counter-Argument: You attempted to look at the downsides of the tax system (people barely working hard paying less).

Targets

Consistency: You switched sides halfway through. If you agree with O'Connell, you have to accept that rich people pay more. If you think everyone should pay the same, you agree with Vance. Pick a side and stick to it.

Candidate 78962

Word Count: 235 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

I tend to agree with labour (Left wing) Since they have a lot of good takes like in the passage it says the government has a Fundamental responsibility to provide high-quality public Services and I agree with that since heath care Should be high quality and education and it Should be accessible to everyone but what I disagree with a little bit is that people who earn a lot of money by working hard have to pay more in taxes but I say it is a little bit fair I disagree with conservate (right wing) Since they don't do a lot in the text it says the governments Primary role Should be to get out the way and I disagree with that Since we need the government for basically everything For example Laws What I agree with though is that they like to Keep taxes low but if it was Some Public Services wouldn't be free and acessible for everyone for example education, schools hospitals another statemen I disagree with is The government Job is not to run Services I disagree with that because if the government never run it it would most likely not be acessible to everyone So in my personal belief I agree with Labour (Left wing) more Since they are more equal and fair

Quality of Evaluation Good (7/10). You demonstrate a clear chain of reasoning: 1) You look at an argument (Low Taxes), 2) You look at the consequence (No free schools), 3) You reject the argument. This is exactly what is required.

Improved Evaluation:
"To get to the next level, express your rebuttal more formally. Instead of 'I disagree since we need government for everything', try: 'Vance's argument for a smaller state is impractical. The government is essential not just for services, but for maintaining laws and safety, which Vance herself admits is necessary.'"

Strengths

Consequences: You are very good at identifying what would happen if we followed Vance's advice (e.g., "Schools/Hospitals wouldn't be free").
Nuance: You admitted that taxing the rich is hard ("working hard") but concluded it is necessary.

Targets

Vocabulary: Use the terminology from the text. Instead of "good takes", use "valid arguments". Instead of "get out the way", use "minimal interference".

Candidate 97128

Word Count: 215 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I agree with Liam O'Conell however Eleanor Vance has good points. For an example Liam O'Conell says that an entire community prioritising their well-being is a successful Society which is agreeable because everyone in a community should be okay. Another point that he has made is that he said that people who make more money should contribute more. This is good but has some weak points. A positive is that if people with higher wages contributed more, the state would have more money. A weak point is that people with higher wages lose money. I disagree with Eleanor Vance, however she has good points. For an example she said the most effective way to create a good society is for people to make their own choices. This is strong because it gives people freedom and if people don't want to make the right choice, that is there fault. However the downside to her point is that not everyone is going to be good with choice making. A point I disagree with is that she said essential services are best delivered by private businesses in a competitive marketing Competition which isn't the best because it may be More expensive due to higher quality.

Quality of Evaluation Competent (6/10). You have a good structure: Point -> Strength -> Weakness. Your critique of Vance is the strongest part: identifying that "not everyone is good with choice making" is a really clever point about human nature.

Improved Evaluation:
"Expand on your point about 'choice making'. Why is that a problem? 'Vance assumes everyone can make smart choices. However, vulnerable people might not be able to choose wisely, meaning Vance's system leaves them unprotected.'"

Strengths

Structure: You systematically look at both sides (Agree/Disagree) which keeps your answer balanced.
Critical Thinking: The point about people making bad choices proves Vance's argument has a flaw.

Targets

Depth of Analysis: Your analysis of taxes ("people lose money") is a bit obvious. Try to think about the impact of that (e.g., "High taxes might stop people wanting to work hard").

Candidate 91826

Word Count: 168 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I agree more with Eleanor Vance as people should be given more individual liberty and freedom to do what they want. One reason I agree with Eleanor is that she proposes a low tax system. I agree with this because it allows for more financial freedom for people which they can use to create businesses that can flourish and benefit society. This view aligns with the right-wing Conservatives who advocate for low taxes, private businesses and individual liberty. On the other hand, some people may agree with Liam O'Connel as she argues for social responsibility. One reason they might agree with her is that she advocates for a strong equal community. This would be achieved by a progressive tax system which means the more you earn, the more tax you pay. It allows the redistribution of resources which reduces the gap between the rich and the poor. This aligns with the views of the left-wing Labour party who propose a high tax system and public services which benefit everyone especially the working class.

Quality of Evaluation Descriptive (5/10). You explain the arguments very clearly (Low taxes create businesses; High taxes redistribute wealth). However, you haven't really evaluated them. You just stated that you agree with one and described the other. To get higher marks, you need to say why Vance's view is better than O'Connell's.

Improved Evaluation:
"You explained that low taxes help businesses. Now compare: 'While O'Connell argues for redistribution, I believe Vance's approach is better because redistribution just moves money around, whereas Vance's low-tax approach creates new wealth by helping businesses grow.'"

Strengths

Clarity: Your explanation of how low taxes help society (by allowing business creation) is very clear and logical.
Key Terms: Good use of "financial freedom", "redistribution", and "progressive tax".

Targets

Comparative Judgment: Don't just list the two views. You need to attack the one you disagree with. Why is O'Connell wrong?

Candidate 90128

Word Count: 285 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 9/10

I partially agree with Liam O'connells Leftwing views that Social responsibility and a larger state is better for the communitee and society However Eleanor vances right wing views of Liberty and a smaller state are good as well On the one hand Eleanor vance's beliefs that individual liberty and smaller state can be seerned as good as giving more power and authority to the citizen sounds good but there are many issues tawards this as she say's the most effective way to create a props a prosperous society is to trust individuals to make their own decisions which is quite weak as some people may lack the capability to have all that authority (like parents) and may be mentally inadequate to do so, so this is were hudge saftey nets like the government can help support and protect the volorable helping build up society for the better bring Unity. On the other hand O'conlis beliefs in more social responsibility and larger state which can be good as people have a big saftey net like the government to support them those indeed as he believes that a truly succesfull society is one that prioritises the well-being of the whole community which not only brings fairness and unity but belongingness were more people are willing to be envolved in the conversation helping out in the communitee, work and stimulate economical activity showing how good of a point his argument are. Overall although both vance and o'connel have strong points there are still some disadvantages and improvements to both of these views as with Vance's views that essential services are best delivered by private buisnesses operating in competative markets, this is a big capitalistic view with some improvements as corparations if greedy can increases the price of medicines and goods which may strain people and if the government had control of the ces services they could cap prices, But O'coneils view about the full wellbeing of the Community also has some set backs as it can cause a narsy State were there is Lazyness and small economic growth.

Quality of Evaluation Outstanding (9/10). This is a really clever answer. You criticize both sides effectively: 1. You criticize Vance because not everyone is capable (e.g. mental health issues) of being free. 2. You criticize Private Business because greedy companies might raise prices of medicine. 3. You criticize O'Connell because relying on the state might make people lazy.

Improved Evaluation:
"To get full marks (10/10), just tidy up the spelling. Instead of 'narsy state', use 'nanny state' or 'dependency'. Instead of 'mentally inadequate', say 'vulnerable people who need help'."

Strengths

Critical Depth: You look beneath the surface. You don't just see "Freedom", you see the risk to vulnerable people.
Balanced View: You recognize that both Capitalist greed and Socialist dependency are risks. This shows very good political understanding.

Targets

Proofreading: Your ideas are excellent, but your spelling ("seerned", "volorable", "narsy") needs attention to make sure your argument is read clearly.

Candidate 16079

Word Count: 210 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

I agree more with Liam O'connell because the Labour partys views and actions are more morally exeptable in my eyes but I do think Eleanor Vance makes some good points I personally would not agree with them. One statement I agree with from Liam O'connell is when he says, 'A truly successful society is one that prioritises the well-being of the entire community not not just the individual'. I think this is a good point because its basically saying that a successsull socilty is one that acts like a community and I agree with that because looking after each other makes a socilty stronger and less selfish and corrupt. Another good point from liams o'connell was 'The Government has a sundemental responsibillity to provide higher quality public sevices such as health care and education regardless of there income' I agree with this statement becuase the goverments job is to protect and look after the citizense that voted for them and else she does that distrat with out those people loose all there money try just to get the nessecities like health care and education i also think this point is morally exeptable. On the other hand I do belive Eleanor Vance made a good point when she said, 'competition drives innovation improves quality and ensures essency in a way state run monopolies could never.' Now I parshaly are agree with this statement because competition does make people work or want to work harder but it also makes people greedy selfish and isolated just instead of being in a community meaning education and healthcare would be expensive and prioritise resoltes and money over helping people so that it's the same for other bussiness and healthcare

Quality of Evaluation Good (7/10). You have a strong moral argument. Your evaluation of Vance is particularly good: you admit that competition does make people work harder (which is true), but you argue that the cost (greed/isolation) is too high. This is a balanced argument.

Improved Evaluation:
"You argue that competition makes people 'greedy'. To make this stronger, link it to the services: 'While competition is good for business, it is dangerous for healthcare, because hospitals might care more about profit than saving lives.'"

Strengths

Moral Focus: You focus on the values of society (selfishness vs community) rather than just money.
Balance: You accepted Vance's point about motivation/hard work before criticizing it.

Targets

Spelling: "Exeptable" (Acceptable), "Loose" (Lose), "Parshaly" (Partially). Correct spelling makes your argument look more professional.

Candidate 98607

Word Count: 185 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

Both Arguments have their Negatives and posativies however I tend to agree with Liam O'connell. one strength in argument two is that it states that the the goverment has a fundemental responsabitity to provide for services for example Healthcare and pulic transport. This shows how people will pay taxes and will gain something out. Argument two genral has Left wing veiws through out. One weakness with this argument may be how they believ that a sussessful society prioratices well-being. This is a weakness as not everyon has similar belifes and veiw's. Another strength with argument two is that a collective amant of investments must be shared Rhights and Responsiblity. as this shows how if we all put the effert in we all get something out of it. One weakness of Argument one is that they belive the goverment should not be responsible for people responsibilaties is a weakness as some parents may be unable to care eg for them or fnacialy not stuble. Argument two genrally has right wing veiws. One Strength of Argument one is that thy belive that competition drives innovation is a strength as if there is no competion thun buisness will not be at it's best standards howiver competion in some areas are not good for example tranport.

Quality of Evaluation Competent (6/10). You have a clear structure (Strengths and Weaknesses for both). Your point about "Transport" is excellent—competition often doesn't work well for buses and trains. However, your critique of O'Connell ("not everyone has similar beliefs") is weak because it doesn't explain why that is a problem.

Improved Evaluation:
"Instead of saying 'people have different beliefs', try: 'A weakness of O'Connell's community focus is that it ignores individual ambition. Some people want to work for themselves, and O'Connell's high taxes might discourage them.'"

Strengths

Specific Example: Identifying "transport" as an area where competition fails is a great real-world example.
Logical Flaw identified: You correctly noted that not all parents are "financially stable" enough to take responsibility, proving Vance wrong.

Targets

Deepen the Analysis: Don't just list a weakness; explain the consequence. Why is bad transport a problem? (It's expensive and inefficient).

Candidate 82790

Word Count: 255 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 8/10

I personally agree with Liam O'Connel a bit more than Eleanor Vance as they both have points I agree with but overall I just think Liam's argument is better. In the passage they can both be considered as polar opposites. Eleanor believes more Individuality is better while Liam argues for Social responsibility. On one hand, Vance belives individual liberty and smaller state can seen good as giving more power and authority to citizens but there are some issues with what she says. I say this because she states 'The most effective way to create a prosperous and secure society is to trust individuals to make their own choices' which is a weak statement as some people may have issues that they can't control or cannot be trusted, remember that not all parents should take care of a child or have one. So the govermnt may have to step in to help support all of us as a whole, not just one. On the other hand Liam is more of a social reponsibility person and believes in a larger state. This can be a good thing as people have the Goverment and the state to support those in need as he believes that a good society is one that prioritizes everyone and their wellbeing, basically wanting everyone to be treated equal, this makes people feel more belonged and involved within the community through sevices and jobs stimulating the local economy showing how strong his point is/how many disadvanteges this idea brings this is why I agree with him. He does state though that 'Those who have the highest income shall pay the most tax' I disagree a bit (someone could argue that whats the point of working hard if most of it will be seized). Another argument is that freeloaders could abuse this system that has been given to them and live in a world where they live off benefits from the State yet they never contribute to the State.

Quality of Evaluation Strong (8/10). This is a very thoughtful answer. You look at the flaws in human nature on both sides: 1. Vance is wrong because some people (bad parents) can't be trusted. 2. O'Connell is wrong because some people (freeloaders) will abuse the system. This shows you are really thinking about how these ideas work in real life.

Improved Evaluation:
"Your point about 'freeloaders' is good but a bit informal. Try: 'A risk of O'Connell's system is dependency. If benefits are too generous, some people might choose not to work, which costs the taxpayer money.'"

Strengths

Balanced Criticism: You criticized both writers effectively.
Incentives: You understood the economic argument that high taxes might stop people working hard ("what's the point?").

Targets

Vocabulary: "Seized" is a very strong word! Use "taxed". Avoid "freeloaders" - use "people taking advantage of the system".

Candidate 67891

Word Count: 185 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

Instinctively, I would agree with Liam O'Connell as his idea of social responsibility is good for society cohesion within society. One strength of his arguement is where he says 'A truly successful government is one that priorities the wellbeing of the entire community'. This appeals to immigrants or people living in low class residentials because it ensures their wellbeing is valued and gives them a chance to be welcome within society. However, I can partially agree with Eleanor Vance, as her idea of Independante Companies is good for the economy. Growth within the economy. One strength is where she states that 'Competition drives innovation'. This appeals to me as competition between companies motivates them to want to make their products companies worth more, therefore bettering the economy. However one weakness is where she states 'trust individuals to make their own choices' which could potentially lead to problems within buisnesses, like unethical sales methods ect.

Quality of Evaluation Good (7/10). You use specific examples to back up your points. Mentioning "unethical sales methods" as a risk of Vance's ideas is a very smart point. You also correctly identify that O'Connell's system helps the most vulnerable people (immigrants/low income).

Improved Evaluation:
"Expand on the 'immigrant/low class' point. 'O'Connell's model is better for fairness. Without free education and health, immigrants and low-income families would be trapped in poverty and their potential would be wasted.'"

Strengths

Specific Examples: You didn't just talk in abstract terms; you mentioned "unethical sales" and "immigrants".
Economic Logic: You explained why competition works (motivates companies to improve products).

Targets

Depth: Why specifically "immigrants"? Connect this to the idea of a "safety net" or "equal opportunity" to make the point stronger.

Candidate 28691

Word Count: 160 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

The strength of E.Vs argument is that the consumer gets to choose which buisness to go to. A flaw in this argument is that you can't trust every single individual to do the right thing, if you say to a drug addict to stop doing drugs, maybe 5 out of 10 times will it actually happen. The argument is plausible as a result of E.V mentioning about how the government shouldn't interfere with the people. A strength of L.Cs argument is that the government has a responsibility to help the people. For example, indirectly helping by having high quality Services (public) Such as healthcare and education. This arguments major Strength is Suggesting that people with more money Should pay higher taxes, and people who are less wealthy should pay less taxes. This is to make an equal Society, further making communities Stronger. I believe that Liam O'connells argument is on the labour side (Left wing) and Eleanor Vances side on the Conservativel side (right wing)

Quality of Evaluation Mixed (5/10). The "drug addict" analogy is a bit rough, but the logic behind it is sound: humans don't always make safe choices, so total freedom can be dangerous. This is a valid criticism of Vance. However, the rest of the answer is quite descriptive.

Improved Evaluation:
"Your point about addiction is actually a critique of 'Rational Choice'. Phrase it like this: 'Vance assumes people always make smart choices. However, in cases of addiction, people cannot choose wisely, meaning the government needs to step in to save lives.'"

Strengths

Analogy: Using the example of addiction effectively proves that "trusting individuals" doesn't always work.
Context: You correctly identified the political wings (Left/Right).

Targets

Elaboration: You listed a strength for O'Connell (equality) but didn't explain why it is a strength. Does it reduce crime? Does it improve health?

Candidate 71689

Word Count: 62 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 2/10

I believe that Liam O'Connell is the most correct this is because they believe in a society where ppl are treated fairly no matter the income, Eleanor Vance and the other hand talks about people needing to make their own choices and that the governments role should be less significant. I disagree with eleanor because the government 'keeping taxes low' and 'allowing ppl to keep money' sounds like

Quality of Evaluation Incomplete (2/10). You started to make a point about why low taxes "sound like" something negative, but you stopped writing. You have identified the views, but you haven't actually evaluated them because the sentence isn't finished.

Improved Evaluation:
"Finish your thought: '...sounds like greed. By keeping taxes low, the rich get richer while the poor suffer from a lack of services. Therefore, Vance's model creates inequality.'"

Strengths

Identification: You correctly identified that Vance wants a "less significant" government role.

Targets

Completion: You must finish the exam paper. This response is too short to gain many marks.
Elaboration: Explain why fairness is important.

Candidate 19726

Word Count: 145 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I tend to agree with Liam O'Conell because she says she says a Truly successful Society is one that prioritises the well-being of the entire community not just the individual she also backs this up with the qoute that the government provides high-quality public services such as healthcare and education that are accesibly to everyone regardless of their income. A flaw in this argument is that taxes goes toward the payment to fund these facilities so peoples income play a role in the government providing these services. Another reason I agree with Liam O'Conell is is his ability to understand communities are made through mutual respect and support. One of the weaknesses of this argument is some people are discriminative and wouldn't want to help unite the Country.

Quality of Evaluation Good (6/10). You have done something clever here: you critiqued the writer you agreed with. You pointed out that O'Connell's "mutual respect" might fail because "some people are discriminative". This shows you are thinking about the real-world problems with the text.

Improved Evaluation:
"Expand on the discrimination point: 'O'Connell relies on "mutual respect", but this is hopeful thinking. In reality, discrimination and racism might stop the community coming together, meaning the government needs to enforce equality laws, not just hope for respect.'"

Strengths

Realism: You recognized that "community support" doesn't always work if people are prejudiced.
Economic Reality: You acknowledged that public services cost money (taxes), showing you understand nothing is truly "free".

Targets

Address the Counter-View: You focused heavily on O'Connell. To get higher marks, you need to explicitly explain why Vance is wrong.

Candidate 86120

Word Count: 230 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 8/10

I mostly agree with Liam O'Connell as his argument is mostly about Social Responsibility and equal opportunities. This is because equal chances gives others the chance to shine as they could work hard for the future they like regardless of their current status. Social responsibility also promotes values such as mutual respect and even tolerance. By prioritising the community's well-being as a whole no one feels left out. On the other hand, Eleanor Vance argues for Individual Liberty. Although this has it's perks, there are a majority of disadvantages. For example, children might be born into an irresponsible household which could affect their future and well-being. Others might not have equal opportunities and could be rejected a chance to change their life. Eleanor Vance argues for private businesses but in the case of schooling, if there are competition for better services there could be an imbalance and a case where smarter students are all in one place whilst weaker ones are in others. Her argument is also that through Individual Liberty, we can have stronger traditional values which I totally agree with as it promotes a more peaceful community. In conclusion, I agree with Liam O'Connell as it is an argument for equal opportunities, and the state making sure the country's wealth is used to create a more balanced society where the difference between the rich and poor is small.

Quality of Evaluation Strong (8/10). Your critique of market-based education is excellent. You correctly identified that competition in schools leads to segregation ("smarter students in one place"), which is unfair. This is a very strong evaluative point.

Improved Evaluation:
"You mention 'irresponsible households'. Use the term 'Social Mobility'. 'Vance's model ignores the luck of birth. Without state help, a child born into poverty cannot exercise "individual liberty", trapping them in a hard life through no fault of their own.'"

Strengths

Market Failure: You identified that the free market doesn't work well for schools (segregation).
Nuance: You agreed with Vance on "Traditional Values" despite disagreeing with her economics. This shows balanced thinking.

Targets

Linkage: Connect your point about schools back to O'Connell. "This is why O'Connell's insistence on universal education is necessary."

Candidate 67892

Word Count: 195 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

I agree more with Liam O'Connell left winged view for social responsibility and a larger state. Source B is credible because they think its a responsibility of the government to provide high quality public services. This is essential as not everyone has the opportunity to pay for their own healthcare. A flaw in source B's argument is that 'where the citizen has the opportunity to succeed'. If people just have an opportunity laying there for the majority of their life they won't appreciate it and would de valuerise in what society they live in, where everyone has a chance and ultimately won't take it. I disagree with Eleanor Vance mainly but she has some really strong points i.e 'there are clear consequences for criminal behaviour' this is essential as if you have no clear boundries people won't respect them and will lead into chaos. Mainly her argument is flawed though as she says secure societies is to trust individuals to make their own choices' as just because you can have children it doesn't automatically make you a good parent, and those children have rights too aswell.

Quality of Evaluation Good (7/10). You have a very interesting argument about "devaluing" opportunities. The idea that free things might make people lazy or complacent is a smart critique of the Welfare State. Your point about parenting is also strong.

Improved Evaluation:
"Refine your 'devaluing' point: 'However, a risk of O'Connell's state provision is dependency. If opportunities are always provided by the state, citizens may lack the drive to achieve for themselves, whereas Vance's model encourages ambition.'"

Strengths

Original Thought: You didn't just repeat the text; you brought in a new idea (complacency/taking things for granted).
Testing Assumptions: You attacked the assumption that all parents are good parents.

Targets

Clarity: "de valuerise" is not a word. Use "take for granted" or "not value".

Candidate 67012

Word Count: 215 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I agree with Liam O'Connell, as he He believes that then the government should prioritise the well-being of everyone and not only Specific individuals. They He also believes that people who earn higher incomes Should contribute hvg a larger share of tax. This is to damage the gap between the rich and poor. This link s more to a left wing (Labour) government as it has similar ideas and believes the same things. This text also helps people who are less benefited. They mostly believe per services Should be provided by the goverment. They would also want rights for workers and build Stronger Communities. However, some may agree with the first if they follow a right wing goverment. This is seen when Eleanor vance says a Secure society is built by trusting individuals to make their own choices. They think by upholding the law and ensuring their is clear consequences for wrong doings. She thinks the goverment Should do less and people should pay less tax. This could also be bad as Some people can't be trusted to make the right desicions and could make the Society unfair and not safe for many. This also gives more advantage for the rich as if everyone pays the same tax, their will be a massive gap in how much money people have in the end.

Quality of Evaluation Competent (6/10). You have correctly identified the main economic difference: Progressive Tax (O'Connell) vs Low Tax (Vance). Your point that a flat/low tax leaves a "massive gap" in money is factually correct and a good explanation of why Vance's model creates inequality.

Improved Evaluation:
"Your point about tax is good. To improve it, explain the consequence: 'Vance's low-tax model benefits the wealthy who can afford private services, but leaves the poor with more money that is useless because they cannot afford the expensive private healthcare they now need.'"

Strengths

Economic Understanding: You understand that "paying the same tax" actually advantages the rich relative to their income.
Consequences: You identified that lack of government rules makes society "not safe".

Targets

Vocabulary: "Damage the gap" -> "Reduce the gap". "Desicions" -> "Decisions".

Candidate 79180

Word Count: 215 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

I tend to agree with Liam O'Connell argument because it has a strong left-wing view and makes good points about services and community. However, Eleanor Vance does make some good points. One reason why I tend to agree with Liam O'Connell is because he states that a successful society is one that benefits the community and not just an individual. This is vital because the UK is becoming an ageing population, so there are more older people who aren't self-reliant. This means that more responsibilities can make sure nobody in society has a disadvantage. However, this could cause a problem because not everybody has free time and a lot of people either struggle to take care or are stuck taking care of somebody else. On the other other hand, a good point that Eleanor makes with her right-wing view. One point is that the economy should respect the freedom of its citizens. This means taxes are lowered and services are cheaper, leaving the customer with more spending money in a system where the government doesn't run services. However, this could also cause a problem because some money has a chance of being used for illegal activity, or that some people don't know how to use it. This leaves the economy in a negative position and a neutral argument between a left-wing manifesto and a right-wing manifesto.

Quality of Evaluation Good (7/10). Bringing in the "Ageing Population" is excellent context—it proves why O'Connell's safety net is necessary in modern Britain. Your point about "illegal activity" is valid (less rules often leads to crime), though it could be explained more clearly.

Improved Evaluation:
"Refine the 'illegal activity' point: 'Vance argues for minimal interference. However, without government rules, money can be used unethically. A completely free market lacks the checks and balances needed to prevent fraud.'"

Strengths

Context: Using the "Ageing Population" demonstrates you understand the real-world pressures on the UK (AO2).
Balance: You identified that even O'Connell's community care model has flaws ("not everyone has free time").

Targets

Clarity: The point about "some money being used for illegal activity" is a bit vague. Be more specific: talk about tax evasion or funding crime.

Candidate 76921

Word Count: 135 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

I tend to agree with Liam O'Connell as his points are more left wing, as he says 'a truly successful society is one that prioritises the well-being of the entire community'. This means that he is saying to have a good society, everyone must look after one another. On the other hand, Eleanor Vance says that everyone has to look after themselves and to trust them, thats what would make an effective society, so Eleanor Vance is presented as more right wing as most conservatives believed to let individuals make their own choices. In conclution to what I have said, I mostly agree with Liam O'Connell as his opinions are more on the left wing side which I would make an assumption that he represents the labour party.

Quality of Evaluation Descriptive (4/10). You clearly understand the political spectrum (Left/Labour vs Right/Conservative). However, you have mostly described the differences ("Look after one another" vs "Look after themselves"). To get higher marks, you need to say why looking after one another is better.

Improved Evaluation:
"Instead of just saying 'O'Connell is Left Wing', say: 'I agree with O'Connell because a society where we look after one another is more stable. If everyone just looks after themselves (as Vance suggests), the vulnerable are left behind, leading to poverty.'"

Strengths

Definition: You correctly simplified the arguments to "Community" vs "Self".
Political Knowledge: You correctly identified the party alignments.

Targets

Justification: Don't just agree with O'Connell because he is Labour. Agree with him because his arguments are better. Explain why.

Candidate 60982

Word Count: 245 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I agree with Liam O'Connell because I believe that it is right the government has responsibility to provide high quality public Services such as healthcare and edication and that people should not be allowed to make their own decisions because if they did then imagine what could happen. Laws would probobly be broken and people would do whatever they want and that would make the place a democratic society. But one thing I don't agree with is is that it is right that those who have benefitted the most from our economy and earn the highest incomes should contribut a larger share because other people could just live off that and not work or even try find a job becosse they are getting money from doing nothing. On the other hand I could also agree with Eleanor Vance becouse I believe that taxes should be kept low allowing people to keep their own money to spend because if your paying taxes to save the homeless then people that are homeless would just live off that money maybe increasing the amoun of homeless people and that the law should be firm and ensuring consequences for criminals to make it a safer place but one thing I don't agree with is that essentials services are best delivered by private systems because if they are then it would turn into a competition making it worse for society.

Quality of Evaluation Logic Chain (6/10). You have a strong "Law and Order" argument: that total freedom leads to chaos ("Laws would probably be broken"). This is a valid critique of Vance. You also consistently worry about people "doing nothing" and living off others' money, which is a valid economic critique, though phrased a bit informally.

Improved Evaluation:
"Your point about 'doing nothing' is the idea of 'Disincentive to work'. Use formal language: 'A flaw in O'Connell's high-tax system is that it may discourage work. If benefits are too generous, some may choose not to work, which damages the economy.'"

Strengths

Logical Consequence: You argued that "making own decisions" -> "laws broken". This is a good logical chain.
Consistent Argument: You consistently argued against "people doing nothing", applying this critique to both writers.

Targets

Terminology: "Make the place a democratic society" - I think you meant "chaotic" or "anarchic" society. Democracy is usually seen as a good thing!

Candidate 28176

Word Count: 190 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 8/10

Eleanor Vances gives a good statement 'The Most effective way to Create a prosperous and Secure Society is to trust individuals to Make their own Choices'. In Some aspects of life this Could Make Sense, a 30-year-old Man who is Mature Can Make Choises for himself. On the overhand people take advantage of the system if they are given to Much free fo fe feingn freedom. Many people would agree with Eleanors laid back idea of lower tax paid per head but this Cause Cause issues and free Government Funded Services eg. Such as the NHS would have low funding and fail. Liam O'Comels points of a 'fair and Progresive tax System' has both its negative and Possitive results. He also States that 'it is only Right that those who have benefitted Most from our economy and earn the highest incomes Should Contribute a larger Share'. This is a good point as it allows people to Pay the tax that they Can afford. He also Makes a point of Redistributing reasources' this is a good point because it keeps money flowing and Keeps the economy Strong. Taking both Sides of the arguement

Quality of Evaluation Strong (8/10). The distinction you made—that a "30-year-old mature man" can handle freedom, but others might take advantage—is excellent. It shows you understand that Vance's theory works for some but not all. This is exactly what "Evaluation" means. You also correctly linked Low Tax to NHS failure.

Improved Evaluation:
"You mentioned 'money flowing'. To hit the top marks, use this logic: 'Redistribution keeps money flowing through the economy, whereas Vance's model might allow wealth to stay stuck in the bank accounts of the rich.'"

Strengths

Nuance: You didn't just accept "Freedom" as good or bad. You analyzed who it is good for (mature adults).
Real World Link: You clearly linked tax cuts to the failure of the NHS.

Targets

Spelling/Grammar: Capitalization is random ("Mature Can Make Choises"). Try to keep sentences cleaner.

Extended Writing Feedback

Overall Class Weaknesses

Teacher Next Steps

Model Answer (Exemplar)

Candidate 91708

Candidate 26817

Candidate 20967

Candidate 72916

Candidate 10629

Candidate 61089

Candidate 78962

Candidate 97128

Candidate 91826

Candidate 90128

Candidate 16079

Candidate 98607

Candidate 82790

Candidate 67891

Candidate 28691

Candidate 71689

Candidate 19726

Candidate 86120

Candidate 67892

Candidate 67012

Candidate 79180

Candidate 76921

Candidate 60982

Candidate 28176