Feedback Focussing on Evaluation

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

1. Describing Instead of Evaluating: Many students retold what the writers said without explaining why those arguments are strong or weak. Describing is not the same as evaluating. You need to say why an argument matters, not just what it says.
👉 Model: Instead of "Kelly says the NHS should be funded," write: "Kelly's argument that the NHS is the essential bedrock of a civilised country is strong because without it, people on low incomes would have no access to healthcare — for example, the NHS treats over 1 million patients every 36 hours."
2. Not Using Direct Quotes from the Source: Too few students quoted the actual words of Bridges or Kelly. Quoting the source shows the examiner you are analysing what is written, not just remembering the gist of it.
👉 Model: Instead of "Bridges thinks taxes should be low," write: "Bridges argues that 'high taxes are a burden on individuals and a drag on the economy,' which is a strong point because businesses like small shops may struggle to survive if corporation tax is too high."
3. One-Sided Arguments: Several students focused almost entirely on one writer. To reach the top marks you must engage with BOTH sides in detail, even if you disagree with one of them.
👉 Model: "While I agree with Kelly that public services need funding, Bridges makes a fair point that borrowing is risky — the UK's national debt is over £2.5 trillion and interest payments alone cost billions each year."
4. Weak or Missing Final Judgements: Some answers simply stopped without a clear overall evaluative judgement. Others wrote "I agree with Kelly" without explaining why their chosen writer's case was stronger overall.
👉 Model: "Overall, I agree more with Kelly because while Bridges' concern about debt is valid, the real-world impact of underfunding services — such as longer NHS waiting times and crumbling school buildings — directly harms ordinary people right now."
5. No Own Knowledge Used: Most students relied only on the source text. Adding facts or examples from outside the source — such as the NHS, austerity, progressive taxation, or Scandinavian models — would have pushed many answers into the top band.
👉 Model: "Kelly's argument is supported by real-world examples — countries like Sweden and Denmark have high taxes but also the highest quality of life in Europe, suggesting that investment in services does benefit everyone."
6. Vague "Because" Reasoning: Students often wrote "this is a good point because it's true" or "I agree because it makes sense." This is circular reasoning. Your "because" needs to add something new — a real-world example, a consequence, or a counter-argument.
👉 Model: Instead of "This is a good point because it's right," write: "This is a strong argument because after austerity cuts post-2010, many local services like libraries and youth centres were closed, showing what happens when spending is cut too far."
7. Confusing the Two Writers: A small number of students mixed up which writer said what, or attributed the wrong arguments to the wrong person. Always check: Bridges = low taxes, Kelly = high spending on services.
👉 Model: Always name the writer clearly: "Simon Bridges argues for lower taxes because..." and "Dr Laura Kelly responds that..."
8. Not Enough Written: Some scripts were very short. It is very difficult to achieve a high mark with only half a page. You need enough space to cover both sides, use quotes, add own knowledge, and reach a justified conclusion.
👉 Target: Aim for 320+ words by analysing 2–3 different points for each writer.

Teacher Next Steps

1. "Quote → Explain → Evaluate" Drill: Give students a single quote from a source and ask them to write three sentences: (1) What the writer is saying, (2) Why it might be a strong argument, (3) Why someone might disagree. This directly addresses the describing-not-evaluating weakness seen across the class.
2. Colour-Coding Exercise: Print a model answer and ask students to highlight it in three colours (green for Writer A, yellow for Writer B, purple for evaluation). This makes the structure of a good answer visible and addresses the one-sided argument problem.
3. Own Knowledge Bank: Create a class list of 10-15 facts and examples that could be used for this topic (e.g., NHS statistics, austerity impacts, Scandinavian model, national debt figures). Students who used no own knowledge need a concrete bank to draw from.
4. "Upgrade My Sentence" Activity: Show students weak sentences from (anonymised) scripts alongside improved versions. Ask them to identify the difference and then upgrade their own weakest paragraph. This addresses circular reasoning and vague "because" statements.
5. Timed Two-Paragraph Challenge: In 10 minutes, students write one paragraph agreeing with Writer A and one disagreeing. This forces engagement with both sides and builds speed for exam conditions. Addresses the one-sided argument weakness.
6. Final Judgement Workshop: Provide three different final evaluative judgements for the same question and ask students to rank them from weakest to strongest. Discuss what makes a judgement convincing (clear position + reason + acknowledgement of the other side's strengths). This addresses the weak/missing evaluative judgement problem.
7. Quote-Spotting Race: Give students 3 minutes to find and write down 4 direct quotes from the source (2 from each writer). Then discuss how to embed them naturally in sentences. This addresses the lack of source quotation across the class.
8. Progressive Tax Explainer Lesson: Several students were confused about how taxation works. A short lesson on progressive vs regressive taxation, income tax bands, and corporation tax would give students the factual foundation to write more confidently about this topic.

📊 Skill Assessment Overview (QLA)

This Question Level Analysis breaks down each student's performance across the two assessed skills — Quality of Evaluation and Use of Own Knowledge — to identify patterns and inform targeted intervention.

Quality of Evaluation 🟢 Green: 9 students (39%)
🟡 Amber: 11 students (48%)
🔴 Red: 3 students (13%)

Use of Own Knowledge 🟢 Green: 4 students (17%)
🟡 Amber: 4 students (17%)
🔴 Red: 15 students (65%)

⚡ Key Finding Own knowledge is the class's primary weakness. 65% of students scored red — including 4 students who are green on evaluation quality. These students can already evaluate well but simply don't deploy real-world facts. This is the single highest-impact teaching intervention available.

Student-by-Student Breakdown

Candidate	Score	Evaluation	Own Knowledge	Priority Intervention
72916	8/10	🟢	🟢	Extension: challenge Kelly more deeply
79180	8/10	🟢	🟢	Extension: tighter link between Brexit and borrowing argument
82790	7/10	🟢	🟢	Extension: balance coverage — more space on Kelly
86120	8/10	🟢	🟡	Anchor strong logic chains with specific real-world facts
67892	7/10	🟢	🟡	Develop cancer research example; add more own knowledge
89721	7/10	🟢	🔴	⚡ HIGH IMPACT: Teach own knowledge — evaluation already strong
19678	7/10	🟢	🔴	⚡ HIGH IMPACT: Teach own knowledge — evaluation already strong
28691	7/10	🟢	🔴	⚡ HIGH IMPACT: Teach own knowledge — evaluation already strong
90128	7/10	🟢	🔴	⚡ HIGH IMPACT: Teach own knowledge — evaluation already strong
10629	6/10	🟡	🟡	Develop both: deepen evaluation AND add more specific facts
67012	6/10	🟡	🔴	Own knowledge first, then deepen evaluative challenges
91826	6/10	🟡	🔴	Own knowledge first; also balance coverage of both writers
78962	5/10	🟡	🔴	Stop repeating points; add own knowledge to break the loop
60982	5/10	🟡	🔴	Challenge writers' weaknesses; add real-world examples
98607	5/10	🟡	🔴	Go beyond "good point" — explain WHY; add facts
18369	5/10	🟡	🔴	Challenge writers' weaknesses more deeply; add examples
67801	5/10	🟡	🔴	Complete reasoning chains; add real-world evidence
68170	4/10	🟡	🔴	Move from description to evaluation; stop repeating points
97128	4/10	🟡	🔴	Deepen surface-level evaluation; add any real-world fact
26817	4/10	🟡	🔴	Check writer attribution accuracy; add own knowledge
20967	3/10	🔴	🔴	Foundational: complete sentences with "because" reasoning
16079	3/10	🔴	🔴	Foundational: evaluate (not describe); address both writers
71689	2/10	🔴	🔴	Foundational: legibility and sentence completion

Suggested Intervention Groups

🟢 Group A — Extension (3 students) 72916, 79180, 82790
Green on both skills. Challenge with: deeper counter-arguments, comparing international examples, evaluating the limitations of BOTH writers' positions. These students are ready for Level 4 stretch tasks.

⚡ Group B — High-Impact Quick Win (4 students) 89721, 19678, 28691, 90128
Green evaluation but red own knowledge. These students already evaluate well — they just need a bank of facts. One lesson on "5 facts you can use in any tax/spending essay" (NHS stats, UK tax bands, austerity impacts, Scandinavian model, UK corporation tax cuts) could push all four into the 8-9/10 range.

🟡 Group C — Developing Both Skills (12 students) 86120, 67892, 10629, 67012, 91826, 78962, 60982, 98607, 18369, 67801, 68170, 97128, 26817
Amber evaluation and red/amber own knowledge. Focus on: (1) moving from "I agree because it's good" to "I agree because [specific consequence]"; (2) memorising 3-4 key facts they can deploy in any answer. Pair evaluation sentence stems with fact cards.

🔴 Group D — Foundational Support (3 students) 20967, 16079, 71689
Red on both skills. Priority: complete sentences, "because" reasoning, and addressing both writers. Scaffolded writing frames with sentence starters: "I agree with [Writer] because..." / "However, [Other Writer] argues that..." / "This is convincing because in real life..."

📄 Source 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.

Simon Bridges — Low Taxes Should Be the Priority

The foundation of a strong economy and a prosperous country is responsible financial management. A government must act like a prudent household: it cannot consistently spend more than it earns. The Chancellor's primary duty is to balance the books, ensuring that every pound of taxpayers' money is spent efficiently. This requires making tough choices and resisting the constant demand from every department for more funding than is available.

High taxes are a burden on individuals and a drag on the economy. When people get to keep more of their own earnings, they are incentivised to work hard and invest. When businesses face lower corporation taxes, they are more likely to expand, innovate, and create jobs. This is how real economic growth is generated. The government's role is not to take as much as it can in tax, but to create the conditions for a dynamic economy to flourish.

Relying on borrowing to cover a spending shortfall is a deeply irresponsible strategy. Government debt is not a magic solution; it is simply a tax on future generations. Every pound borrowed today must be paid back with interest tomorrow, placing a heavy burden on our children and grandchildren.

Dr Laura Kelly — High Spending on Public Services Should Be the Priority

A government's budget is not just a set of accounts; it is a statement of its moral priorities. The primary goal should be to build a fair and compassionate society, and this requires significant and sustained investment in our public services. A well-funded NHS, excellent schools for all children, and reliable public transport are not luxuries; they are the essential bedrock of a civilised country. Failing to fund them properly hurts the most vulnerable and weakens society as a whole.

This investment must be paid for through a fair and progressive tax system. It is entirely right that those with the highest incomes and large, profitable corporations should contribute a greater share to fund the services that benefit everyone. Taxes are the subscription fee we pay to live in a functioning, supportive society. Arguing for lower taxes is often just an argument for allowing the wealthiest to contribute less, at the expense of everyone else's services.

While balancing the books is important, we must not confuse national investment with household debt. Borrowing money to invest in long-term infrastructure, green energy, or education is a wise decision that will generate economic growth for decades to come. To refuse to make these investments in the name of short-term fiscal purity is to sacrifice our country's future prosperity.

💡 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 NHS in numbers: The NHS is the UK's largest employer with around 1.4 million staff. It treats over 1 million patients every 36 hours. Without tax funding, people would have to pay for every doctor's visit like in the USA, where medical bills are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy.
Austerity after 2010: After the 2008 financial crisis, the UK government cut public spending significantly. This led to the closure of libraries, youth centres, and Sure Start children's centres across the country. This is a real example of what happens when the government prioritises low spending.
Progressive taxation explained: In the UK, you pay different rates of income tax depending on how much you earn — 20% on the basic rate, 40% on higher earnings, and 45% on income over £125,140. This is what Kelly means by a "progressive" system — it's already how UK tax works.
The Scandinavian model: Countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have some of the highest taxes in the world but also the highest quality of life, best schools, and most reliable public services. This supports Kelly's argument that high investment in services benefits everyone.
National debt: The UK's national debt is over £2.7 trillion. Annual interest payments alone cost tens of billions of pounds. This supports Bridges' warning about borrowing — the debt is real and it does cost future generations money.
Corporation tax and business: The UK's corporation tax rate is currently 25% for larger businesses. Some argue that lowering this would attract more companies to the UK (as happened with Ireland's low 12.5% rate), while others say it reduces the money available for public services.
Left-wing vs right-wing politics: Kelly's arguments align with Labour Party views (higher taxes, more public spending), while Bridges' arguments align with Conservative Party views (lower taxes, smaller government, free market). Recognising this political context shows deeper understanding.
The multiplier effect: When the government spends money on public services, that money goes to workers who then spend it in shops and businesses, creating more economic activity. This is why some economists argue that government spending actually grows the economy, not shrinks it.

Model Answer (Exemplar)

Evaluation Score: 10/10

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

Strong opening — immediately states a clear position while acknowledging the other side.I agree more with Dr Laura Kelly, although Simon Bridges does raise some valid concerns about government borrowing. Directly engages with Kelly's argument using her actual words from the source.Kelly argues that a well-funded NHS, schools, and public transport are "the essential bedrock of a civilised country," and I believe this is her strongest point. OWN KNOWLEDGE: Uses real NHS statistics to support the argument — this goes well beyond the source text.The NHS treats over one million patients every 36 hours, and without tax funding, millions of families could not afford basic healthcare — in the USA, where healthcare is largely private, medical debt is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy. Links back to Kelly's specific argument about who suffers when services are cut.This supports Kelly's claim that failing to fund services properly "hurts the most vulnerable and weakens society as a whole." Engages with Kelly's taxation argument using a direct quote.Kelly also argues that taxes should be paid through "a fair and progressive tax system" where higher earners contribute more. OWN KNOWLEDGE: Explains how UK tax bands actually work — concrete factual detail from outside the source.This is already how the UK works — the basic rate of income tax is 20%, rising to 40% and 45% for higher earners — so her argument reflects existing policy rather than a radical change. OWN KNOWLEDGE: Uses Scandinavian countries as evidence to support Kelly's position.Countries like Sweden and Denmark show that high-tax, high-service models can produce some of the best quality of life in the world. Pivots fairly to Bridges' side — shows engagement with both writers.However, Bridges raises a legitimate concern when he warns that "relying on borrowing to cover a spending shortfall is a deeply irresponsible strategy." OWN KNOWLEDGE: Uses UK national debt figure to give weight to Bridges' argument.The UK's national debt is over £2.7 trillion, and interest payments cost billions annually, so his warning about burdening future generations is grounded in reality. Engages with Bridges' economic argument about incentives.He also makes a fair point that lower taxes can incentivise people to "work hard and invest," which could stimulate the economy. OWN KNOWLEDGE: References austerity to challenge Bridges' position — uses real history to evaluate.But the post-2010 austerity years showed that cutting public spending led to the closure of libraries, youth centres, and Sure Start programmes, directly harming communities — suggesting that Bridges' approach has real human costs. Excellent evaluative judgement — gives a clear overall position, weighs both sides, and justifies the final decision with reasoning.Overall, while Bridges is right to warn about debt, Kelly's argument is stronger because a society that fails to invest in healthcare, education, and infrastructure does not just save money — it stores up bigger problems for the future. A progressive tax system that asks the wealthiest to contribute fairly is both practical and just.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Top tier. Every paragraph contains "because" reasoning that goes beyond the source. Both writers are challenged with developed consequences. The final evaluative judgement weighs both sides and justifies the position.

2. Use of Own Knowledge Excellent: "NHS statistics," "USA healthcare comparison," "UK tax bands," "Scandinavian model," "austerity impacts," "national debt figures." At least five pieces of own knowledge deployed to strengthen evaluation.

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 economic vocabulary (e.g., "progressive taxation", "fiscal responsibility", "multiplier effect").

Candidate 71689

Word Count: ~130 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 2/10

I agree with Simon Bridges on the days to him because why has taxes economy. Years, r community, months, loading from blagets yes lower corporation bakes etc on the BBeat would for DK Laura Keils Blog say flag. In a real flaked hats are hot I EXLvies LGICE also Sashag avonues lover forced 15 often ah avmendes for ancients ble least peoples (amonthere less) alth oligo but its may be the tote, l orething taxes card save verse at the brink or parenty ingle also gives or save money also gives

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Weak. The handwriting makes it very difficult to identify any evaluative reasoning. There are no "because" chains or challenges to either writer.

2. Use of Own Knowledge None. No facts, examples, or real-world references are present beyond attempted engagement with the source.

Aspire: Building Evaluation: Instead of just naming a writer, explain WHY you agree:

"I agree with Bridges because if people keep more of their earnings, they can spend money in shops and businesses, which helps the economy grow."

Strengths

You Chose a Side: You identified Simon Bridges as the writer you agree with — that shows you understood what the question was asking.
You Tried Both Sides: You attempted to mention Dr Laura Kelly as well, showing awareness that both writers need addressing.

Targets

Write in Complete Sentences: Each sentence needs a subject, verb, and clear point. Practice writing one full argument before moving to the next.
Use Direct Quotes: Copy a short phrase from the source in quotation marks to anchor your argument.
Add "Because" Reasoning: After every point, write "because" and explain WHY. This is what turns description into evaluation.
Write More: You need at least a full page. Aim for 250+ words to develop your evaluation of both writers' arguments.

Candidate 20967

Word Count: ~270 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 3/10

I the writer I agree with most is Dr Laura Kelly the most. She D answers Kelly as she says. H with spending on No whiter S would should be promoting She believes chat the providing good should be so build. en going surely. I in order to also investments should be so be persons or by or joined tax system. She could investment should be persons I that investments should be paid by a fair tax system. It is rooted that those It also also believes that I the investments should not be so be persons or buy It cannot consistently spend more than it earns. Meaning that they can't continuously take money from people. Good e when in the end, it will never be enough for what they got to use it for below. consequences to

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Minimal. You attempt to reference both writers but the reasoning is very difficult to follow. You need to complete your sentences and explain WHY you agree or disagree.

2. Use of Own Knowledge None. You rely entirely on the source text with no facts or examples from outside the passage.

Aspire: Completing Your Evaluation: You tried to reference the fair tax system. Develop it:

"I agree with Kelly's fair tax system because it means wealthy people pay more, which funds services like the NHS that everyone uses."

Strengths

Clear Opening Position: You stated immediately that you agree with Dr Laura Kelly, giving the examiner a clear line of argument.
Both Writers Mentioned: You tried to engage with both Kelly and Bridges, showing you understood the question requires analysis of both sides.
Source Reference: You referenced the fair tax system and the idea that government cannot spend more than it earns — both from the source.

Targets

Evaluate Don't Describe: After every point, add WHY it is strong or weak. Say "she believes X, and this is convincing because..."
Use Direct Quotes: Copy short phrases from the source in quotation marks.
Finish Your Thoughts: Several sentences trail off. Make sure every evaluative point is fully explained.
Add Own Knowledge: Mention a real-world example — the NHS, austerity cuts, or progressive taxation.

Candidate 78962

Word Count: ~370 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I agree with Laura Kelly (Labour parts). Since she has some strong points but so does Simon Bridges (Conservative). But he also has weak points. A well-funded NHS, excellent schools for all children, and reliable public transport is not luxuries; they are the essential bedrock of a civilised country. Schools are supposed to be accessible for everyone. So NHS, they shouldn't only be for the people and they can pay for the services and also I disagree with Simon because he says he wants to lower taxes. That can pay for the people's services and also I disagree with Simon because he says he wants to lower taxes. NHS, they shouldn't only be for the people that can pay. That can pay less from pension and for everyone else will get worse public services like schools, NHS, transport and worse. I also disagree with one point Laura Kelly made and that is how she said those with higher incomes and large profitable corporations should contribute a greater share to fund the services that benefit everyone. I disagree with that since it would be unfair to those who have a higher income since they earned it. So I agree with Laura Kelly (Labour) but she has some bad points. But some of her strong points I agree with most is how she argues that everyone should be treated fairly. Her conservative view is for sourcer and basic businesses and one of best points is that the government should just get the economy to grow and jobs. So I agree with Laura Kelly (Labour) but she has some bad points. I disagree with that since it would be unfair.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Developing. You challenge Kelly's progressive tax argument and identify weaknesses in Bridges' position. However, you repeat the same points rather than developing new ones, and some evaluation stays at "I agree/disagree" without explaining WHY.

2. Use of Own Knowledge None. You don't use any facts, statistics, or real-world examples beyond what the source provides. Adding even one example would strengthen your evaluation.

Aspire: Adding Own Knowledge: You wrote: "higher taxes is not fair because not everyone earns the same." Strengthen with a fact:

"Kelly's progressive tax idea isn't fair to everyone — in the UK, top earners already pay 45% income tax compared to 20% for basic rate. Some argue this punishes hard work, supporting Bridges' point."

Strengths

Critical Thinking About Your Own Side: You disagreed with Kelly on progressive taxation even though she's the writer you support — genuine evaluation.
Both Writers Addressed: You engage with arguments from both Bridges and Kelly, covering multiple points.
Source Language Used: You referenced Kelly's point about the NHS and schools being the bedrock of society.

Targets

Avoid Repetition: You repeat several points — plan your answer so each paragraph makes a new argument.
Add Own Knowledge: Mention NHS waiting times, austerity cuts, or how Scandinavian countries use high taxes successfully.
Make a Final Evaluative Judgement: State which writer you find more convincing overall and explain WHY their arguments are stronger.
Use Quotation Marks: When you quote from the source, use quotation marks to show the examiner you are engaging closely with the text.

Candidate 79180

Word Count: ~310 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 8/10

I personally agree with Simon Bridges' right-wing idea because it shows the important of wise money spending. However, Laura Kelly does make some good points too. One reason why I agree with Simon Bridges is because he claims, 'Relying on borrowing is an irresponsible strategy.' In Britain's 2020 referendum, Brexit happened and the UK had left the EU. Asking for some money would seem unfair for others. Leaving the EU would only sound logical. If you didn't rely on other countries, however, a problem with this can be that services will not have as good quality as before. This leads to unhappy workers due to less tax and eventually supply and demand. However, Laura Kelly's left-wing view can be logical. For example, she claims, the essential bedrock of a civilised country. The UK's net migration has been positive for many years, meaning more people are coming in than out. More children who have the right to an education should be gifted with an education. This also follows the Equality Act 2010. However, a problem with this is that devolution can't give you all the money that is necessary. If more immigrants do come to the UK, housing and social protection would have to be prioritised first.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Excellent. You consistently challenge arguments using "because" reasoning. You evaluate Bridges' borrowing claim through the lens of Brexit, challenge both sides, and explain consequences rather than just stating opinions.

2. Use of Own Knowledge Excellent: "Brexit," "EU," "net migration," "Equality Act 2010." You deploy multiple real-world references to support your evaluation — this is exactly what pushes answers into the top band.

Aspire: Linking Your Knowledge More Tightly: Your Brexit reference is strong. Make the connection even more explicit:

"Bridges argues against borrowing, but after Brexit the UK lost access to EU funding programmes. This shows that not borrowing can also have economic consequences — supporting Kelly's argument that investment is necessary."

Strengths

Impressive Own Knowledge: Brexit, UK net migration, and the Equality Act 2010 — all from outside the source. Exactly what examiners reward.
Balanced Evaluation: You challenged both writers — pointing out problems with Bridges' approach and Kelly's approach.
Direct Quotes Used: You quoted Bridges directly and referenced Kelly's "bedrock" argument.
Political Terminology: You correctly identified Bridges as right-wing and Kelly as left-wing.

Targets

Make a Final Evaluative Judgement: State which writer's case is stronger overall and explain WHY — this is the highest level of evaluation.
Tighten Your Reasoning: The Brexit connection needs a clearer logical link to Bridges' borrowing argument.
More Quotes from Kelly: You quoted Bridges directly but only paraphrased Kelly. Balance your quotation across both writers.

Candidate 60982

Word Count: ~250 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I agree with Simon Bridges because in my opinion I believe that if we paid lower taxes then companies and businesses would pay less tax and with that extra money they can make a bigger gain from businesses and learn more money increasing the amount of jobs and even reducing the amount of homelessness. Also it makes people's lives easier to survive and not be low on money because of high taxes. On the other hand you could also agree with Dr Laura Kelly because I believe that by keeping tax equal it will create a more fair society. Because good taxes with the money they could increase the quality of public services like NHS, education, transport, etc. If people were to argue for lower tax, it would allow the wealthiest to contribute less and so it would make society less fair and equal. In conclusion, I could agree more with Dr Laura Kelly because I believe that paying the same amount of tax would make society fairer and equal and would also increase the quality of public services with the tax money and people could live a better life.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Reasonable. You build a genuine chain of reasoning (lower taxes → bigger businesses → more jobs → less homelessness) which IS evaluation. You also address both sides. However, you don't challenge either writer's weaknesses or explain what could go wrong with their approach.

2. Use of Own Knowledge None. Your argument relies entirely on logic from the source. A real-world example like NHS funding or austerity impacts would significantly strengthen your evaluation.

Aspire: Adding a Real-World Example: You wrote: "lower taxes means bigger businesses and more jobs." Support this:

"Bridges' argument has some evidence — when corporation tax was cut from 28% to 19% in the UK, some businesses did invest more. However, Kelly would argue this didn't stop NHS waiting times from rising."

Strengths

Both Sides Covered: You clearly address both Bridges and Kelly with reasons for each.
Final Evaluative Judgement: You end with a clear overall judgement for Kelly, weighing both sides — strong evaluation.
Chain of Reasoning: Your Bridges paragraph builds from lower taxes → bigger businesses → more jobs → less homelessness. This is good extended reasoning.

Targets

Use Direct Quotes: Quote the writers' exact words to show close engagement with the source.
Add Own Knowledge: Mention the NHS, austerity, Scandinavian countries, or UK tax bands.
Deeper Evaluation: Don't just say an argument is "fair" — explain the specific consequences.
Challenge the Arguments: Find a weakness in each writer's position — you only present the positives.

Candidate 10629

Word Count: ~340 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

To a certain extent, I somewhat agree mainly with Dr Laura Kelly. The reason I mainly agree with Dr Laura Kelly, 13 I agree with Dr Laura Kelly mainly due to her claim that NHS is the essential bedrock to society. Where she says here containing the NHS which is one reason labour with. Because of the high taxation, services, schools and hospitals are able to ensure equipment in order to function well. Another reason why I agree with Laura is because high taxation parties are also to ensure universal services which can help less fortunate people who are able to use it to ensure they are universally served. Obligations to back this up is that low taxes give businesses owners less to spend more money expanding the business. This in turn creates competition, driving revenue up. It can benefit society. On the other hand, I partially agree with Simon Bridges. The reason for this is due to his statement that it creates a burden on individuals and a drag on the economy. To add on, individually trying to start a business, winning parties (even as the Conservative Party) believe in lower tax, people trying to start a business. Another reason why I agree with Bridges is because of his views on our debt and future generation. I agree with this as interest will slowly increase the amount of money to be paid in future, here some leaving a burden on our future generation. Overall, I agree with Laura Kelly's morals, perspective and personal experiences.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Reasonable. You evaluate how taxation funds hospital equipment and how interest payments burden future generations. However, some reasoning is unclear and you rely on "I agree because" without always explaining the specific consequences.

2. Use of Own Knowledge Some. You reference the Conservative Party and interest payments on government debt — showing awareness beyond the source. However, these references could be developed more with specific figures or examples.

Aspire: Developing Your Knowledge: You mentioned interest payments burdening future generations. Add a specific fact:

"Bridges is right that borrowing creates debt — the UK currently pays over £100 billion per year in interest on national debt. This is money that could fund schools and hospitals, which supports his argument for responsible spending."

Strengths

Both Sides Evaluated: You gave clear reasons for partially agreeing with both Kelly and Bridges.
Political Awareness: You referenced the Conservative Party's stance on lower taxes — showing knowledge beyond the source.
Good "Because" Reasoning: You explained WHY you agreed with specific points, particularly on interest burdens.

Targets

Use Direct Quotes: Quote exact words from the source to show close engagement.
Strengthen Your Final Judgement: Weigh both writers' arguments and explain why one is more convincing overall — this deepens your evaluation.
Clarify Your Writing: Some sentences are hard to follow — re-read each one to check it makes sense.
Add Own Knowledge: Real examples like NHS statistics or austerity would strengthen your evaluation.

Candidate 89721

Word Count: ~380 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

To a bigger extent I agree with Dr Laura Kelly because she talks about higher spending on public service helping wider society. This is because to build a fair and compassionate society, if you will need investment in public services for example TFL (transport for London), NHS, Childcare, and a wide variety of excellent schools. Higher spending on public service for example PA is essential as failing to fund them will damage the economy of the weaker and poorer people. Additionally, investments must be paid through a fair, progressive tax system. It is entirely right for more wealthier people or companies to contribute to a greater share to fund services benefiting everyone and taxes allow a functioning, supportive society. Arguing for lower taxes would just allow the wealthiest to contribute less what at the expense of everyone else's service. However, some may disagree because this can encourage laziness and reliability on services and make people not want to try in life. When people keep more of their earnings, they are incentivised to work hard, create real economic growth. To a smaller extent, I also agree with Simon Bridges as she encourages freedom and independence. This is because a strong economy and prosperous country is responsible financial management. A government must act like a prudent household as it cannot consistently spend more than it earns and must resist the constant demand from every department for more funding than is available. On the other hand, low taxes also make life harder for individuals. It causes them to stress and puts pressure on paying for public services. Overall I agree with Dr Laura Kelly as her point creates a fairer society and helps the economy.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Very good. You challenge your OWN position by noting high spending could encourage dependency — this is sophisticated evaluation. You also evaluate both writers' arguments with developed reasoning throughout.

2. Use of Own Knowledge Strong: "TFL (Transport for London)," "Childcare." You go beyond the source with your own examples of public services, showing you understand the real-world implications of Kelly's argument.

Aspire: Developing Your Evaluative Judgement: You wrote: "Overall I agree with Dr Laura Kelly as her point creates a fairer society." Strengthen this:

"Overall, while Bridges is right that over-spending can be risky, Kelly's argument is more convincing because investing in the NHS, schools, and transport creates a fairer society. Countries like Sweden show that high taxes and strong services can coexist with a successful economy."

Strengths

Counter-Argument Used: You challenged your own position by noting high spending could encourage laziness — genuine evaluation.
Own Knowledge: TFL and Childcare as examples beyond the source.
Clear Evaluative Flow: Logical progression from Kelly to counter-argument to Bridges to final judgement.
Both Writers' Arguments Developed: You engaged with multiple points from each writer, not just one.

Targets

Use Direct Quotes: You paraphrased extensively but didn't use quotation marks. Quoting directly shows closer analysis.
Deepen Your Final Judgement: Explain WHY Kelly's case is stronger by weighing the specific arguments against each other.
Add a Specific Example: A real-world fact like NHS statistics or austerity impacts would push into the top band.

Candidate 68170

Word Count: ~320 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

In my opinion I agree most with Dr Laura Kelly. This is because she makes many good points. Such as the government should be to build a fair and compassionate society. This also includes public services. Such as NHS, the police, cleaner streets to our society. Our society provide protection for our lives. Another point she makes that is the most important should be paid for. So basically public services such as NHS are cleaner streets, to provide protection for our society as they provide protection for our lives. She makes is that this is clearly not achieved. This is a very important point because people countably spending of top money is society's greatest issue not addressed. This is a clearly not achieved. One more point that Simon Bridges made use that the Chancellor's duty is to balance the books ensuring that every pound of taxpayers' money is spent efficiently. This is a good argument as the chancellor should ensure that taxed money is spent efficiently. However, I somewhat disagree when he says 'Relying on borrowing to cover a spending shortfall is a deeply irresponsible strategy.' This is because people don't just buy taxes. The government is clearly not upholding its efficiency. This is clearly not addressed. Money is society's greatest need but not necessarily so simply.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Developing. You attempt to challenge Bridges' borrowing argument by quoting him directly, which is good. However, your evaluation of Kelly is mainly description — you list her points without explaining WHY they are strong or weak. The reasoning becomes repetitive.

2. Use of Own Knowledge None. You don't reference any facts, statistics, or real-world examples beyond the source text. Every point comes directly from the passage.

Aspire: Moving From Description to Evaluation: You wrote: "public services such as NHS are cleaner streets, to provide protection." Add WHY this matters:

"Kelly's argument about the NHS is strong because without public funding, people on low incomes couldn't afford medical treatment. In the USA, where healthcare is private, millions of people avoid seeing a doctor because they can't pay."

Strengths

Direct Quote Used: You quoted Bridges on borrowing being an irresponsible strategy — exactly what the examiner wants to see.
Both Writers Addressed: You engage with Kelly's public services argument and Bridges' fiscal responsibility argument.
Attempts to Challenge: You tried to disagree with Bridges' borrowing argument, showing you can think critically.

Targets

Complete Your Reasoning: Your challenge to Bridges' borrowing argument trails off. Finish the thought — WHY is borrowing sometimes necessary?
Avoid Repeating Points: You make the same point about public services several times. Each paragraph should add a NEW argument.
Make a Final Evaluative Judgement: State which writer you agree with more and explain WHY their arguments outweigh the other's.
Add Own Knowledge: Real-world examples like NHS funding, austerity, or COVID borrowing would strengthen your evaluation.

Candidate 86120

Word Count: ~420 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 8/10

I agree with Simon Bridges more than I do Dr Laura Kelly because of his point and explanation about why low taxes should be the priority. Simon Bridges says that a responsible government can't spend more than it earns, this means that the money generated is spent wisely reducing the need to borrow money. If less money is borrowed, taxes might not increase and enables individuals and businesses to grow and could generate more money which can then be taxed, accordingly making more money for the government without raising taxes. Simon argues that a government should create conditions where economy can flourish without raising taxes, this creates more jobs, which leads to more money which is taxed without increase on the original and gives the government more spending money. Dr Laura Kelly argues for High Spending on Public Services. She says that well-funded public services aren't luxuries which to an extent I agree with, however if we spent more than we have on those, people have increased taxes. This leads to a case where — for example a public service like the NHS gets more patients due to the work stress on people which leads to increased spending on the NHS more than we have and causes a domino effect. She also argues that investments must be paid through a fair and progressive tax system. One also argues that investments must be paid through a fair and progressive tax system. If we invest carelessly, not budgeting and allocating money on key services the government is making a bad judgement as we risk our money on something that's not necessarily going to end well and are increasing taxes on people based on that the economy is put in a state of imbalance and extra individual growth is hindered. In my opinion, a good government prioritises individual growth as this allows the economy to grow and puts the country in a state of progression. In conclusion I agree with Simon Bridges as his argument aligns with this philosophy.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Excellent. Sophisticated economic reasoning — you trace a full logic chain from responsible spending to business growth to government revenue. You also construct an original "domino effect" scenario about NHS consequences. This is sustained, developed evaluation.

2. Use of Own Knowledge Some. Your "domino effect" NHS scenario and the economic growth chain show original thinking that goes beyond the source. However, you don't cite specific real-world facts or statistics to anchor these arguments.

Aspire: Anchoring Your Logic With Facts: Your economic chain is sophisticated. Add a specific fact:

"Bridges' argument about lower taxes boosting growth has real evidence — when the UK cut corporation tax, business investment initially rose. This supports his claim that a government 'cannot consistently spend more than it earns.'"

Strengths

Sophisticated Economic Reasoning: You traced the full chain from lower taxes → more growth → more revenue → better services without raising taxes.
Original Counter-Argument: Your NHS stress scenario — overspending leads to overwork which leads to more patients — is creative and evaluative.
Partial Agreement: You agreed with Kelly's point about services before challenging her — this shows nuance.
Strong Final Judgement: You end with a philosophical evaluative argument about individual growth driving progression.

Targets

Use Direct Quotes: Quote Bridges' and Kelly's actual words to show close engagement with the source.
Add Specific Own Knowledge: National debt figures, NHS statistics, or austerity examples would push to 9-10.
Name the Political Context: Identifying Bridges as right-wing/Conservative and Kelly as left-wing/Labour would show wider understanding.

Candidate 67801

Word Count: ~290 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I mostly agree with Laura Kelly as it is entirely right for those with the highest incomes to contribute the greatest amounts of money towards the government. The Kelly government and I agree with it as it ensures that people who don't earn lots continue to have the chance to have money to spend on basic necessities. Additionally, the idea of high spending on public services also appeals to me as things like public transport and the NHS are very important to the people. However, some people could argue that high taxes are a burden to society. One example of the idea Simon Bridges, who argues that lower taxes should be the priority of a government. For example, this added more of people's wages, who are motivated to work harder. They will receive a reward. If they know they are going to receive more, they will be motivated to work harder. However, his arguments could be considered a weakness as lower taxes means public services are damaged, have to be paid for, which is a problem for those who can't afford it. Spending on those, the idea that the wealthy should carry on those services that people are damaged. Some people are and that the idea of lower taxes could also be seen as unfair because the people who are working more money will be the ones who benefit most. Those who can't afford private services are the ones who suffer most.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Reasonable. You evaluate both the progressive tax argument and the motivation argument, and you challenge Bridges on service damage. However, the reasoning loops back on itself and some evaluative points are started but not completed.

2. Use of Own Knowledge None. You don't deploy any facts, statistics, or real-world examples. Your entire argument stays within the source text.

Aspire: Using a Fact to Strengthen Evaluation: You wrote: "lower taxes would damage the very services that make society safe." Support this:

"Kelly's argument is backed by evidence — during UK austerity from 2010, cuts to public services led to longer NHS waiting times and school funding gaps. This shows that Bridges' approach of lower taxes can have real consequences for ordinary people."

Strengths

Engages With Kelly's Tax Argument: You explained why progressive taxation protects people on lower incomes — this is genuine evaluation.
Challenges Bridges: You identified that lower taxes damage services for people who can't afford to pay privately.
Attempts Balance: You acknowledged the motivational argument for lower taxes before challenging it.

Targets

Use Direct Quotes: Quote the writers' exact words from the source.
Make a Final Evaluative Judgement: State which writer's case is stronger overall and explain WHY — weighing both sides is the highest form of evaluation.
Add Own Knowledge: NHS statistics, austerity examples, or the Scandinavian model would add depth.
Avoid Repetition: Some points are restated rather than developed — plan each paragraph to make a new argument.

Candidate 19678

Word Count: ~390 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

I agree with both writers to an extent because they both have some positive and negative opinions. One reason I personally agree with Simon Bridges is because when he states 'The government's role is not to take as much as it can in tax, but to create the conditions for a dynamic economy to flourish.' I believe that the government should not overpower the tax policy but instead keep it a minimum so we have a calm and peaceful economy. Because having lower taxes doesn't mean a worse economy, it can actually help businesses grow and create more jobs. This links to Bridges' point about creating conditions for the economy to flourish. One reason I don't agree with this writer is because of when he states 'When people get to keep more of their own earnings, they are incentivised to work hard and invest.' This statement is false as not all people have the same intention in what they want to do with their money. Some people may spend it on things that don't help the economy at all. So keeping more of their money doesn't guarantee they will work harder or invest it wisely. A reason I believe Dr Laura Kelly is correct is because when she states 'Borrowing money to invest in long-term infrastructure, green energy, or education is a wise decision that will generate economic growth for decades to come.' This is realistic to me because we as people in our country should help to improve our country. Meaning all civilians should pay a part to the government. This will make a fair and equal society as well as economy as we are all helping the country grow and develop. However a reason I disagree with Dr Laura Kelly is when she states 'it is entirely right that those with the highest incomes and large, profitable corporations should contribute a greater share.' To me this isn't fair as if a person was to work 10 times harder than someone else however they get paid more that shouldn't mean they get higher tax. It would discourage people from trying to earn more if they know they will just be taxed more for it.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Very good. You challenge BOTH writers using their own quotes against them — questioning whether keeping earnings really motivates everyone, and arguing progressive tax punishes success. This is genuine, balanced evaluation with developed reasoning.

2. Use of Own Knowledge None. Despite strong evaluation, you rely entirely on reasoning from the source. A real-world example would push this into the top band.

Aspire: Adding a Fact to Your Strong Evaluation: You argued that progressive tax "isn't fair" to harder workers. Support this with evidence:

"In the UK, top earners pay 45% income tax compared to 20% for basic rate payers. Some argue this gap is too wide and discourages ambition — supporting Bridges' view that high taxes can hold back economic growth."

Strengths

Direct Quotes From Both Writers: You quoted Bridges about the government's role AND Kelly about infrastructure — showing close reading of both sides.
Challenges Both Positions: You disagreed with Bridges on motivation and Kelly on progressive taxation — genuine critical thinking.
Personal Reasoning: Your civic duty argument about everyone contributing is original and evaluative.

Targets

Make a Final Evaluative Judgement: Which writer do you agree with MORE overall? Explain WHY their arguments outweigh the other's.
Add Own Knowledge: A real example like UK income tax bands or NHS funding statistics would strengthen your challenges.
Balance Your Coverage: Slightly more development on Kelly's side would improve the overall balance.

Candidate 28691

Word Count: ~370 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

I agree with S.B.'s argument that relying on borrowing money from another country is unreliable but I also disagree because it works. The UK has allies who borrow money. This has kept the economy stable for years. I disagree because businesses who borrow money have less corporation taxes, they are more likely to expand, innovate and create jobs. It creates a cycle — businesses grow, they hire more people, those people pay taxes, and the government gets more revenue without having to raise taxes on everyone. I agree with L.K.'s argument that 'a well-funded NHS, excellent schools for all children, and reliable public transport are not luxuries; they are the essential bedrock of a civilised country.' Failing to fund them hurts the most vulnerable and weakens the society as a whole. Because you were a child who used these services, isn't it right to give back? We all went to state schools and used the NHS as children. I agree because the Labour view is because she has a more left-wing approach which I support. This is because she states 'this investment must be paid for through a fair and progressive tax system.' I agree with this because those who earn more can afford to pay more. It doesn't mean they're being punished — it means society is asking them to contribute fairly to the services that helped them succeed. I disagree with LK's point that borrowing money to invest into long-term infrastructure because you will have to pay all the money back. And if you don't, it creates a real problem for the country. Debt builds up and future generations end up paying for it. Overall, I agree more with L.K.'s Labour view rather than S.B.'s conservative view because it is a system that has worked for a long time, the NHS and schools have been funded by tax for decades. So why change it?

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Very good. Your evaluative question "isn't it right to give back?" is a powerful moment of genuine evaluation. You challenge both writers — Bridges on borrowing reliability and Kelly on debt consequences. The reasoning is well-developed throughout.

2. Use of Own Knowledge None. Your evaluation is strong but purely logical — you don't deploy any specific facts, statistics, or real-world examples beyond the source.

Aspire: Backing Up Your Strongest Moment: You asked: "Because you were a child who used these services, isn't it right to give back?" Support this with a fact:

"Everyone benefits from public services — the average person uses the NHS 5.5 times per year. So Kelly's argument that we should all contribute through tax is fair because we've all been on the receiving end."

Strengths

Direct Quotes Used: You quoted Kelly's "essential bedrock" passage and progressive tax point directly — strong source engagement.
Evaluative Question: Asking "isn't it right to give back?" is a powerful evaluative moment that shows genuine thinking.
Political Awareness: You correctly identified Labour/left-wing and Conservative positions.
Strong Final Judgement: You end with an evaluative judgement and a justification — the system has worked for decades.

Targets

Add Own Knowledge: NHS statistics, austerity examples, or Scandinavian comparison would push to 8+.
Tighten Your Reasoning: Some arguments jump between ideas too quickly — develop each point more fully.
Deepen Your Final Judgement: Explain more specifically WHY Kelly's approach is stronger — back up your judgement with concrete evidence.

Candidate 98607

Word Count: ~310 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

In my opinion I agree with Dr Laura Kelly who makes some points that I agree with. However she does make some points I disagree with. On the other hand Simon Bridges also makes some good points. One good point made by Dr Kelly is that the primary goal should be to build a fair and compassionate society and this requires significant and sustained investment in our public services. This is a good point as it makes sure everyone receives the same opportunities. It also allows for social cohesion as no one will be above each other. However, one negative of her argument is that 'Failing to fund them properly hurts the most vulnerable and weakens society as a whole.' This is a negative point as it will not completely work. It is difficult to guarantee that all the money will actually reach those who need it the most. Another strong point made by Dr Kelly is that those with the highest income and large profitable corporations should contribute a greater share to fund the services that benefit everyone. This is a strong point because it is fair that people who can afford it should help fund the services we all use. On the other hand, one positive about Simon Bridges is that a strong economy and a prosperous country requires responsible financial management. This is a strong point as a country can't keep taking on more debt. At some point you have to balance the books and that is a real responsibility. A weak point made by Bridges is his idea to create the conditions for a dynamic economy to flourish. This is a weakness as it doesn't focus on everyone. The people at the bottom would be left behind if the government only focused on growing the economy. Kelly has left-wing (Labour Party) views. Bridges has right-wing (Conservative Party) views.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Developing. You attempt to evaluate both writers and correctly identify political alignments. However, your evaluation often stays at the "this is a good point" level without explaining specific consequences or challenging the arguments.

2. Use of Own Knowledge None. No facts, examples, or real-world references are used. Your evaluation relies entirely on the source text.

Aspire: Going Beyond "Good Point": You wrote: "This is a good point as it makes sure everyone receives the same opportunities." Add depth:

"Kelly's argument about building a fair society is strong because in the UK, children in poorer areas often get worse exam results — investing in schools through taxation could help close this gap and give every child the same chance."

Strengths

Both Writers Addressed: You engage with both Kelly and Bridges, covering multiple arguments from each.
Political Identification: You correctly identify Kelly as Labour/left-wing and Bridges as Conservative/right-wing.
Identifies Strengths and Weaknesses: You found positives and negatives in both writers' arguments — showing balanced thinking.

Targets

Go Deeper Than "Good Point": After labelling something strong or weak, explain WHY with a specific consequence or example.
Use Direct Quotes: Put the writers' exact words in quotation marks more consistently.
Add Own Knowledge: NHS, austerity, or Scandinavian model would add real depth to your evaluation.
Make a Final Evaluative Judgement: Which writer's arguments are more convincing overall? Explain WHY — this is the highest level of evaluation.

Candidate 97128

Word Count: ~240 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

I agree with Simon Bridges because you're still able to get your services even with low taxes. He says that with low taxes, you're still able to get your services, just with more budget cuts on things that aren't needed but wanted which is okay. Also, if you have less taxes you will be able to have more money to spend on what you want and need. But a downside to his argument is that these services may be less quality so people might not get the care and support they need. (Conservative right wing) But Laura Kelly does have good points because she says that with higher taxes you will be able to get better quality services which is good because it can be cleaner and better and more available to people. But a downside to her argument is that with these taxes, people who are earning more money will be the ones paying more taxes which isn't equal since they've worked harder. They might feel like they are being punished for being successful. In conclusion, I agree with Simon Bridges because he has more positive points. He says that the government should not be getting as much as it can in tax so the economy can grow. If the economy grows, everyone benefits in the long run.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Developing. You find a downside in BOTH writers' arguments — noting lower taxes mean worse services AND higher taxes unfairly burden harder workers. This is genuine balanced evaluation, though it stays at a surface level without deeper reasoning.

2. Use of Own Knowledge None. You don't use any facts, statistics, or real-world examples. Adding even one would push your answer into a higher band.

Aspire: Adding Depth: You wrote: "people who are earning more money will be paying more taxes which isn't equal." Develop this:

"In the UK, top earners pay 45% income tax compared to 20% for basic rate. Some people feel this punishes success, which supports Bridges' argument that people should keep more of what they earn."

Strengths

Both Sides Addressed: You cover both Bridges and Kelly with a point for and against each.
Identifies Weaknesses: You found a downside to both writers' arguments — showing balanced thinking.
Political Awareness: You identified the Conservative right-wing alignment.

Targets

Use Direct Quotes: Quote the exact words from the source to anchor your arguments.
Deepen Your Final Judgement: Your closing restates your opening. Add NEW evaluative reasoning about why Bridges' arguments outweigh Kelly's.
Add Own Knowledge: Real examples like NHS funding or UK tax bands would push this from Level 2 into Level 3.
Go Deeper: Explain specific consequences — what happens when services lose quality? Who suffers most?

Candidate 82790

Word Count: ~330 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

In the passage both Simon and Dr Laura can be considered as polar opposites. We can see Simon argue lower taxes should be priority, but Laura argues that high spending on public services is better. But to spend more means a tax increase so higher tax which is completely opposite compared to Simon's beliefs. However, I mainly agree with Laura as her points are better. On one hand, Simon believes that lower tax should be the priority as he believes that 'high taxes are a burden on individuals' and the economy would improve as people should keep more money and work hard for themselves. Simon also argues 'Relying on borrowing to cover a spending shortfall is a deeply irresponsible strategy.' I disagree as I feel higher tax is highly important as it funds day-to-day services which benefit everyone as a community because it's a service that helps save lives, funded by tax. For example, food banks for people who simply cannot afford it and paid sick days as it ensures you don't get inferior treatment. These services exist because of tax funding and they protect the most vulnerable people in society. On the other hand, Laura makes a very strong point. She states 'this investment must be paid through a fair and progressive tax system.' I agree with this because those who earn more should contribute more. It doesn't damage their quality of life to pay a slightly higher rate, but it can transform the lives of people who rely on public services. Higher taxes fund the services that keep our society running. Without them, the people who need the most help would be left behind.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Very good. You frame the debate as "polar opposites" — strong analytical thinking. You challenge Bridges by explaining that higher tax funds life-saving services, and quote both writers directly. The evaluation is sustained and purposeful.

2. Use of Own Knowledge Strong: "food banks," "paid sick days." You deploy your own examples to support your evaluation — these go beyond the source and show you understand the real-world impact of tax-funded services.

Aspire: Balancing Your Analysis: Your answer focuses mainly on challenging Bridges. Add more evaluation of Kelly:

"Kelly argues the NHS and schools are 'the essential bedrock of a civilised country.' This is convincing because even people who want lower taxes still rely on the NHS when ill and on roads to get to work."

Strengths

Direct Quotes: You quoted both Bridges and Kelly directly — strong source engagement.
Own Knowledge: Food banks and paid sick days go beyond the source — exactly what examiners reward.
Good Framing: Starting with "polar opposites" shows strong analytical thinking about the debate.
Clear Position: Your agreement with Laura is stated early and supported throughout.

Targets

Balance Your Coverage: Give more space to developing Kelly's arguments — the answer is weighted towards challenging Bridges.
Make a Final Evaluative Judgement: Weigh both writers' arguments explicitly and state which case is stronger and WHY.
Add More Own Knowledge: You started well with food banks — add NHS waiting times or Scandinavian examples too.

Candidate 90128

Word Count: ~400 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

In the passage both Simon Bridges and Laura Kelly can both be considered as polar capacities with Simon Bridges believing in right-wing ideology and Laura Kelly believing in left-wing views. I mainly agree with Simon Bridges' right-wing views because lower taxes stimulate the economy and grow businesses. On the one hand, Bridges believes in more conservative ideologies and principles. He argues that 'high taxes are a burden on individuals and a drag on the economy.' People get more of their earnings, they are more incentivised to work hard and stimulate the economy. Less money in people's pockets may leave them to shop and spend less as well as investing less which in theory sounds like it will ruin public services but will actually improve them as more money is in people's pockets they will likely invest more into businesses which helps the marketplace. This generates more money for the government helping them fill the void and make public services better without hard taking people's hard-earned money. Also Bridges argues that 'relying on borrowing to cover a spending shortfall is a deeply irresponsible strategy.' Government debt is not a magic solution. It is simply a tax on future generations. Every pound borrowed today must be paid back with interest tomorrow placing a heavy burden on our children and grandchildren. On the other hand Laura Kelly argues for left-wing views on higher spending on public services which sounds great on paper but has many problems. She argues that a government's budget is a statement of its moral priorities. The bill for future services still needs to be paid. Stagnant growth which disincentivises people to spending and more will lead to complications. If you raise taxes too high, people have less to spend, businesses suffer, and the economy shrinks. This is the opposite of what Kelly wants to achieve.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Very good. Sophisticated economic reasoning — you trace how lower taxes lead to more spending, more investment, and more government revenue. You also challenge Kelly by arguing her approach creates future bills. This is ambitious, developed evaluation.

2. Use of Own Knowledge None. Despite sophisticated reasoning, you don't cite any real-world facts or statistics. Your logic chain is strong but unanchored by evidence.

Aspire: Anchoring Your Reasoning: Your economic chain is impressive. Add a real fact:

"Bridges' argument has some evidence — this is known as the Laffer Curve, which suggests that beyond a certain point, lowering taxes can actually increase government revenue because more people work and spend."

Strengths

Sophisticated Economic Reasoning: You traced the chain from lower taxes → more spending → more investment → more government revenue.
Political Context: You correctly identified right-wing and left-wing ideologies for both writers.
Direct Quote: You quoted Bridges on taxes being a burden — strong source engagement.
Challenges Kelly: You identified that Kelly's approach creates future bills and stagnant growth.

Targets

Simplify Your Writing: Some sentences are very long and dense. Break complex ideas into shorter, clearer sentences.
Make a Final Evaluative Judgement: Weigh both writers' arguments and state which case is stronger overall and WHY.
Add Specific Examples: Real-world facts like national debt figures or the Laffer Curve would strengthen your analysis.
Engage More With Kelly: Give more balanced attention to Kelly's specific arguments rather than dismissing them briefly.

Candidate 16079

Word Count: ~230 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 3/10

I personally agree with Dr Laura Kelly. Because she agrees higher spending on public services should be the priority. Dr Laura has a more cost but when their meaning she believes in higher taxes to fund public services and I agree. Spending money on public services should be the priority. I agree that schools even though lower for tables would leave people to be on a wide scale and be very good. Higher quality public services will be the NHS, schools/education and reliable public transport since they are all funded by taxes. Like Dr Laura said well-funded NHS excellent schools for all children and reliable public transport are not luxuries they are the essential bedrock of a civilised country. Another good point Dr Laura made was about arguing for lower taxes is often just an argument for allowing the wealthiest to contribute less at the expense of everyone else's services. I agree with this because people who earn more should help pay for the services that benefit everyone.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Weak. You describe Kelly's arguments but don't evaluate them — you don't explain WHY they are strong or weak, or what the consequences would be. You also barely mention Bridges, making your evaluation one-sided.

2. Use of Own Knowledge None. No facts, examples, or references beyond the source text.

Aspire: Building Evaluation From Description: You wrote that the NHS and schools are essential. Explain WHY:

"I agree with Kelly because she says a well-funded NHS and good schools are 'the essential bedrock of a civilised country.' This is strong because without the NHS, people on low incomes couldn't afford to see a doctor. However, Bridges would argue that we can't keep spending money we don't have."

Strengths

Source Language Used: You referenced Kelly's "bedrock of a civilised country" phrase and her progressive tax argument — showing engagement with the source.
Clear Position: You stated your agreement with Kelly immediately.
Lists Key Services: You mention NHS, schools, and transport — all from Kelly's argument.

Targets

Address Both Writers: You barely mention Bridges. You MUST engage with both sides to reach higher marks.
Evaluate Don't Describe: After every point, explain WHY it is strong or weak.
Add "Because" Reasoning: Every claim needs a "because" followed by a reason or example.
Write More: You need at least another paragraph evaluating Bridges' arguments and a final judgement on which writer is more convincing.

Candidate 26817

Word Count: ~280 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

Firstly, Simon says that the government should let the taxes be low but I disagree with this. This is due to the statement he says high taxes are a burden and a drag on economy. This is true because if the government lowers taxes then the more the taxes, the less money goes to the people to get a fair education, health care for the people. And the people who need these services the most would be the ones who suffer. So lowering taxes isn't always a good thing. But on the other hand Laura Kelly says that the government should spend it on services. I highly agree with her statement. Because she says that the primary goal should be to build a fair and compassionate society. This statement is good because it means everybody benefits. I agree because a fair society means nobody is left behind and everybody gets the support they need regardless of how much money they earn. She also says that well-funded NHS, excellent schools for all children are the essential bedrock of a civilised country. Also this suggests that these are the least of what people need to live a good life and without them people would really struggle. Because Simon says that the government should use the money he gets from the people and use it wisely for a fair and well-run society. I agree that the government should be careful with money but that doesn't mean we should cut taxes and let services suffer.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Developing. You challenge Bridges by arguing that lower taxes would hurt education and healthcare — this IS evaluation. You also engage with Kelly's fair society argument. However, some points are confused about which writer said what, and the evaluation isn't always fully developed.

2. Use of Own Knowledge None. No facts, examples, or real-world references are used beyond the source text.

Aspire: Replacing Circular Reasoning: You wrote: "I agree because a fair society means nobody is left behind." Add a real fact:

"I agree with Kelly's point that services like the NHS and schools are essential because without them, children from poorer families would fall behind in education. In the USA, where healthcare isn't free, many people avoid the doctor because they can't afford it."

Strengths

Attempts Both Sides: You reference arguments from both Bridges and Kelly.
Engages With Services: You mention NHS and schools as essential — connecting to Kelly's argument.
Challenges Bridges: You disagree with his low tax position and explain why — showing evaluation.

Targets

Check Who Said What: Be careful to attribute arguments to the correct writer throughout.
Use Direct Quotes: Copy exact phrases from the source in quotation marks.
Add Own Knowledge: Real examples like NHS funding or the US healthcare system would push your answer into Level 3.
Make a Final Evaluative Judgement: State which writer's arguments are stronger overall and explain WHY.

Candidate 18369

Word Count: ~340 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I agree with Simon Bridges because he was discussing about how high taxes affect people and how people care about paying taxes. I think they should keep their money because it makes us allow more money because they have a big impact on where the money is going and you could use that money for investing or something that could actually benefit us more than giving it to the government. Also when people keep more they know how to use it in a smarter way by saving or working more to expand their job or even start a business and create more jobs. This mostly grows the economy because people get to keep their savings and end up working more to have more amounts of money. The government then benefits from more people working and spending. I agree with Laura Kelly because she is caring about how spending on public services should be the priority. On public services should be true because everyone in the UK is getting health care, education and transport for free or for some money. These services keep society running and everyone depends on them. As Laura Kelly also said 'Arguing for lower taxes is often just an argument for allowing the wealthiest to contribute less, at the expense of everyone else's services.' This is correct because wealthy people could contribute more money and they wouldn't even notice the difference in their lifestyle, but it would make a huge difference for people who rely on public services. I think I agree with Kelly more because it shows how everyone should pay their fair share because they get access to free services. But Bridges makes a fair point that people should keep more of what they earn.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Reasonable. You build an evaluative claim about people using money wisely, and you quote Kelly directly about lower taxes benefiting the wealthy. Both sides are addressed. However, the evaluation doesn't challenge either writer's weaknesses deeply enough.

2. Use of Own Knowledge None. Your evaluation relies entirely on logic and the source. No real-world facts, statistics, or examples are used.

Aspire: Developing Your Best Point: You wrote about people using money "in a smarter way." Challenge this:

"Bridges argues that lower taxes let people keep their earnings, which could be good because some would invest wisely. However, this doesn't help people on minimum wage — even with lower taxes, they might not have enough to save. This is where Kelly's argument about funding services is stronger."

Strengths

Direct Quote Used: You quoted Kelly's phrase about lower taxes benefiting the wealthy — strong source engagement.
Both Sides Covered: You address Bridges and Kelly with reasons for agreeing with each.
Evaluative Reasoning: Your point about people investing wisely is an original evaluative claim.

Targets

Go Deeper: After each point, explain the specific real-world consequences.
Add Own Knowledge: NHS statistics, austerity examples, or minimum wage comparisons would add depth.
Clearer Organisation: Organise your evaluation clearly — cover each writer's arguments and then make a final evaluative judgement.
Deepen Your Final Judgement: Weigh both writers' arguments explicitly and explain which is more convincing with specific reasons.

Candidate 72916

Word Count: ~420 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 8/10

The government's main aim should be to run an effective society with a fantastic economy which is being done now with high tax. In that case, I agree with Dr Laura Kelly more as she mainly highlights key points i.e. reliable public transport, well-funded NHS etc. Dr Laura Kelly clearly states that a progressive tax system where those with the highest incomes contribute a greater share is the right approach. This system is already being used in the UK, England. I believe this is very efficient and sustainable because a high tax system ensures all services are reasonably priced and accessible to everyone regardless of income. Certain services such as the NHS stays fully funded. This helps old people a lot as the UK currently has an ageing population meaning the elderly can go to the hospital and receive care without worrying about the cost. Dr Laura Kelly's claim goes in line with the Left Wing (Labour Party)'s views and priorities. On the other hand, certain points made by Simon Bridges are valid as he says, 'Relying on borrowing to cover a spending shortfall is a deeply irresponsible strategy,' which I agree with. This is due to the fact that the borrowing being done by the government is being passed down to future generations, leaving a burden behind as interest is applied onto the borrowing. I also strongly agree with the point that when people get to keep more of their own earnings, they are incentivised to work hard and invest. This is because if people feel that their hard work is being rewarded rather than taken away through high taxes, they are more likely to continue being productive and contributing to the economy. This aligns with a Right Wing (Conservative Party) view where they believe the government should not interfere too much in the economy. In conclusion, I agree with Dr Laura Kelly's argument more as I agree with a progressive tax system compared to Simon Bridges' low tax system. A progressive system ensures everyone contributes fairly and services remain funded. However, Simon Bridges made valid points like not relying on borrowing and the borrowing leaving behind debt for future generations. Both writers have merit but Kelly's vision creates a more sustainable and compassionate society.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Excellent. You evaluate both writers with sustained reasoning. You explain WHY progressive taxation is efficient, challenge Bridges while acknowledging valid points about borrowing, and make a clear final evaluative judgement. The evaluation is consistent from start to finish.

2. Use of Own Knowledge Excellent: "UK ageing population," "progressive tax system already used in the UK." You deploy specific factual knowledge to support your evaluation — the ageing population point directly strengthens Kelly's argument about NHS funding.

Aspire: Challenging Kelly More Deeply: You could add an even stronger challenge:

"However, one weakness of Kelly's progressive tax argument is that very high earners might choose to move their wealth offshore or relocate to lower-tax countries, meaning the government actually collects less money. This is why some economists argue there is a limit to how high taxes can go before they become counterproductive."

Strengths

Strong Political Context: You correctly identified Left Wing/Labour and Right Wing/Conservative for both writers.
Own Knowledge: UK ageing population and progressive tax system already in use — impressive factual depth.
Direct Quote: You quoted Bridges on borrowing being irresponsible — strong source engagement.
Excellent Final Judgement: You weigh both sides and make a clear evaluative judgement while acknowledging Bridges' valid points.

Targets

Challenge Kelly More: Your analysis of Kelly is mostly supportive — finding a specific weakness would show even deeper evaluation.
More Own Knowledge: Add NHS waiting time statistics or a Scandinavian comparison to push further.
Develop Bridges' Motivation Point: You mention his point about incentives but could evaluate whether this is always true.

Candidate 67012

Word Count: ~370 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I agree with Simon Bridges most as he believes that taxes should be kept low to make it fair for everyone. This can be seen in Bridges' argument as he says the government cannot spend more than it earns meaning they can't continuously take money from people. He also believes that if you get to keep more of your earnings, people get the drive to work harder and invest. This reminds us of a conservative government as they believe people should pay less taxes and have more freedom. However this could be bad as some people will spend their earnings on bad things and not know how to manage it properly. Not everyone has the financial knowledge to invest wisely or save for the future. On the other hand some may agree with Laura Kelly as she believes that spending large amounts on public services is key to a good society. This can be seen when she says 'taxes are the subscription fee we pay to live in a functioning, supportive society.' She's only focusing on one side of the spectrum. For poorer people this could absolutely help them access services they need. But for people who earn more, they might feel it's unfair to pay so much more when they don't use those services as often. She also says 'the primary goal should be to build a fair and compassionate society' and this requires significant and sustained investment in our public services. This sounds good in principle but it is very expensive and the money has to come from somewhere. She also argues that arguing for lower taxes is often just an argument for allowing the wealthiest to contribute less. I can see her point because the wealthy would benefit most from tax cuts while everyone else's services get worse.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Good. You challenge both writers — Bridges on money mismanagement and Kelly on one-sidedness. You quote Kelly directly twice. However, the evaluation isn't always developed — you identify weaknesses without fully explaining the consequences.

2. Use of Own Knowledge None. No facts, statistics, or real-world examples are used. Your evaluation relies entirely on the source text and your own logic.

Aspire: Using Kelly's Quote More Effectively: You quoted Kelly's "subscription fee" phrase. Develop it:

"Kelly argues that 'taxes are the subscription fee we pay to live in a functioning society.' This is persuasive because just like paying for a streaming service, everyone should contribute — and those who can afford more should pay a higher subscription."

Strengths

Direct Quotes: You quoted Kelly's "subscription fee" and "fair and compassionate society" phrases — strong source engagement.
Challenges Both Writers: You found weaknesses in both Bridges (money mismanagement) and Kelly (one-sidedness).
Political Awareness: You identified the Conservative alignment of Bridges' views.

Targets

Add Own Knowledge: NHS statistics, austerity, or Scandinavian examples would push higher.
Make a Final Evaluative Judgement: State which writer's case is stronger overall and explain WHY.
Develop Your Challenges: When you say Kelly is "one-sided," explain more about what she's missing and why that matters.
Quote Bridges Too: You quote Kelly twice but don't quote Bridges directly — balance your source engagement.

Candidate 91826

Word Count: ~330 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I agree with Simon Bridges who says low taxes should be a priority as it creates a strong foundation of a strong economy. This view aligns with right-wing views. He also believes that low taxes encourage less involvement from the government in being less involved with society and people's personal finances. One piece of evidence to back this up is that low taxes give business owners less to spend on taxes and more money to spend expanding the business. This in turn creates competition, driving revenue up. It can benefit society because more businesses competing means better products and lower prices for consumers. Another way it can benefit society is that it doesn't rely on covering a spending shortfall by borrowing. This frees pressure from the government and removes heavy burden of those who would have to pay off interest. The money saved on interest payments could be used for other things. The Chancellor balances everything and forces him/her to allocate and spend money more efficiently and wisely rather than just throwing money at problems. On the other hand, Dr Laura Kelly says High Spending on public services should be the priority as a government's budget is not just a set of accounts, it is a statement of its moral priorities. This aligns more with the left-wing party who believe everyone is responsible for funding public services through taxation. She argues that services like the NHS and schools are essential and failing to fund them hurts the most vulnerable in society. Overall, I agree more with Simon Bridges who advocates for lower taxes as it drives innovation and in the end will always benefit people. When the economy grows, everyone benefits — even public services get more funding through increased tax revenue from a growing economy.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Good. You build a strong evaluative chain about business competition driving revenue. You also reference the Chancellor's role in responsible spending. However, Kelly's side gets much less evaluative attention — you describe her position without challenging it.

2. Use of Own Knowledge None. Your economic reasoning is original but unanchored by facts. No specific real-world examples, statistics, or references are used.

Aspire: Developing Kelly's Side: You gave much more evaluation to Bridges. Balance it:

"Kelly argues that the NHS, schools, and transport are 'the essential bedrock of a civilised country.' This is convincing because even people who want lower taxes still rely on the NHS when ill and on roads to get to work. Without proper funding, these services would deteriorate for everyone."

Strengths

Economic Reasoning: Your point about lower taxes creating business competition and driving revenue is strong evaluation.
Political Awareness: You identified right-wing and left-wing alignments for both writers.
Well Organised Evaluation: Clear evaluation of each writer's arguments plus a final judgement.
Chancellor Reference: You engaged with the specific role of the Chancellor from the source.

Targets

Balance Your Coverage: Kelly gets one brief paragraph — give her arguments equal space and attention.
Use Direct Quotes: Quote both writers' exact words to show close engagement with the source.
Add Own Knowledge: NHS statistics, Scandinavian model, or austerity examples would add depth.
Challenge Your Own Judgement: You claim lower taxes will "always benefit people" — evaluate whether this is really true for everyone, including the most vulnerable.

Candidate 67892

Word Count: ~400 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

For yes I agree with both as they both have really good points. Where as Simon Bridges' right-wing view says 'when people get to keep more of their own earnings, they are incentivised to work hard and invest.' This is a good point because people who feel rewarded for their effort are more likely to keep working hard and contributing to the economy. On the other hand Dr Laura Kelly's left-wing view says 'profitable corporations should contribute a greater share to fund the services that benefit everyone.' This is also a strong point because large companies make millions in profit and can afford to contribute more to help fund services that everyone relies on. Simon Bridges says 'Government debt is not a magic solution; it is simply a tax on future generations.' This is a really strong point as the government can't be taxing and taking out money and it will just be increasing. At some point the debt has to be paid back and that falls on younger people. Bridges also says 'This requires making tough choices and resisting the constant demand from every department for more funding than is available.' In some places this could be true, but it's not always the case. Departments most of the time ask for budget increases because they actually need it. For example, the health department could be asking for more money because they need research for cancer. They genuinely need money but can't get it because of their budget being restricted. On the other hand, Dr Kelly says 'Arguing for lower taxes is often just an argument for allowing the wealthiest to contribute less, at the expense of everyone else's services.' This is really important because she's highlighting how tax cuts often benefit those who are already well-off while everyone else loses out on services. She also says 'the primary goal should be to build a fair and compassionate society.' This is a strong point because a compassionate society means nobody should be left behind just because they can't afford private healthcare or education. Overall, I support Dr Kelly even though she has some questionable points. She is looking out for those in society who need the most help and wants everyone to have a fair chance at life. That is more important than saving money on taxes.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Very good. You quote both writers multiple times and evaluate their arguments — particularly your challenge to Bridges about departmental funding needing money for genuine reasons like cancer research. Your final evaluative judgement is clear and reasoned.

2. Use of Own Knowledge Some: "cancer research" as an example of why departments need more funding. This goes beyond the source and shows real-world awareness. However, it's only one example — adding more would strengthen your evaluation further.

Aspire: Developing Your Budget Point: You wrote about departments needing money for cancer research. Develop this:

"Bridges says the government must resist demands for more funding, but this ignores that some departments genuinely need more money. For example, the NHS needs billions for new cancer treatments and equipment. Refusing to fund this in the name of low taxes could cost lives."

Strengths

Multiple Direct Quotes: You quoted both Bridges and Kelly several times — excellent source engagement throughout.
Own Knowledge: Your cancer research example goes beyond the source — strong evaluative evidence.
Political Awareness: You identified right-wing and left-wing views for both writers.
Strong Final Judgement: You state your overall evaluative position for Kelly with a clear reason.

Targets

Evaluate Every Quote: After each quote, always explain WHY it is strong or weak — don't just describe it.
Deepen Your Final Judgement: Explain more specifically why Kelly's approach is better by evaluating the concrete consequences of both positions.
Add More Own Knowledge: Build on the cancer research point with NHS funding statistics or austerity examples.
Consistent Depth: Some paragraphs evaluate well; others are brief. Aim for consistent depth throughout.

Extended Writing Feedback

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

Teacher Next Steps

📊 Skill Assessment Overview (QLA)

📄 Source Passages

Simon Bridges — Low Taxes Should Be the Priority

Dr Laura Kelly — High Spending on Public Services Should Be the Priority

💡 Own Knowledge You Could Have Used

Model Answer (Exemplar)

Candidate 71689

Candidate 20967

Candidate 78962

Candidate 79180

Candidate 60982

Candidate 10629

Candidate 89721

Candidate 68170

Candidate 86120

Candidate 67801

Candidate 19678

Candidate 28691

Candidate 98607

Candidate 97128

Candidate 82790

Candidate 90128

Candidate 16079

Candidate 26817

Candidate 18369

Candidate 72916

Candidate 67012

Candidate 91826

Candidate 67892