Feedback focussing on Evaluation

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

1. Repetition instead of development: Many answers repeated the same point (e.g., "MPs are voted by the people") three or four times.
👉 Model: Make the point once, then explain why it matters (e.g., "This matters because if they ignore the people, they will lose their seat").
2. Description, not evaluation: Simply stating "Jenkins argues X" is not enough. You must judge the argument.
👉 Model: "Jenkins argues X, but I disagree because specific local needs are more important than general party promises."
3. One-sided analysis: Several students ignored one writer completely (usually Jenkins).
👉 Model: "While I agree with Harris, Jenkins makes a valid point about government stability which cannot be ignored..."
4. Incomplete sentences: Thoughts often trailed off (e.g., "Because the government...").
👉 Model: Always check your sentence has a subject and a verb. Read it aloud to check it makes sense.
5. No direct quotation: Arguments were described vaguely without using the source text.
👉 Model: Embed short quotes: Harris argues MPs should be a "champion of their local area".
6. Missing conclusions: Answers ended abruptly mid-flow.
👉 Model: Always end with: "Overall, I agree more with [Name] because [Main Reason]."
7. Significantly under-length: Many answers were 150 words or less.
👉 Target: Aim for 320+ words by analysing 2–3 different points for each writer.
8. No own knowledge: Most answers relied 100% on the text provided.
👉 Model: Bring in outside facts, e.g., "This reminds me of the 2010 Coalition..." or "There is a long-standing idea in British politics that MPs should use their own judgement..."

Teacher Next Steps

PEEC Framework: Point, Evidence, Explain, Challenge.
Modelling: Show description vs evaluation side-by-side.
"Say It Once": Editing exercise to combat repetition.
Balanced Analysis: Practise evaluating the side you disagree with.
Own Knowledge: Introduce as an explicit criterion (with anonymised examples from the top scorers).
Timed Planning: 3–4 minute structured plan before writing.
Quote Integration: Mini-lesson.
Volume Check: Minimum word count checkpoint at halfway.

📄 Source D: Original Passages

These are the two passages you were given in the exam. The key arguments are highlighted so you can see the full range of points available to you. After the passages, there is a list of own knowledge ideas that could have strengthened your answer.

Sarah Jenkins argues for Loyalty to the Party

When voters elect an MP, they are primarily endorsing a political party and the manifesto it stands on. The MP is the vehicle for that party's national platform. Therefore, their first duty is to support their party in Parliament to deliver the promises made to the entire country during the election. To do otherwise would be to betray the trust of the millions who voted for that party's vision for the country.

Effective governance requires discipline and cohesion. A government cannot function if its MPs constantly break ranks to vote on narrow, local interests. For a government to pass its budget, reform public services, and manage the economy, it needs the reliable support of its MPs. An MP who prioritises their constituency over the party line contributes to weak government and political instability, which ultimately harms everyone.

Furthermore, political parties provide the essential support structure, research, and resources that allow an MP to work effectively. Acting as a lone wolf is rarely effective. By working as part of a united team, an MP has a far greater chance of influencing policy and achieving positive change, both locally and nationally. Loyalty to the party is not a betrayal of constituents; it is the most practical way to serve them.

Tom Harris argues for Loyalty to Constituents

An MP's first and most important duty is to the people who elected them in their local constituency. They are sent to Parliament to be the champion of their local area, to voice its specific concerns and to fight for its interests. This direct link between the representative and the represented is the cornerstone of our democracy. An MP learns about these local needs through surgeries and community engagement, not from party headquarters in London.

An MP must also be a person of integrity, free to vote according to their conscience and their judgement of what is best for their community. If they believe a party policy will harm their constituents – such as closing a local hospital – they have a moral obligation to oppose it. History is filled with brave independent-minded MPs who stood up to their party on matters of principle, and they are rightly celebrated for it.

Ultimately, MPs are accountable not to party leaders, but to the voters in their constituency at the ballot box. If an MP consistently ignores the wishes of local people in favour of the party line, they will, and should, be voted out. This accountability is the most powerful check on political power we have, and it only works if the MP's primary loyalty is to the people they serve.

💡 Own Knowledge You Could Have Used

These are things from outside the source that would have pushed your answer into the top marks. You didn't need to know all of these — even one or two would have made a difference.

The whip system: In Parliament, each party has "whips" — senior MPs whose job is to make sure their party's MPs vote the way the party wants. Sometimes this pressure is very strong. You could argue that this system already forces MPs to follow the party line, so they need the freedom to rebel when it really matters for their local area.
MPs who rebelled and were proved right: In 2003, many Labour MPs voted against their own party and the Prime Minister (Tony Blair) over the Iraq War. At the time they were criticised, but later many people agreed they were right. This shows that going against your party can sometimes be the braver and better choice.
Coalitions and minority governments: After the 2010 election, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a coalition government. This shows that even when a party doesn't have full control, government can still work — so Jenkins's argument that breaking ranks always causes "instability" doesn't always hold up.
Real local issues vs national policy: You could have used specific examples of local issues that clash with what the national party wants — like a hospital being closed, a school losing funding, a local bus route being cut, or a food bank being shut down. These show why an MP might need to put their constituency first.
The idea that MPs should use their own judgement: There is a long-standing idea in British politics that an MP is not just a messenger who does whatever voters or the party tell them. Instead, they are elected to use their own thinking and make decisions they believe are right — even if that means disagreeing with the party. You could argue this supports Harris's point about integrity and conscience.
Independent MPs: Some MPs leave their party (or are thrown out) and sit as independents. They can still represent their local area and vote freely, but they lose party resources and support. This is useful for evaluating Jenkins's argument that the party provides essential resources.
Government majority: A government needs more than half of MPs to vote with them to pass laws (this is called a "majority"). If too many MPs rebel, the government loses votes and can't get anything done. You could use this to support Jenkins — or to challenge her by pointing out that a few rebels don't always cause collapse.
Smaller vs larger parties: In a large party like the Conservatives or Labour, one MP rebelling is less noticeable. In a smaller party like the Green Party or Reform UK, every MP matters more, so there is more pressure to stay loyal. This adds nuance to the debate.

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 Tom Harris's argument that an MP's primary loyalty should be to their constituents, although Sarah Jenkins raises important points about the need for party discipline.Clear opening judgment that acknowledges both sides. Jenkins argues that voters are 'primarily endorsing a political party and the manifesto it stands on', making the MP a 'vehicle' for delivering national promises.Accurate identification of Jenkins's first point (manifesto mandate). There is some truth to this; governments do need a reliable majority to pass legislation such as the annual budget.Concession — acknowledges a valid element of Jenkins's argument. However, this view reduces MPs to lobby fodder. The whip system already pressures MPs to follow the party line, and when this goes too far it stifles genuine debate in Parliament.OWN KNOWLEDGE: introduces the concept of the whip system (not in the source text) to critically evaluate Jenkins. Jenkins's claim that breaking ranks leads to 'political instability' is overstated; minority governments and coalitions, such as the 2010 Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition, have still governed effectively.OWN KNOWLEDGE: uses a specific real-world example (2010 coalition) not in the source to challenge Jenkins's reasoning. Conversely, Harris argues that an MP's 'first and most important duty is to the people who elected them', acting as a 'champion of their local area'.Accurate identification of Harris's first point (local representation). I find this more convincing because there is a long-standing principle in British politics that an MP is not simply a messenger for their party — they are elected to use their own judgement and stand up for what they believe is right, even if the party disagrees.OWN KNOWLEDGE: references the idea that MPs should think independently, not just follow orders — a key principle of British democracy (not in the source text). Harris is right that an MP who learns about local needs through 'surgeries and community engagement' is better placed than party headquarters to judge what is best for an area.Strong agreement with Harris's second point (local knowledge). A party leader in Westminster cannot fully understand the impact of closing a local hospital or cutting a bus route; only the local MP can.OWN KNOWLEDGE: concrete example extending Harris's point about local issues conflicting with party policy. Jenkins also claims that 'acting as a lone wolf is rarely effective' and that the party provides essential resources.Addressing Jenkins's second point (party as support structure). Yet history shows otherwise. MPs who defied their party over the Iraq War in 2003 were later vindicated by public opinion, proving that principled rebellion can be more effective than blind loyalty.OWN KNOWLEDGE: uses the Iraq War rebellion as a specific historical example not in the source to refute Jenkins. As Harris argues, MPs are ultimately 'accountable not to party leaders, but to the voters', and this accountability is democracy's most powerful safeguard.Linking back to Harris's accountability argument. Ultimately, party unity matters, but it must never override an MP's duty to represent the people who put them in Parliament.Final balanced judgment — concedes Jenkins's point but firmly concludes in favour of Harris.

Quality of Evaluation Excellent. The evaluation is sustained throughout. The student analysed 2–3 key points from each writer (manifesto mandate, party discipline, local representation, accountability). Arguments were not merely stated but weighed against each other (e.g., "Jenkins's claim that breaking ranks leads to 'political instability' is overstated"). Crucially, own knowledge was used to strengthen analysis: the whip system, the 2010 coalition, the principle that MPs should use their own independent judgement, local service examples, and the Iraq War rebellion all go beyond the source text and demonstrate top-level understanding.

Strengths

Clear, sustained line of reasoning with a firm overall judgement.
Integrated quotes from both writers throughout.
Nuanced concession to the opposing side before rejecting it.
Own knowledge used five times to add depth beyond the source material.

Targets

Maintain this high standard by incorporating even more precise political vocabulary (e.g., "parliamentary sovereignty", "representative democracy").

Candidate 67012

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

Evaluation Score: 4/10

I agree with Tom Harris as his argument is mostly about staying loyal to the people and specifically and helping them at their interests. He thinks that constituents needs are more important as they noted for you and not your party. MP's are accountable to the voters in their constituency, if an MP doesn't support the interests of the people. Some people may agree with Sarah Jenkins as they believe that your political party is the most important thing and nothing else is above it. The MP's jobs would be to help the party put their party together and nothing else. The would have to support their party to fulfil their promises they'd put in their manifesto. If not it would make people think twice about putting this government in power. A party that puts the needs of the constituency above the party will make things harder and make people not want them in power anymore. In conclusion, I think Harris is correct as he thinks you should support your constituency which is your main priority in parliament.

Quality of Evaluation Mixed. You have a clear position throughout and you attempt to cover both sides. Your engagement with Harris is reasonable — you identify his accountability argument and explain why constituents matter. However, your treatment of Jenkins is weak: instead of quoting her arguments and evaluating them, you describe what "some people" might think, which distances you from the source. Your final evaluative point in the Jenkins section is also logically confused — it actually supports Harris's position, not Jenkins's.

Improved Evaluation:
"Jenkins argues that an MP's 'first duty is to support their party in Parliament' to deliver manifesto promises. While this sounds reasonable, it treats MPs as simply voting machines for the party. In reality, voters elect a local representative to fight for their area, not just to follow orders from party leaders."

Strengths

Clear Position: You state your agreement with Harris immediately and maintain it throughout.
Both Sides: You attempt to address both Harris and Jenkins, which is essential for higher marks.
Consequence Reasoning: Your point about voters "thinking twice" shows you understand that actions have political consequences.

Targets

Use the Source Directly: Instead of saying "some people may agree with Jenkins", quote her words and respond to them. (e.g., "Jenkins argues that '...' but I disagree because...")
Develop Your Evaluation of Jenkins: You describe her supporters' views but never explain why you think Jenkins is wrong. To move up a level, you must critically challenge the side you disagree with.
Expand Significantly: At 178 words, this is roughly half the expected length. You need to analyse 2–3 points from each writer, not just one from each.
Check Your Logic: Your point about "a party that puts constituency above the party" accidentally argues for Harris, not Jenkins. Re-read your work to ensure each paragraph supports the argument you intend.

Candidate 76971

Word Count: 123 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 3/10

I half heartedly agree with Sarah Jenkins as she explains why loyalty to the party is important because you can't just do everything yourself and being loyal to your party is not betrayal, it is the most practical way to serve the constituents. On the other hand, Tom Harris's he opposite, you should be loyal to the constituents. If you are not loyal to the people who voted for you, you should not be voted out. If you aren't loyal to your constituents, they will just vote someone else in the next election then you will lose your power. A bad MP is one who does not listen to its constituency, this means the MP will not notice the problems of the constituency.

Quality of Evaluation Limited. You have one good evaluative idea — that an MP who ignores their voters will be voted out — but you repeat it three times instead of developing new points. Your Jenkins section restates her argument without explaining why you agree or disagree with it. You also say you "half heartedly agree" with Jenkins at the start, but then spend the rest of the answer supporting Harris, which is confusing. To improve, pick a clear side and give different reasons for your position.

Improved Evaluation:
"Jenkins claims that loyalty to the party 'is the most practical way to serve' constituents. I only partly agree — while teamwork in a party can get things done, it doesn't help if the party's policies harm your local area. For example, if the party wants to close a local school, should the MP just go along with it? Harris is right that the MP should fight for their community instead."

Strengths

Both Sides Attempted: You do mention both Jenkins and Harris, which shows you understand the question requires you to look at both writers.
Accountability Idea: Your point about MPs being voted out if they ignore constituents is a valid evaluative point — it just needs to appear once, not three times.

Targets

Don't Repeat Yourself: You make the "voted out" point three times. One clear version is enough — then move on to a new reason.
Evaluate Jenkins, Don't Just Describe Her: You explain what Jenkins says, but never say why you agree or disagree. Try: "Jenkins says [quote]... I partly agree because... but I also think..."
Pick a Clear Side: You say you "half heartedly" agree with Jenkins, but your answer mostly supports Harris. Decide which writer you agree with more and make that your main argument.
Write Much More: At 123 words, this is about a third of what's expected. You need to cover 2–3 points from each writer to reach the top marks.

Candidate 79180

Word Count: 259 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

I personally agree with Sarah Jenkins's argument of being loyal to your political party. However, Tom Harris does make some fair and strong points too. Firstly, I agree with Sarah Jenkins point where a government can't be successful if MPs are constantly debating over small issues in a local area. The UK is becoming an ageing population, more people living longer and less people having children. Most of the population in a constituency are likely old and retired, so will not be very involved in political issues. There are also local councils who are the actual ones dealing with the local issues in certain wards. However, a problem with this is that MPs aren't providing why they should be voted, and have a chance of losing the satisfaction and the votes of others. On the other hand, Tom Harris does make a strong point where if an MP ignores its people, they lose validation and should be voted out. A local council does not have all the power in a ward. For example, if the city lacks standard services. It is up to the government's revenue and the Chancellor of Exchequer to decide where the money goes. A councillor is limited to its budget and can't make the necessary changes the people want. That is what an MP is there for. (to speak for the word of others). However, a problem with this is that the government won't prioritise its finances in one specific constituent, so it is not easy for the MP to clearly speak for its people.

Quality of Evaluation Good. This is a strong answer. You evaluate both sides and — crucially — you challenge your own arguments by spotting weaknesses in both Jenkins's and Harris's positions. Your use of own knowledge is impressive: the ageing population, the role of local councils, and the Chancellor's control of funding all go beyond the source material and show real political understanding. The evaluation dips slightly because, while you challenge both sides, your final position is left unclear — you end on a limitation of Harris rather than a firm conclusion.

Strengths

Own Knowledge: You bring in the ageing population, local councils, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer — none of which are in the source. This is exactly what top answers do.
Self-Challenge: You spot problems with both sides ("However, a problem with this is..."), which shows mature, balanced thinking.
Real-World Understanding: Your point about councillors being limited by their budget shows you understand how government funding actually works.

Targets

Add a Clear Conclusion: Your answer ends on a criticism of Harris, but you started by agreeing with Jenkins. Pull it together at the end: "Overall, I agree more with Jenkins because..."
Use Quotes from the Source: You don't directly quote either writer. Weaving in short quotes (e.g., Jenkins says MPs should not 'break ranks to vote on narrow, local interests') would strengthen your analysis.
Expand Slightly: At 259 words you're close to the target. A short concluding paragraph would bring you into range and tie your arguments together.

Candidate 71689

Word Count: approx. 70 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 1/10

I agree with Sarah for Harris's is point. Because it discusses how loyalty to also how also it also provides also also. I also it also says also. MPs who breaks also. Also provides also also to break also. Some also disagree with. It is also. Also some also provides also because also. I also. Some also. More also. LNP to be also more what to do or be other.

Quality of Evaluation Very Limited. It is very difficult to identify any clear evaluation in this answer. You attempt to state a position at the start, but it's unclear whether you agree with Jenkins or Harris. The rest of the answer does not form complete sentences and doesn't connect to the arguments in Source D. To improve, start simply: pick one writer, state clearly why you agree with them, and give one reason in your own words.

A Simple Starting Point:
"I agree with Tom Harris because he says an MP should be a 'champion of their local area'. I think this is right because the MP knows what local people need — for example, if a hospital is closing, the MP should fight to keep it open, even if the party disagrees."

Strengths

You Tried: You attempted the question and tried to state a position, which is a starting point to build from.

Targets

Slow Down and Plan: Before writing, decide: (1) Which writer do I agree with? (2) What are their two best points? (3) Why do I agree? Write one clear sentence for each.
Complete Your Sentences: Each sentence needs a subject, a verb, and a clear point. Try reading your work back to yourself — if it doesn't make sense when you read it aloud, rewrite it.
Use the Source: Go back to Source D, pick one quote from the writer you agree with, write it out, and then explain in your own words why you think they are right.
Aim for Structure: Try this simple plan: Paragraph 1 — "I agree with [writer] because..." Paragraph 2 — "On the other hand, [other writer] says... but I disagree because..." Paragraph 3 — "In conclusion..."

Candidate 19678

Word Count: 226 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

From my own opinion and believe I agree with Tom Harris the most. One reason I agree with Tom Harris is because he says be the champion of their local area he means they're only in charge or helping that specific area. This has its strengths as since MPs have their own designated areas to help with, that means each area will get a fair and equal treatment as there are MPs for each areas. It also means the government want need to stress about an area needs more help or not. However some may disagree with me as they would want a range of options for the area they live in. Meaning if a multiple MPs were to help lots of areas those areas would be changed more as each MP have their own ideas and shares and more can help both locally and nationally. One reason I don't agree with Sarah Jenkins the most is because when she says loyalty to the party is not a betrayal of constituents it is the most practical way to serve them. This doesn't make sense to me as if an MP chose to prioritise party's interests it can lead to the down fall of a MP. An example for this is that a constituency is being looked after and their communications home everyone should be looked after.

Quality of Evaluation Mixed. Your evaluation of Harris is your strongest section — you explain that dedicated local MPs mean fairer treatment for every area, which is a thoughtful point. You also attempt a counter-argument, which shows awareness that there are two sides. However, your evaluation of Jenkins is underdeveloped: you say her argument "doesn't make sense" but don't fully explain why. Your final sentence trails off without completing the point you were trying to make.

Improved Evaluation of Jenkins:
"Jenkins says that loyalty to the party 'is the most practical way to serve' constituents. I disagree because if an MP blindly follows the party, they might end up voting for something that harms their own area — like closing a local hospital. In that situation, loyalty to the party is not serving the people at all."

Strengths

Original Reasoning: Your point about each MP having a "designated area" so every community gets fair treatment is your own thinking — it goes beyond the source and shows good understanding.
Counter-Argument: You consider what people who disagree with you might say ("some may disagree with me"), which is a skill that higher-level answers need.
Both Sides: You address both Harris and Jenkins, which is essential.

Targets

Finish Your Points: Your Jenkins evaluation and your final sentence both trail off. If you say "this doesn't make sense", you must explain exactly why — give a specific reason or example.
Use Quotes Properly: You mention what Jenkins "says" but don't put her actual words in quotation marks. Quote her directly and then respond: "Jenkins argues that '...' — I disagree because..."
Clarify Your Counter-Argument: Your point about "multiple MPs" helping one area is confusing. Each constituency only has one MP, so think about what you actually meant and rewrite it more clearly.
Expand Your Jenkins Section: You give Harris two evaluative points but only one incomplete point for Jenkins. To reach higher marks, you need to evaluate both writers in equal depth.

Candidate 19726

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

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I mostly agree with Sarah Jenkins because in one of her arguments she says the MP first duty is to support their party in Parliament to deliver this promise and manifesto. I agree with this statement due to the fact the main reason they got voted is because of their manifesto. A reason why I may not agree with much is when she says An MP who prioritises their constituency over the party line contributes to weak government and political instability this could be disagreed upon by many as constituencers help the MP to win the election. On the other hand Tom Harris's argument states that if they believe a party policy will harm their constituents such as closing a local hospital they have a moral obligation to oppose it. I agree with this statement because an MP should do what is morally right as someone suggested but what is morally right.

Quality of Evaluation Reasonable. You evaluate both writers and — importantly — you challenge Jenkins even though you agree with her, which shows balanced thinking. Your use of the source is good: you quote Jenkins on party duty and reference Harris's hospital example. Your moral reasoning ("an MP should do what is morally right") is a genuine evaluative point. However, the evaluation dips at the end — your final sentence trails off and doesn't quite complete the thought. You also only cover one point from each writer rather than the 2–3 expected.

Improved Evaluation of Harris:
"Harris argues that if a party policy will harm constituents, such as 'closing a local hospital', the MP has a 'moral obligation to oppose it'. I agree with this because an MP's first responsibility should be to protect the people who elected them. However, I still agree more with Jenkins overall, because one MP acting alone cannot change government policy — they need their party behind them to actually get things done."

Strengths

Source Quotes: You directly reference Jenkins's words about "first duty" and Harris's hospital example — this shows you are engaging with the actual text.
Self-Challenge: You spot a weakness in Jenkins's argument even though you agree with her. This is exactly what balanced evaluation looks like.
Moral Reasoning: Your point about MPs doing "what is morally right" shows you are thinking beyond just repeating the source.

Targets

Finish Your Thoughts: Your final sentence ("what is morally right") trails off. Always complete your point — what is morally right in this situation, and why?
Cover More Points: You analyse one point from Jenkins and one from Harris. To reach higher marks, aim for 2–3 points from each writer.
Add a Conclusion: You don't have a final paragraph pulling your argument together. Even a short "Overall, I agree more with Jenkins because..." would strengthen your answer.
Expand to Target Length: At 210 words you need to write more. Use the extra space to evaluate a second point from each writer.

Candidate 66120

Word Count: 209 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

I mostly agree with Tom Harris due to his argument for an MP's loyalty to his constituents, he defends that sole purpose. Sarah Jenkins argues for an MP's loyalty to the party. Sarah argues that an MP's first duty is to support their party in Parliament to deliver the promises made to the entire country. Although there are some truths to this, a promise made before might have to be amended or removed due to circumstances in the future. Unforeseeable events take place and an MP might have to stand against it due to the will of their constituents. She also argues that an MP who prioritises their constituents over the party contributes to weak government. I disagree with this as an MP's sole purpose is to look out for their constituents. On the other hand Tom Harris argues for loyalty to constituents. He states that MPs are not accountable to party leaders but to the voters in their constituency. An MP is the direct link between the constituents and the government, that any decision made in the country, this means that they are most accountable to their constituents. He believed that if an action harms the constituents the MP's job is to try and stop it.

Quality of Evaluation Good. You engage critically with both writers. Your strongest evaluative moment is your challenge to Jenkins: you point out that manifesto promises may need to change due to "unforeseeable events" — this is your own thinking and it's a politically mature point. You also clearly disagree with Jenkins's claim that constituency focus weakens government. Your Harris section accurately identifies his accountability argument and extends it with your own reasoning about MPs being the "direct link" between people and government. To push higher, you need to add a concluding judgment and use direct quotes from the source.

Strengths

Critical Thinking: Your point about manifesto promises needing to change due to "unforeseeable events" is excellent — it challenges Jenkins with real-world logic that goes beyond the source.
Both Sides in Depth: You cover two of Jenkins's points and challenge both, then explain Harris's position clearly. This is balanced analysis.
Clear Disagreement: "An MP's sole purpose is to look out for their constituents" — this is a confident, direct evaluative statement.

Targets

Add a Conclusion: Your answer stops after presenting Harris's view. You need a final sentence like: "Overall, Harris is right because..." to tie everything together.
Quote the Source Directly: You describe what both writers say but don't use quotation marks around their actual words. Embedding short quotes shows the examiner you are working closely with the text.
Develop Harris Further: Your Jenkins section has evaluation (you challenge her points), but your Harris section mostly describes his views without explaining why you find them convincing. Add your own reasoning.

Candidate 67892

Word Count: 205 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I agree with Tom Harris's argument for loyalty to constituents as the political party didn't vote get them into parliament and these parties will know less about their own constituents through their surgeries, emails and working alongside the community and just knowing their community and seeing how they can better it but to some exact cons of this are that they could be dropped from the political party. Some may agree with Sarah Jenkins though as she says to do otherwise would be to betray the trust of millions who voted for that political party. This is because if you're in a smaller party like the Green Party you have to abide by that certain party's manifesto. If you don't you'd distort the image of the party and are more likely to listen to the constituency as there are more people who can represent the party and won't be as bad a look as if you were in a small party. However a problem with this is that the government won't prioritise its finances in one specific constituent, so it is not easy for the MP to clearly speak for its people.

Quality of Evaluation Reasonable. You have some genuinely interesting evaluative ideas here. Your opening argument for Harris — that the party "didn't vote get them into parliament" — is a strong logical point, even if the phrasing is clumsy. Your use of the Green Party as an example of how smaller parties need stricter loyalty is own knowledge that goes beyond the source and shows independent thinking. However, your sentences are long and hard to follow, and your final point about government finances feels disconnected from your main argument. The evaluation would be stronger with clearer structure and a firm conclusion.

Improved Version of Your Green Party Point:
"Jenkins says that going against the party would 'betray the trust of millions'. This might be true for smaller parties like the Greens, where every MP matters. But in a larger party with hundreds of MPs, one member standing up for their local area is not a betrayal — it is democracy working as it should."

Strengths

Own Knowledge: Bringing in the Green Party to discuss how party size affects loyalty is a thoughtful point that goes beyond the source — this is what top answers do.
Seeing Both Sides: You acknowledge the risk of being "dropped from the political party" if you defy them, which shows you understand the consequences.
Logical Foundation: Your opening point — that the party didn't vote for the MP, the constituents did — is a strong piece of reasoning.

Targets

Sentence Length: Several of your sentences are over 40 words long and try to make multiple points at once. Break them into shorter sentences — one idea per sentence.
Stay Connected: Your final point about government finances feels separate from the rest of your argument. Every paragraph should clearly link back to your main position.
Add a Conclusion: You don't have a concluding statement. End with a clear sentence: "Overall, I agree more with Harris because..."
Quote the Source: You mention what Jenkins "says" but don't use her exact words in quotation marks. Direct quotes show the examiner you are working closely with the text.

Candidate 67801

Word Count: 274 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I mostly agree with Sarah Jenkins as to her arguments are about MPs being loyal to their political party. One specific point that stood out to me was when she states that the first duty is to support the promises made by the government made to the whole country. This stood out to me because I can see if MPs was to dismiss the promises made by their party, then they are betraying the party and all the voters which show how important promises are within government. However I partially agree with Tom Harris and his argument about the importance of loyalty towards your constituents. One specific part that stood out to me was when he argued that if an MP consistently ignores the promises he has made to his local constituents, he should and will be voted out. This is a strength towards his arguments as MPs are elected by the constituents and they both rely on each other. I just rely on the people to vote for him and the people rely on the MPs to solve local issues so if an MP ignores losing closure along with Sarah Jenkins which I was satisfied with Sarah Jenkins who agrees that when she says that it should agree with the party because an MP should be a person of integrity free to vote according to their conscience and their judgement. I also say that an MP who also political more their contributions more support their practical more but it is every right to be open about their beliefs and every one should be listened to and their all ideas to be listened to.

Quality of Evaluation Mixed. Your first two paragraphs are genuinely strong: you identify key arguments from both Jenkins and Harris, and your reasoning is clear — particularly your point that MPs and constituents "both rely on each other". However, the answer loses coherence in the second half. Your attempt to reconcile the two positions becomes confused, and the final sentences are very difficult to follow. It reads as though you had good ideas but ran out of time or lost track of your argument. The quality of the first half suggests you are capable of much higher marks if you maintain that clarity throughout.

How Your Final Paragraph Could Read:
"Overall, I agree more with Jenkins because delivering on manifesto promises is what voters expect. However, Harris makes a fair point that MPs must also listen to their local community. The best approach is for an MP to support their party's goals while still speaking up when a policy would genuinely harm their constituents."

Strengths

Strong Opening Paragraphs: Your first two paragraphs are well-structured — you identify a point, explain it, and evaluate it. This is exactly the right approach.
Mutual Dependence: Your observation that MPs and constituents "both rely on each other" is a mature evaluative point that shows real understanding.
Personal Engagement: Using phrases like "stood out to me" and "I can see" shows you are genuinely engaging with the arguments, not just describing them.

Targets

Maintain Clarity Throughout: Your first half is clear and focused, but the second half loses structure. If you feel your sentences becoming tangled, stop, take a breath, and start a new sentence with one simple point.
Plan a Conclusion: Instead of trying to combine everything at the end, write a short, clear concluding statement: "Overall, I agree more with [writer] because [one key reason]."
Don't Mix Up the Writers: In your final section you accidentally attribute Harris's point about "conscience and judgement" to Jenkins. Always check which writer said what.
Proofread: Read your answer back to yourself before finishing. If a sentence doesn't make sense when you say it aloud, rewrite it.

Candidate 28691

Word Count: 136 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 3/10

Somebody may believe that S J's argument is better because when you vote for a political party are in a which opposition the decisions. But on another hand someone may believe your party is not betrayal it is the most practical way to serve the constituents. On the other hand Tom Harris's he opposite, you should be loyal to the constituents. If you are not loyal to the people who voted for you, you should not be voted out. If you aren't loyal to your constituents they will just vote for someone else. Second point I do agree is that an MP should be a person of integrity free to vote their opinions of their constituents from more important more political point. But what is every of peoples and ideas to do so or to also MPs.

Quality of Evaluation Limited. You attempt to cover both writers, which is a good instinct. However, for most of the answer you describe what "somebody" or "someone" might think rather than giving your own opinion. The question asks which writer you agree with — you need to answer that directly. When you do give your own view ("I do agree"), it is your strongest moment, but it's too brief and the sentence isn't finished clearly. Much of the answer paraphrases the source without adding your own reasoning about why these arguments are strong or weak.

Improved Opening:
"I agree more with Tom Harris because he believes an MP should be 'a person of integrity, free to vote according to their conscience'. This is important because if an MP just follows the party without thinking, they could end up supporting something that hurts the people who voted for them."

Strengths

Both Sides: You mention both Jenkins and Harris, which shows you understand the question requires you to consider both arguments.
Good Selection: You pick up on Harris's point about "integrity" and "conscience", which is one of his strongest arguments.

Targets

State YOUR Opinion: Don't say "somebody may believe" or "someone may believe". The question asks what you think. Start with "I agree with..." and own your position.
Explain Why: Every time you state a point, follow it with "because..." and give a reason in your own words. This is what turns description into evaluation.
Complete Your Sentences: Several sentences trail off or don't make clear sense. Read each sentence back to yourself — does it make a complete point? If not, rewrite it.
Write Much More: At 136 words you are well below the expected length. Aim to make 2–3 points about each writer, with a reason for each.

Candidate 82790

Word Count: 434 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 8/10

I mostly agree with Tom Harris as his argument is for the local people and giving what they want instead of a bunch of constituencies under the same rules that don't benefit all. Some people may agree with Sarah Jenkins though as she argues that MPs are got to parliament to fight for their constituency and deliver their needs and specific concerns and to be their voice. Also Sarah Jenkins has a very good argument as well for loyalty to the party. On one hand Tom Harris argues for loyalty to constituency. This idea is favourable for me because it truly lets the MPs be expressive of their concerns and to act as a voice for their people. An MP should also have morals, integrity and strong decisive leadership for her people. I also believe their political party will harm them in some way. If they believe that closing food banks that many locals rely on, then they should have a moral belief that the decision is wrong and they are against it. Sarah Jenkins supporters can be considered a polar opposite. Someone on their side may argue that going against your party is like not working as a team and being a lone wolf which is not effective. This is also a very good point. Someone else may argue that there may be more votes than seats for a party, so isn't it truly equal. On another hand Sarah Jenkins argues for loyalty to the party, a polar opposite of Harris's idea. Her idea is also favourable and good. This is because she argues that for a party to work they must have the support of their MPs in order to influence their policy and achieve positive change both locally and nationally. She says that acting alone is not working for everyone, she says working as part of a united team an MP has a far greater chance of achieving positive change. If the MP don't contribute enough it can lead to breaking the ranks of the vote, can lead to the government not functioning properly and reform public services, it passes budget. The MP can't function properly and do voters if they don't support the party because of weak government. For the government if they act weak against another party or when they are supporting the party and don't be discipline and cohesion then they won't be able to function because who would make a big change for the country requires cohesion and discipline. Parties also provide resources that allow MPs to work effectively.

Quality of Evaluation Good. This is a strong answer with genuine depth. You evaluate both writers thoroughly and fairly — even when you disagree with Jenkins, you acknowledge her arguments are "also favourable and good", which shows maturity. Your food banks example is excellent own knowledge that brings a real-world issue into the debate. You also raise an interesting independent thought about votes versus seats. The evaluation dips in the final section where you repeat the same point about weak government and discipline several times without adding new reasoning. Tightening this up and adding a clear conclusion would push you into the top band.

Strengths

Own Knowledge: Your food banks example is a specific, real-world scenario that goes beyond the source — exactly what top answers need.
Fair to Both Sides: Even though you agree with Harris, you call Jenkins's ideas "favourable and good". This balanced approach shows evaluative maturity.
Multiple Points Covered: You address local voice, moral integrity, teamwork, party discipline, and government function — showing breadth across both arguments.
Independent Thinking: Your question about votes versus seats shows you are thinking critically about the democratic system, not just repeating the source.

Targets

Cut the Repetition: Your final section makes the same point about weak government and discipline three or four times. Say it once clearly, then move on to a new idea or your conclusion.
Add a Clear Conclusion: After all that good analysis, you don't have a final summing-up. One strong sentence ("Overall, I agree more with Harris because...") would tie everything together.
Use Direct Quotes: You describe what both writers say but rarely use their exact words in quotation marks. Even short quotes like Harris's "champion of their local area" would show closer engagement with the text.

Candidate 90128

Word Count: 440 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 8/10

In the passage both Sarah Jenkins and Tom Harris can be considered as polar opposites. We see Sarah Jenkins argues for loyalty to the party which can host a hold load of issues and some strengths additionally. Tom Harris argues for loyalty to constituency which brings about equal representations and strengths to the community. I mainly agree with Tom Harris's views due to it creating a sense of belonging. Firstly, on the one hand Sarah Jenkins argues for loyalty to party. She believes that an MP's primarily endorsing a political party and the manifesto it stands for, which is some grand and unifying on paper. But can has a load of issues as an MP is not elected by a whole country of the party but the people, and if it puts the people who put faith in them under their party, it can anger the individuals and make them feel left behind and forgotten about. Additionally if a party holds a majority of 20 out of 365 seats, the government may not necessarily need the rest and may forget some MPs, making people feel forgotten and divide the constituency, as an MP is supposed to defend all people. Tom Harris believes in loyalty to the constituents which is a strong point as it shows the MP cares about their constituency and listens to them, making a healthy relationship. Additionally, if an MP follows things in a party manifesto they don't like, it makes the party look not only weak but careless about individuals. However some may disagree with me but not having to do with principles to policies. Someone on their side may argue that going against your party is like being a team and being a lone wolf just a benefit someone else and that's why we have constituencies. More reasons why people shouldn't listen to their constituency is because if you're in a smaller party like the Green Party you have to abide by that certain party's manifesto. If you don't you'd distort the image of the party and are more likely to listen to the constituency as there are more people who can represent the party and won't be as bad a look as if you were in a small party.

Quality of Evaluation Good. This is an ambitious and thoughtful answer. Your critical evaluation of Jenkins is strong — you challenge her manifesto argument by pointing out that MPs are elected locally, not by the whole country, and that ignoring local voters makes people feel "left behind". Your own knowledge is impressive: the point about parliamentary majorities (a government with a majority of 20 might forget some MPs) and the Green Party example both go well beyond the source. You also present counter-arguments fairly. The answer loses some focus in the second half where ideas become harder to follow, and you don't have a clear conclusion. Tidying up the structure would push this into the top band.

Strengths

Own Knowledge: Your points about parliamentary majority sizes and the Green Party are both excellent — they show you understand how Parliament actually works, not just what the source says.
Strong Challenge to Jenkins: Your argument that MPs are elected locally, not nationally, directly undermines Jenkins's manifesto argument. This is sharp critical thinking.
Emotional Impact: Phrases like "left behind and forgotten about" show you understand the human consequences of political decisions, not just the theory.
Counter-Arguments: You present reasons why someone might disagree with you, which shows evaluative balance.

Targets

Add a Conclusion: After all your analysis, you need a final statement pulling it together: "Overall, I agree more with Harris because..." Without this, the examiner doesn't see your final judgment clearly.
Tighten the Second Half: Your ideas in the final two paragraphs become harder to follow. Try to make one clear point per sentence rather than combining several ideas together.
Use Direct Quotes: You describe both writers' positions well but rarely quote their exact words. Embedding short quotes (e.g., Harris says MPs should be a "champion of their local area") would strengthen your analysis.

Candidate 98607

Word Count: 232 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

One strength that Sarah Jenkins made is that the first duty of a party is to uphold their promises and their manifesto to a group of action that a likely to happen is a political party is elected. This should be considered however not everything is possible and circumstances change. However she stated that it is betrayal of the loyalty of the party is to not uphold their promises is a negative as there could be many issues that may impact this. For example a financial issues. I believe that she thinks on an opinion government false on communication and loyalty. Another point that is stated is that loyalty is the prioritising your constituency over other can lead to the downfall of a MP. An example for this is that a constituency is being looked after and their communications home everyone should be looked after. One point that Tom Harris made is that community engagement is key. This is a good point as the party is taking care of the community. Tom Harris has mostly left wing views on a political party. One down side to his argument would be that he believes the first duty is to prioritise the people who voted for them. This could ruin the reputation of the government. He also believes that a party is there to voice their views.

Quality of Evaluation Mixed. You have some good evaluative instincts — your point that "not everything is possible and circumstances change" is a valid challenge to Jenkins's manifesto argument, and mentioning financial constraints as an example shows independent thinking. You also attempt to find weaknesses in Harris, which is balanced. However, many of your points are left half-finished: you start a thought but don't complete it with a clear explanation. You also don't state which writer you agree with more until well into the answer — the question asks for a clear overall judgment.

Improved Version of Your Jenkins Challenge:
"Jenkins argues that an MP's first duty is to deliver their party's manifesto promises. However, not everything in a manifesto is achievable — for example, if the economy crashes after an election, the government may not be able to afford what it promised. In that situation, the MP should focus on what their local community actually needs, rather than blindly following a manifesto that no longer works."

Strengths

Challenging Jenkins: Your point that circumstances change and manifesto promises may not always be achievable is a valid, independent evaluation.
Finding Weaknesses in Harris: You try to identify a downside to Harris's argument (it could "ruin the reputation of the government"), which shows you can see both sides.
Own Knowledge: Mentioning financial constraints as a reason promises might fail goes beyond the source text.

Targets

State Your Position Early: The question asks "which writer do you agree with more?" — answer that in your very first sentence. Don't make the examiner guess.
Finish Your Points: You start good ideas but leave them incomplete. Every point needs: (1) what the writer says, (2) whether you agree or disagree, and (3) why — with a clear reason or example.
Be Specific: "Financial issues" is too vague. Try: "For example, if the country enters a recession, the government may have to cut spending and break its promises on public services."
Avoid Assumptions: Calling Harris "left wing" is an assumption that isn't supported by the source. Stick to what the text actually says.

Candidate 16079

Word Count: 266 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

Sarah Jenkins does have some good points but focuses more on the party's views and less on the people's. You can see that when she says a government can't function if MPs constantly break rank to vote on narrow local interests. This means she believes the people's needs are not what she should be focused on and the party's budget. She also believes we need to stay for the sake to MPs are accountable to the party leaders but to the voters in their constituency. I agree with that. Since the MP should be the one to have integrity, meaning that they should be the best MP for the place they represent the people in. He says that an MP must also have integrity meaning that they represent using their own conscience. This shows that not listening to others and using your own belief, you can make the right decision. He also said that MPs are sent to Parliament to be the acknowledgement of the local area, meaning that they are sent to say what the community needs. On the other hand Sarah Jenkins has made good political points. She said that for the government to maintain its economy it needs the MPs. This means that you can't just help your local area all the time because it is way destroying the economy for everyone. She also said that you should Parliament in fulfilling the promises they made to their country. This means that you should help others as well and deliver every promise to them and not just your area constituency.

Quality of Evaluation Reasonable. You cover multiple points from both writers and — importantly — you explain what each argument means in practice, which is a good evaluative skill. Your strongest moment is when you challenge Harris by recognising that focusing only on local issues could damage the wider economy. You also engage with Harris's integrity and conscience arguments well. However, you never clearly state which writer you agree with more — the answer moves between both sides without a firm overall judgment. Adding a clear opening position and a concluding statement would significantly improve this.

How to Add a Clear Position:
Opening: "I agree more with Tom Harris because an MP's first job is to represent the people who voted for them."

Conclusion: "Overall, although Jenkins makes a fair point about the economy, Harris is right that an MP must put their local community first — otherwise, what is the point of having a local representative at all?"

Strengths

Explaining What Arguments Mean: You don't just repeat what the writers say — you explain what their points mean in real terms (e.g., "you can't just help your local area... it is destroying the economy for everyone"). This is evaluation.
Both Sides Covered: You address multiple points from both Jenkins and Harris, showing good coverage of the source.
Fair to Jenkins: Even though you seem to lean towards Harris, you acknowledge Jenkins's economic argument is valid. This is balanced thinking.

Targets

State Your Position Clearly: The question asks "which writer do you agree with more?" You never directly answer this. Put it in your first sentence and return to it in your conclusion.
Add a Conclusion: Your answer ends mid-argument. A final sentence pulling together your overall judgment is essential.
Avoid Repetition: You mention "integrity" twice in consecutive sentences. Say it once, explain it, and move on.
Use Quotation Marks: When you reference what the writers say, put their exact words in quotes to show you are working directly with the source text.

Candidate 97128

Word Count: 229 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I agree with Tom Harris as his argument is about being loyal to the constituents. This is because the people in the constituencies have to stay there most of the time and need what is best for them. He says that an MP must also have integrity meaning that they should be the best MP for the place they represent, using their own conscience. This shows that not listening to others and using your own belief, you can make the right decision. He also said that MPs are sent to Parliament to be the acknowledgement of the local area. Meaning that they are sent to say what the community needs. He said ultimately MPs are accountable to voters not their party. He also believes that a party is there to voice the views. I agree with the best of her points. She said an MP who prioritises their constituency over the party line contributes to weak government and political instability. I somewhat disagree with this statement because it scares MPs not to vote for their constituency. I agree with that since the MPs should be accountable to the people not the party leaders. She also said that you should Parliament in fulfilling the promises they made to their country definitely should be their constituency and who the other statement she scouted trees listen to their peoples.

Quality of Evaluation Mixed. You have a clear position for Harris and you maintain it throughout, which is good. Your strongest evaluative moment is when you challenge Jenkins's "weak government" point by arguing it is designed to scare MPs away from representing their voters — that's a perceptive observation. However, much of your Harris section describes his arguments rather than evaluating them: you list what he says without explaining why you find each point convincing. The final sentence also becomes very hard to follow. To improve, spend less time listing Harris's points and more time explaining why each one matters.

Turning Description into Evaluation:
Instead of: "He also said that MPs are sent to Parliament to be the acknowledgement of the local area."

Try: "Harris argues that MPs are sent to Parliament to represent their local area. I agree because without this local voice, people in smaller communities would have nobody fighting for their specific needs in government."

Strengths

Clear Position: You state your agreement with Harris in your first sentence and stick with it throughout.
Challenging Jenkins: Your point that Jenkins's "weak government" argument is designed to scare MPs is a perceptive evaluative observation.
Both Sides: You address both Harris and Jenkins, which is essential for higher marks.

Targets

Evaluate, Don't Just Describe: Your Harris section lists four of his points but only explains why you agree with one of them. For each point, add "I agree because..." or "This is convincing because..."
Quality Over Quantity: It's better to cover two points in depth (with reasons and examples) than four points briefly. Pick Harris's two best arguments and explain fully why they convince you.
Complete Your Sentences: Your final sentence trails off and is very hard to understand. Always read your last sentence back to check it makes sense.
Add a Conclusion: End with a clear statement: "Overall, Harris is right because..." to tie your argument together.

Candidate 78962

Word Count: 316 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

I agree with Tom Harris because he said an MP must also be a person of integrity, free to vote according to their conscience and their judgement of what is best for their constituency. I agree with but because she said for their communities and how the MPs are actually thinking about the people and their constituency. I also agree with her points. She said an MP who prioritises their constituency over the party line contributes to weak government and political instability. He said ultimately MPs are accountable not to the party but to the voters. I slightly disagree with Sarah Jenkins because she said an MP who prioritises their constituency over the party line contributes to weak government. I agree with that since the MPs should be accountable to the people not the party leaders but to the voters in their constituency. I also agree with her that says the party provides leaders but to the voters in their constituency. He also said ultimately they will have to be accountable to constituency. She said ultimately they should Parliament in fulfilling the promises they made. Since the MP who also her says like also said for a government to pass its budget. He said MPs are not accountable to party leaders. I do agree with Sarah Jenkins because she said for her to also service and budget so I mostly agree with Tom Harris but Sarah has a few good points like for a government to pass its budget is a good statement.

Quality of Evaluation Limited. You have a clear position for Harris and you attempt to cover both writers, which is a good starting point. Your opening is your strongest moment — you identify Harris's argument about integrity and conscience. However, the answer then repeats the same two or three points (accountability, budget, weak government) over and over without developing them or adding new reasoning. By the middle of the answer, the same ideas are being restated in slightly different words. To improve significantly, you need to make each point once, explain why you agree or disagree, and then move on to a completely new argument.

How to Avoid Repetition:
Point 1: "Harris says MPs should vote according to their 'conscience'. I agree because an MP who just follows orders isn't truly representing anyone."
Point 2 (NEW): "Harris also argues that MPs should be a 'champion of their local area'. This is important because local issues like hospital closures affect real people's lives."
Point 3 (NEW — Jenkins): "Jenkins says that breaking ranks leads to 'weak government'. While this is partly true, I think it's worse to have a strong government that ignores local people."

Strengths

Clear Position: You state your agreement with Harris at the start and confirm it at the end.
Both Sides: You reference arguments from both Harris and Jenkins throughout.
Good Opening: Your first sentence — identifying Harris's argument about integrity and conscience — is a strong start.

Targets

Stop Repeating: The accountability point appears at least four times and the budget/public services point at least three times. Make each point once clearly, then move to a new argument.
Explain WHY: You say "I agree" many times but rarely explain your reason. After every "I agree", write "because..." and give a specific reason or real-life example.
Name the Writer: Several sentences use "she" or "he" without making it clear whether you mean Jenkins or Harris. Always use their name so the examiner can follow your argument.
Plan Before Writing: Before you start, list 2–3 different points for each writer. This will stop you going back to the same idea repeatedly.

Candidate 10629

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

Evaluation Score: 2/10

In my opinion I agree with Tom Harris. The reason I personally agree the most is because Tom Harris is due to money and common that person with Tom. MP should be a person free to vote to endorse or not to his constituency. Tom Harris believes that an MP should be free to vote for a local area and should also have some beliefs in their conscience. An MP Sarah Jenkins some moral obligations over a constituency over a party, his MP over constituency. He believes in a more at ward to be got example. An MP then he also on the other hand Sarah Jenkins does on but she standard was she also. She believes I do wonder what an MP is chosen to endorse he manifesto to a group. She also her not being. In her party of millions. I somewhat agree with her. Somewhat I agree as an MP is chosen to be a beliefs of millions. I agree Tom Harris he has overall. I agree to his for.

Quality of Evaluation Very Limited. You have a clear position for Harris and you attempt to discuss both writers, which shows you understand what the question is asking. There are glimpses of understanding — you mention Harris's conscience argument and Jenkins's manifesto point. However, most sentences do not form complete thoughts, making it very difficult to follow your reasoning. The evaluation cannot be credited if the examiner cannot understand the point being made. Focus on writing fewer, clearer sentences rather than trying to cover too many ideas at once.

A Clearer Version of Your Main Argument:
"I agree with Tom Harris because he believes an MP should be free to vote using their own conscience. This is important because if an MP is forced to follow the party on everything, they can't stand up for their local community when it matters most — for example, if the party wants to close a local service that people depend on."

Strengths

Clear Position: You state your agreement with Harris at the start and return to it at the end.
Both Sides Attempted: You try to discuss both Harris and Jenkins, which shows you know the question needs both.
Partial Agreement: Saying "I somewhat agree with her" about Jenkins shows you can see merit in both sides.

Targets

Complete Your Sentences: Many of your sentences stop before making a clear point. Every sentence needs: a subject (who?), a verb (does what?), and a complete idea (why does it matter?).
One Point at a Time: Pick just one argument from Harris and explain it fully in 2–3 clear sentences. Then pick one from Jenkins and do the same. This is better than trying to cover everything briefly.
Read It Back: Before handing in your work, read each sentence aloud. If it doesn't make sense when you hear it, rewrite it until it does.
Use This Structure: "[Writer] argues that [quote]. I agree/disagree because [your reason]. For example, [a real-life situation]."

Candidate 68170

Word Count: 231 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

In my opinion I mostly agree with Tom Harris. This is because that an MP's most important duty is to the people who elected him in his constituency. I initially agree with this as you were elected for the people. In my second point I do agree is that an MP should be a person of integrity. This is significant in my opinion because the people's views are more important than political point. I totally agree with this as you were elected for the people to help the people. Losing closure along down a local hospital is a moral obligation to oppose it. I agree with this statement because as the MP it is your duty to serve the people who voted for you. I should agree with the local issues are more important than their views. Sure they are doing what's best for their community and I also agree with. Things like local closures but also important issues. More important these are local issues because local people are sure more important these are their issues and they are close to them meaning its health problems and costing the UK.

Quality of Evaluation Mixed. You clearly feel strongly that MPs should serve their local people, and your conviction comes through. Your best evaluative moment is when you use the hospital closure to argue that MPs have a moral duty to oppose harmful policies — this connects a real-world issue to a clear reason. However, the answer is one-sided: you only discuss Harris's view and never engage with Jenkins at all. You also repeat the idea that MPs are "elected for the people" several times without adding new reasoning. To move up, you must address both writers and give different reasons for your position.

Adding Jenkins to Your Answer:
"On the other hand, Jenkins argues that an MP's first duty is to support their party and deliver 'the promises made to the entire country'. I can see her point — if every MP went their own way, the government couldn't function. However, I still agree more with Harris because a promise made nationally might not work for every local area. A hospital closure might help the national budget but devastate a small town."

Strengths

Strong Conviction: Your belief in constituency loyalty is clear and passionate. The examiner can see you genuinely care about this issue.
Hospital Example: Using hospital closures to illustrate your point is effective — it makes an abstract argument feel real and personal.
Moral Reasoning: Arguing that opposing harmful policies is a "moral obligation" shows you are thinking about right and wrong, not just politics.

Targets

Address BOTH Writers: You only discuss Harris. The question says "referring to arguments made in both parts of the source" — you must engage with Jenkins to access higher marks.
Stop Repeating: "Elected for the people" and "local issues are more important" appear multiple times. Say each point once with a clear reason, then move on.
Different Reasons: You have one main argument (MPs serve their voters). Try to find 2–3 different reasons from the source — for example, Harris also talks about conscience, accountability, and community engagement.
Add a Conclusion: A short final sentence pulling your argument together would strengthen the answer.

Candidate 91708

Word Count: 127 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 2/10

I agree with Tom Harris's argument as it mainly shows about the role as an MP. He describes the MP's role as the reader about an MP, a person for a local and should voice for a local area, a constituency. He said for their out it, they ignore, they should be voted out. Fishing for that out in their most in they ignore their highest of the promises of others, the wishes of the MP of a vast for to promise a genuine concern. On the other hand Sarah Jenkins thinks the government should uphold and if then they millions who voted. So if anybody faces in and the government is responsible. Although she argues a good point, it is still meet if the party.

Quality of Evaluation Very Limited. You have a position for Harris and you attempt to introduce Jenkins, which shows you understand the question structure. There are hints of evaluative thinking — you say Jenkins makes a "good point" but imply it's not enough to change your mind. However, most sentences don't form complete thoughts, making it very hard to follow your reasoning. The answer is also very short at 127 words — well below what's expected. To improve, focus on writing clear, complete sentences and explaining why you agree or disagree with each point.

A Clearer Version:
"I agree with Tom Harris because he says an MP should be a voice for their local area. If an MP ignores what local people need, they should be voted out — this is fair because the MP only got their job because those people voted for them. Jenkins argues that the government should keep its promises to the whole country, which is a fair point. However, I think local needs should come first because every area is different."

Strengths

Clear Position: You state your agreement with Harris at the start.
Both Sides Attempted: You introduce Jenkins's argument in the second half, which shows awareness that both writers need to be covered.
Hint of Balance: Saying Jenkins has a "good point" shows you can see merit in the other side.

Targets

Complete Your Sentences: Most of your sentences don't finish with a clear point. Every sentence should have a subject, a verb, and a complete idea. Read it aloud — if it doesn't make sense, rewrite it.
Explain Why: You say "I agree" but don't give reasons. Always follow up with "because..." and a clear explanation.
Write Much More: At 127 words you've written about a third of what's expected. Aim for at least two clear points about each writer.
Use This Formula: "[Writer] says [what]. I agree/disagree because [why]. For example, [a real situation that shows why]."

Candidate 72916

Word Count: 188 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I mostly agree with Tom Harris as his argument is mostly about local areas and representation. One reason due to the fact he says if an MP consistently ignores the wishes of local people in favour of the party line, they will and should be voted out. I strongly agree with this statement as you should be representing your constituency and taking any issues in Parliament to ensure equality and a good community. Also on the other hand some may disagree due to the fact that a MP represents you nationally and a MP's duty is to support their party in Parliament and delivering the promises made on the manifesto. Some may also say that a MP has a higher chance of achieving positive change both locally and nationally. Another reason why I agree with Tom Harris is because I think a MP's important duty is to represent the people who elected them in their local constituency as their favourite, you can return the favour. In conclusion I agree with Tom Harris's views as you should represent the people who elected you in your constituency and local area.

Quality of Evaluation Reasonable. This is a well-structured answer — you have a clear opening, cover both sides, give two reasons for your position, and finish with a conclusion. That structure alone puts you ahead of many answers. Your strongest evaluative moment is your first Harris point: you don't just say you agree, you explain why — linking it to representation, equality, and community. However, your treatment of Jenkins is descriptive rather than evaluative: you state what her supporters might say but don't explain why you think she's wrong. Adding your own challenge to Jenkins would push this higher.

Turning Your Jenkins Section into Evaluation:
Instead of: "Some may disagree... a MP's duty is to support their party..."

Try: "Jenkins argues that an MP's duty is to deliver manifesto promises. While I can see this is important, I disagree because not every national policy works for every local area. An MP should have the freedom to say 'this won't work here' rather than blindly following the party."

Strengths

Clear Structure: Opening position → Reason 1 → Other side → Reason 2 → Conclusion. This is a strong framework that makes your argument easy to follow.
Explained Reasoning: Your first Harris point includes a clear "because" — you explain that representation ensures equality and community. This is genuine evaluation.
Conclusion: You are one of the few students who actually wrote a concluding sentence — well done.

Targets

Evaluate Jenkins, Don't Just Describe: You say what Jenkins's supporters "may" think, but you never explain why you disagree. Challenge her points directly.
Use Direct Quotes: You describe Harris's arguments but don't use his exact words in quotation marks. Embedding quotes shows you are engaging closely with the source.
Expand: At 188 words you need to write more. Use the extra space to evaluate Jenkins's arguments in depth — explain what she says, then explain specifically why you think she's wrong.

Candidate 60982

Word Count: 288 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I agree with Tom Harris and Sarah Jenkins because I think that MPs should stay loyal to the people of your constituency. This is because being loyal to the people of your constituency is the first duty of the MP as the constituency voted for the MP. The MP allows an MP to campaign for what being restricted by their party. On the other hand Sarah Jenkins argues for loyalty to the party, arguing that when a voter elects an MP they are not primarily voting for an individual but for a party and the manifesto. I agree more with Tom Harris as being loyal to your constituents through surgeries and community engagement keeps the most powerful check we have on political power. On the other hand I could also agree with Sarah Jenkins because she says should support their party in Parliament to deliver their promises to the entire country like education and more public services. MPs can also work if they support their party over their constituency which harms everyone. It is also not really effective by themselves, making their own lives harder, and would be a greater chance of achieving positive change. I agree more with Tom Harris as being loyal to your constituents through surgeries and community engagement keeps the most powerful check on political power.

Quality of Evaluation Mixed. There is genuine evaluation here. Your point about surgeries and community engagement being "the most powerful check on political power" is a strong evaluative statement that draws directly from Harris. You also engage with Jenkins's arguments about manifesto delivery and the benefits of party unity. However, the answer is significantly weakened by repetition: your concluding sentence appears three times word-for-word, and the Jenkins section from earlier in the answer is also repeated. If each of those repeated sections had been a new point instead, this would score much higher.

Replacing Your Repeated Conclusion with a New Point:
Instead of repeating "I agree more with Tom Harris as being loyal to your constituents through surgeries and community engagement keeps the most powerful check on political power" for a third time, try:

"Ultimately, I agree more with Harris because an MP who listens to their community can spot problems — like a struggling local school or a closing GP surgery — before the party in Westminster even notices. Jenkins's approach treats every area the same, but every community is different."

Strengths

Good Source Engagement: You reference Harris's points about surgeries and community engagement and Jenkins's arguments about manifesto delivery — showing you have read the source carefully.
Both Sides in Depth: You cover multiple Jenkins arguments (manifesto, party unity, effectiveness) rather than just mentioning her briefly.
Strong Core Sentence: "Surgeries and community engagement keeps the most powerful check we have on political power" is excellent evaluation.

Targets

Never Repeat Word-for-Word: Your concluding sentence appears three times and part of the Jenkins section is duplicated. Say each point once — then use the space for new arguments or examples.
Clarify Your Opening: Don't say you agree with both writers if you actually support one more than the other. Start with: "I agree more with Harris because..."
Add Own Knowledge: Your answer stays close to the source text. Try adding a real-world example — like a time an MP defied their party for local people — to push into the higher marks.
Proofread for Duplicates: Before handing in, read through your whole answer and cross out any sentence you've already written elsewhere.

Candidate 91826

Word Count: 139 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

I mostly agree with Tom Harris as his argument is mostly about loyalty to constituents and duty to their people. This is because being loyal to the people of your constituency is the first duty of the MP. The constituency voted for the MP, not the party. The first duty of the constituency voted for the MP is to the people of the constituency. This allows an MP to campaign for what their people want without being restricted by their party. On the other hand Sarah Jenkins argues for loyalty to the party, arguing that when a voter elects an MP they are not voting primarily for an individual. I agree more with Tom Harris as being loyal to your constituents through surgeries and community engagement keeps the most powerful check we have on political power.

Quality of Evaluation Basic but Promising. You have a clear structure: position → reasoning → other side → conclusion. That's a good framework. Your strongest moments are your point about MPs being free to campaign "without being restricted by their party" and your concluding sentence about surgeries and community engagement being a check on political power. However, your first three sentences essentially make the same point (the constituency voted for the MP), and your Jenkins section describes her view without evaluating it. At 139 words, the answer is far too short to develop the depth needed for higher marks.

How to Evaluate Jenkins Instead of Just Describing Her:
Instead of: "Sarah Jenkins argues that when a voter elects an MP they are not voting primarily for an individual."

Try: "Jenkins argues that voters choose a party, not an individual. There is some truth in this — people do look at manifestos. However, I disagree because in a local election, voters also care about who their MP is as a person and whether they will fight for the local area. A good MP should put their community first, even if it means disagreeing with the party."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have an opening position, give reasons, mention the other side, and conclude. This framework is exactly right.
Freedom Point: Your argument that constituency loyalty lets MPs campaign "without being restricted by their party" is a strong, original evaluative point.
Strong Conclusion: Finishing with surgeries and community engagement as a "check on political power" uses the source effectively.

Targets

Don't Repeat: Your first three sentences all say the same thing (the constituency voted for the MP). Make the point once, then move to a different reason.
Evaluate Jenkins: You describe what Jenkins says but never explain why you think she's wrong. You need to challenge her argument directly to access higher marks.
Write Much More: At 139 words you're less than half the expected length. Use the space to give 2–3 different reasons for your position and properly evaluate Jenkins.
Add Examples: A real-world example — like a local issue that matters to your community — would make your argument more convincing.

Candidate 89721

Word Count: 228 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

To a bigger extent I agree with Tom Harris as she says you should be loyal to the people who elected them. This is because it wouldn't be loyal and would be seen as betrayal to not serve the people who elected you, because there must be a reason for you specifically to be voted — to represent not us, voice its specific concerns and fight for its value. This is important as if you ignore the wishes of local people they will lose popularity and should and will be voted out. Showing loyalty is representing the citizens who elected you and attending public meetings or surgeries and community engagement to show interest and present what people need. On the other hand Sarah Jenkins argues for loyalty to the party as her one. Although this has its perks, there are majority of disadvantages, for example people who voted seeing that they haven't been represented well, or betrayal of constituents and local citizens. This also has a lot of pros. This is because an MP has a greater chance of influencing policy and achieving positive change both locally and nationally. An MP who prioritises their party over their constituents contributes to a powerful government and political stability, increasing popularity. Furthermore an MP who prioritises their party over their constituents contributes to a powerful government and political stability.

Quality of Evaluation Good. This is a well-balanced answer. Your Harris section is strong — you don't just say you agree, you explain why with a clear chain of reasoning: voters chose the MP for specific reasons → ignoring them is betrayal → they'll lose popularity → they'll be voted out. This cause-and-effect logic is exactly what good evaluation looks like. Your Jenkins section is also genuinely evaluative: you identify both disadvantages (voters feeling unrepresented) and advantages (greater policy influence, political stability). The answer loses marks because the final sentence repeats the previous one, and you don't have a concluding statement that pulls your overall judgment together.

Strengths

Chain of Reasoning: Your Harris argument builds logically — voters chose you → ignoring them is betrayal → you lose popularity → you get voted out. This is strong, connected evaluation.
Balanced Jenkins Section: You identify both pros and cons of Jenkins's position. Acknowledging that party loyalty has genuine advantages ("greater chance of influencing policy") shows mature thinking.
Confident Opening: "To a bigger extent" signals that you've considered both sides before choosing — the examiner can see you are weighing arguments, not just picking one.

Targets

Remove the Duplicate: Your final sentence repeats the one before it word-for-word. Delete the repeat and replace it with a conclusion: "Overall, I agree more with Harris because..."
Add a Conclusion: After weighing both sides so well, you need a final sentence that states your overall judgment clearly.
Use Direct Quotes: You reference Harris's and Jenkins's arguments but don't use their exact words. Embedding short quotes (e.g., Harris says MPs should be a "champion of their local area") would strengthen your analysis further.
Expand Slightly: At 228 words you're close but not quite at the target. A proper concluding paragraph would bring you into range.

Extended Writing Feedback

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

Teacher Next Steps

📄 Source D: Original Passages

Sarah Jenkins argues for Loyalty to the Party

Tom Harris argues for Loyalty to Constituents

💡 Own Knowledge You Could Have Used

Model Answer (Exemplar)

Candidate 67012

Candidate 76971

Candidate 79180

Candidate 71689

Candidate 19678

Candidate 19726

Candidate 66120

Candidate 67892

Candidate 67801

Candidate 28691

Candidate 82790

Candidate 90128

Candidate 98607

Candidate 16079

Candidate 97128

Candidate 78962

Candidate 10629

Candidate 68170

Candidate 91708

Candidate 72916

Candidate 60982

Candidate 91826

Candidate 89721