The grade on your work is a Projected Grade. It is not your final mark, but an assessment of the skills you have demonstrated. It estimates the score you could achieve in a full-length essay if you applied these same skills consistently throughout. The feedback is designed to help you develop these skills further.
This shows an argument FOR the statement.
This shows an argument AGAINST the statement.
This shows your Conclusion or overall Judgement.
This is an example of a top-band response demonstrating all the skills required for full marks.
The assertion that war should be the sole justification for immigration is a contentious one, reducing a complex global issue to a single cause. While the immediate, life-threatening nature of armed conflict presents one of the most compelling reasons for seeking refuge in another country, to claim it is the *only* valid reason is to ignore a spectrum of equally desperate human circumstances.Excellent introduction that directly addresses the 'only' in the question and sets up a balanced argument. On one hand, the argument to prioritise war refugees is understandable. War represents a complete breakdown of societal structures and personal safety. Citizens are faced with indiscriminate violence, persecution, and the destruction of their homes and livelihoods. In situations like the Syrian civil war or the conflict in Ukraine, remaining in one's country is not a viable option; it is a choice between flight and almost certain death. From this perspective, international aid and asylum policies should logically be directed towards those in the most urgent peril. Furthermore, host nations have finite resources, and prioritising those fleeing active conflict can be seen as a pragmatic approachA well-reasoned argument in favour of the statement, considering the perspective of the host country. to managing the significant economic and social pressures that large-scale immigration can create. However, this perspective is dangerously narrow. It fails to recognise other legitimate and often life-threatening reasons for migration. Economic destitution, for instance, can be as fatal as a bullet, albeit slower.A powerful and persuasive counter-argument that broadens the definition of 'danger'. Families facing famine, drought, or a complete lack of opportunity to provide for themselves are also fleeing an existential threat. Similarly, the escalating climate crisis is creating a new class of refugee, displaced by natural disasters like floods and desertification, which make their homelands uninhabitable. To deny these individuals the right to seek safety because their plight is not caused by human conflict would be a grave injustice. Moreover, people have always migrated to escape persecution based on their political beliefs, religion, or sexuality, or for positive reasons such as seeking education, reuniting with family, or contributing their skills to a new society. These movements are not only vital for individual freedom and prosperity but are also enriching for the host countries themselves. In conclusion, while war is an undeniably powerful and valid driver of immigration, the statement that it should be the only one is fundamentally flawed. It establishes a false hierarchy of suffering and ignores the diverse and complex reasons that compel people to leave their homes.A strong, evaluative concluding thought that provides a clear and well-justified judgement on the statement. A more compassionate and realistic approach recognises that threats to human life and dignity come in many forms, from political persecution to environmental collapse. Therefore, the right to seek a safer, better life is a universal human principle that cannot be confined solely to the context of war.
I disadreThe student states an opinion but does not support it with arguments for and against the statement. Because However, some People may strongly disagre with this statement. Because let's say that you are in the war and the other opponent it's chasing youThis response takes the form of a creative story about war rather than a discursive essay. It does not address the question directly. and then you survive somehow then you go home then you see you wife and your chilldren aren't there so you call your wife and she doesn't pick up so you call your children and they don't pick so you pray to Jesus that are safe and well and then they hocons pass and then they came back then he tried in release you. were you wife and children and said were did you guys go? she said oh we want to Brighton and he said without me
I strongly disagree with this statement because, while war is a critical reason for immigration, there are many other valid reasons why people may need to leave their home country.This rewritten sentence clearly states the student's opinion and introduces the idea that there will be a balanced discussion, which is the correct structure for a discursive essay.
Some people may agree and disagree with this statement because they imagine how much innocent people suffered and they think nothing can be more important than going somewhere safe.This is a clear point in support of the statement, focusing on the importance of safety from war. On the other hand somemay think that people should not immigrate because of only war. they might think that people should immigrate who are not employed because they are not employed or might have enough money but not enoughe to buy a house, and thats why a lot of people across the uk are homeless This suggests that both being in war and not having enough money is dangerous since you cannot afford the things you want or being homeless and living on the street in the dangerous night. Some people may strongly agree with both of them being being unemployed and being in war since they are risky since you cant pay rent or get a new n immigrate easily. I personaly believe people can immigrate if they are in war, natural disaster or can't afford most thingsThe conclusion clearly states your opinion and summarises the different valid reasons for immigration you have discussed. that other people can. You can find a better job and get a much happier life since you are not in war and not in any threat.
This suggests that different situations, such as war and extreme poverty, can both be considered dangerous and valid reasons for seeking a new life elsewhere.This rewritten sentence uses more formal language ('extreme poverty', 'valid reasons') and connects the point back to the main essay question about immigration.
Some People may strongly agree with this statement because if your home Country has war you definetly has to leave the Country immediantly and find a much more safer Country. Some People may think that other people should only immigrat cause of war because war could be very violant and could take away innocent peoples lifesA clear and well-explained reason supporting the idea that people should immigrate because of war. so? no Peason so that could be the Peasons why People think that. However, Some People may strongly disagree with this statement because People don't just leave their Country so? war but othe? People sometimes immagrate to find a better job and better atmosphere. People sometimes always immagrate to find better opportunities in life.This provides a good range of counter-arguments, focusing on economic and social reasons for moving. To conclude, I Personally believe that People should leave their Country if they wonted to because they should have the rights to picc a better life and their surounding. Immagration isn't only about war it's about People taking opportunitiesThis is a strong concluding sentence that shows you have understood the question and formed a clear judgement. and fusilling it by acting to it.
Therefore, the extreme danger to life is a primary reason why many believe war is a uniquely valid cause for immigration.This sentence is rewritten to be more formal and analytical. It removes the informal 'so?' and clearly explains the logic of the argument, linking it back to the essay question.
"some people may might strongly agree with this statement because some countries might have a large population so if many people immigrate for other reasons their country might be overly populatedThis is an interesting point in favour of the statement, considering the impact of immigration on the host country.". "However, some people may strongly dissagree with this statement because some people may like to immigrate for Ecenomic reasons or to get a better job or life.You have correctly identified a key reason why people immigrate, other than war. " to conclude, I personally believe that people should immigrate for other reasons than warYour conclusion clearly states your opinion on the question. so that they people can see their families or expirement other cultures.
people can reunite with their families or experience different cultures.The vocabulary has been improved ('reunite', 'experience' instead of 'see', 'expirement') to sound more formal and precise.
No, i do not agree with this statement because, people should be able to immigrate for any reason for example; health conditions, food + water, better housing, weather and economic reasons.You have listed a very good range of reasons why people might immigrate, showing you have thought carefully about the topic. People should also not be told told when to immigrate, and when to leave or where they should go. Yes, i do & agree with this statement because if it's not for a good reason you should stay in that country like if war is happening or the country is over populated.This sentence presents an argument for the statement, suggesting that only 'good reasons' like war justify immigration. To conclude, i personally believe that disagreeing with this statement is the best option because, everyone should be able to immigrat whenever they want, where ever they want and for what ever reason they have.This is a very clear and forceful conclusion that states your personal judgement on the issue.
On the other hand, some might agree with the statement, arguing that people should only leave their country for a very serious reason, such as war or extreme overpopulation.This rewritten sentence clarifies that this is the opposing viewpoint ('On the other hand, some might agree...'). It also uses more formal language ('serious reason', 'extreme overpopulation') to make the argument clearer.
Somepeople to immigrate more to glee from a country of place. I disagree because, people could slee from a corupted leader in a different country or can be sleeng from Racistem and taxes.You have identified some excellent reasons for immigration beyond war, such as political corruption and racism. But on the other hand, somepeople agree because the country could have over poputation of people or if they immigrate for jobs, there might not be jobs for all of them.This is a valid point, suggesting that immigration should be limited to prevent problems like unemployment and overpopulation. I disagole because people can get Jabs in a different countres and if you have a corupted leader, that will be bad because the leader might send all men to the army.
However, I disagree with this view because people also need to escape other dangers, such as corrupt leaders who might force citizens into military service.This sentence is rewritten to be clearer and more formal. It links the different ideas together logically ('escape other dangers, such as...') and improves the vocabulary ('military service').
im migrae manse mouring from on congon to a nother. sore peopu might agye with this stat perery because the constrs that th peveci tomigrar to is going to bevon healy populates and tein is going to be ta be lack of JobsThis appears to be an argument that immigration leads to overpopulation and a lack of jobs, which supports limiting it. and hury buz we the UK is alwaned a housing crid that mead the immarits ar agins tobe homless and the precentes of homless peoplo would incress. on on a the other hand peopic might nar agge with with this star ment is. because mor people meen mor jobs. mor workes would help the UK dakeupThis seems to be a counter-argument, suggesting that more people means more workers, which would help the economy. and go in to the armen is we ar cobras in war that means he o the UK nols get more soilders and ohel D mor peopu in con cusan. i personly G a gqu and x gqu and dis gqu with the staje ce y bes because the in popalacion or the UK will de create gay to peore they be let in conis be regres in the noe conan becon the ofter hand the school will be terpe ad ben fry at the mor pepl lain th with more school pus inslet of gree
On the other hand, some people might disagree with this statement because they believe more people means more workers are available for important jobs.This sentence has been rewritten to be grammatically correct and clear. It interprets the original idea and presents it in a way that is easy for the reader to understand.
I think I have an answer for no and yes. For my no answer I would say that you odont immigrate just because of war. say for an examur uthere isn't any wars but you can very eour ahe Job you also is a low paid salary. So you wowd obuwis want to go to a newThis is a good counter-argument, focusing on economic reasons like low pay as a driver for immigration. such as the uk your could find a better home and your woud be loes of opportunites. But Nowaday for to immigrate to a country is a lot hurde now Because other wavele neart the scandi ito proou to isee if anyone crosses the bourds. and thats my no answer. My yes answer is that yes you woud need to evacuate the country if they were goury to go war Because your famiy could dieThis is a clear point in favour of the statement, explaining that war is a life-or-death situation. you could loose your loved once if you dont bum boardraning and cant flec the cainry over 16 they have to conaur the other coumy. and this would be kind of sad teause your your whole famiy to conced. I personaly becau thur yes and no cara my camup.
For my argument against the statement, I would say that people do not only immigrate because of war.This rewritten sentence clarifies the student's point and places it within the structure of the essay ('For my argument against...'). It also corrects the spelling of 'don't'.
Some people may strongry agree with this starment because some people might think that countries might get over crowded.This is a valid point supporting the idea of limiting immigration, linking it to the problem of overcrowding. No lots of immigrating enter the country. However - Some people, may srorngry disagree with this statement because many people belive many issues all about financesYou have correctly identified that financial or economic reasons are a major cause of immigration. and many people like work more service. To conclude I personally belive that people should not ony immigrate because of war becuse people need to get better jobs and opportunities to help their familes.Your conclusion clearly states your opinion and gives a good reason to support it.
many people are seeking better employment opportunities in the service industry.This rewritten sentence clarifies the vague original idea, making it a much stronger and more specific point about economic migration.
people should only immigrate because of war because AI agree with this statement which is reasonable why they should go away because of war and whichs is an extreme, trumatic PTSD petryfying health hazard for humanity because people suffer from PTSD (post toumatic stress disorder)This is an excellent, well-developed point. Using specific terminology like 'PTSD' and explaining it shows a high level of understanding. which people donot want because it has a extremly high chance of fayure and death for many people in the globe around the world it is showing why is tou people should only inmigrate because of war because all of the trauma and terror, its going to cause because of rivalries and political season's why because this war does not make any sense because you are just killing people who did not did anything to do you it shows why people should imigrate because of war I dissagree with this statement because when there was a war with Russhice and Ukrane Ukrane installed a safe haven where Russhian soldiers dont get in to the benker and invade plus, it is very sufe in thir too because no one has been hurt or diad it is only a few injures but the people living there was still gray. Plus people shouldnt imigrate because of war because there might be a drought or famine or maybe even genocideYou have identified a range of very serious and valid reasons for immigration beyond conventional warfare. This is sophisticated thinking., this shows In conclusion I thin dissagree because of being natural disasters so this alone shows not the only one which causes this fers.A clear conclusion that refers back to the arguments made in the essay to justify your final opinion.
I disagree with this statement because, even within a warzone, situations can be complex. For example, during the war between Russia and Ukraine, some areas of Ukraine were made into safe havens where people could shelter from invasion.This rewritten sentence improves the clarity and flow of the original. It breaks up the long sentence and uses more formal language ('warzone', 'complex', 'shelter from invasion') to make the point more effectively.
In the question the keyword is "Immigrate", the word immigrate means leaving, for example. I could put people should only leave because of war. Some people may strongly agree with this statment because they maybe wouldn't want an invader to come and do something to their country. This could became challenge for the immigrant. I agree with this because is an immigrant wars to come to another country then we would probably have over a thousands immigrants coming. However, Some people may strongly disagree with this stabment because it is a right to move to another country if you wish to do so, you could move and you could be safer in that other country.This is a strong counter-argument, framing immigration as a fundamental human right to seek safety. This could help the immigrants become safe in the country that they have moved too. To conclude, I personally disagree with this statment because its a human right to take care of yourself and making sure you are safeYour conclusion provides a clear judgement based on the powerful idea of human rights. in your country that that you moved too. If someone does not feel safe because of war then they can leave.
This situation could become a challenge for the immigrant, as well as for the host country.The rewritten sentence corrects the grammar ('became' to 'become') and expands on the idea to make it a more developed and balanced point.
So The keyword here is immigrate, immigrate means some moving to another country to settle there. Some people may agree with this because war is a reasonable reason to immigrate, this is because fleeing provides immigrants better life choices whilst staying is a huge life risk.This is a well-phrased argument that clearly explains why war is such a powerful reason to immigrate. However, some people may strongly disagree because war isn't the only reason to immigrate and some people believe there are safe areas to stay in during war.This is a good counter-argument that directly challenges the word 'only' in the statement. To conclude, I personally believe that there are various other reasons to immigrate not only during war. Such as economic reasons - poor enviorment, this is because staying in an area with a poor enviorment can cause things such as diseasesYour conclusion is strong because it introduces new, specific examples (like environmental issues and disease) to support your final judgement. and etc.
To conclude, I personally believe that while war is a valid cause for migration, there are various other compelling reasons for people to immigrate.This rewritten sentence is more formal and sophisticated. It uses stronger vocabulary ('valid cause', 'compelling reasons') and acknowledges the other side of the argument ('while war is a valid cause...') before stating the main point.
Some people may stongly agree because of the of war to eplo Some to stay out. pe Ople neer to go esaly so they get there they should be pertect pata of use tacare more things hapen they need to be motect safty N ver neatly the life
However some p
Nowevers ome people al so aree because they need Joos to help house taxes So they need to move out to some city.This appears to be a point about people needing to move for economic reasons, such as finding a job. Some to save te al Reason people need to lot news is get pro otect
to t ly ersonally bie cive ther A er to get out the co utry because enuoc like Joos so they ca get roe ka sorter so they have safte
However, some people also agree that individuals need to immigrate to find jobs and pay for things like housing.This sentence has been rewritten to be legible and grammatically correct. It takes the core idea from the original text and presents it in a clear, understandable way.
Some pople would agree because war is an very importake thing to care about. some people have children that's why they might have agreedThis is a good point in favour of the statement, linking the danger of war to the need to protect one's family. many people love their owntry and might stell wanna move because of war. so some people might disagree because you can move countryes ahenether you want and not just because of war. because very many amount of people like to travel around and stay for a very very long time. It shouldnt be only for war like Imean war is really bad tho but yeah even when its war and if you get a chance you can defenetly travel somewhere else. Bet it really cant be only for war pe we are humans we are people and we should have the RIGHT to go to another countryThis is a strong counter-argument based on the idea of a universal human right to travel and move. we all want to have fun on holiday too!
Ultimately, the reasons for moving country cannot be limited only to war.This rewritten sentence is more formal ('Ultimately', 'limited') and acts as a strong concluding statement for the paragraph, making the argument clearer.
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because immigration is illegal and it should only be tolerated for extreme reasons such as warThis sentence clearly states an argument in favour of the statement, using the idea of 'extreme reasons'. because the people who come from war are treated badly so why they should get along they just immigrate anyway well its because the people are young and deserve to immigrate.
To conclude, I believe that should Immigrate.
People who are treated badly during a war, especially the young, deserve the chance to immigrate to safety.This rewritten sentence clarifies the confusing original. It links the ideas together logically and makes a clear, understandable point.
"Some people may strongly agree with this statement because" immigration is mostly because of natural diasasters and it is very dangerous for people to stay in a country when there is war.This is a clear point supporting the statement, focusing on the danger of war. "However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because you might want to immigrate because there going to see there family.You have correctly identified family reunification as another reason for immigration. "To conclude, I personally believe that you shouldn't move because of because because I think most people love war because I think most people love there country and te never leave forever. would want to
To conclude, I personally believe that people should be able to move for many reasons, because while many people love their country, sometimes it is too dangerous to stay.This rewritten sentence provides a logical conclusion that could follow from the essay's arguments. It corrects the confusing and contradictory ideas of the original.
"Should people only immigrate because of war"! I agree and disagree on this statement! Agree = I agree that yes you can immigrate if you are in warThis is a clear, though simple, point agreeing with the statement. but this is not always the case, but a but I still agree Disagree = However I disagree because the statement says "always" "Only" You do not have to "Only" immigrate because of war. Some people immigrate for work, better healthcare and even homes and jobs.You have identified a good range of valid reasons for immigration other than war. Conclusion= To conclude, I personally disagree because their are more reasons to miglace Like better healthcare and wor and homes then just immigrating because of war. So, I disaguke. The End.
there are many important reasons to migrate, such as seeking better healthcare or employment, which are just as valid as fleeing a war.This rewritten sentence uses more formal vocabulary ('migrate', 'seeking', 'employment', 'valid') and structures the point as a more sophisticated comparison.
I both agree and disagree because, Well i agree because people do flee there country because of war life, there living a hard lifeThis is a clear point in favour of the statement, explaining that war makes life very difficult. and it is hard to seelf work at that time. And i also disagree because you don't only immigrate because of war you also immigrate because of maybe work like maybe got a good job offer in another city.You have given a good, specific example of an economic reason for immigration. would leave because maybe the job that you work is not paying you well.
However, I also disagree with the statement because people do not only immigrate due to war; they also move for work-related reasons.This rewritten sentence is more formal. It uses a connecting word ('However'), avoids repetition ('immigrate'), and uses more precise language ('due to', 'work-related reasons').
No I dissagree because peope from diffrent parts of the county may sufer from: desises, pouseion housing, and feed problems.You have identified a good range of reasons other than war for people to immigrate. But then agen agene there is the on that is the most comone war. Not one only is the most poulated one it is the most requent one happing from the peared of 2020 to 2025 so it is most likly to get pired to be a reuge because of war but that dosent chang the facte that other are also suferring in there country and not being recunised. Som Some people stronly agree with the this sturment becuase they see on the news how dangrous and unpredictibl wars can beeyThis is a valid point suggesting that the high-profile danger of war makes it a primary reason for immigration. and have how minon they are. a push factor to that and they will do all the protes in they can to mace the goverment relise the pediciumet some contreys are in. To my conclude, I personally believe that every bode she should be head heared and notised to so safty not just contry going throug ware.
I disagree with the statement because people from different parts of the world may suffer from many problems, such as diseases, poor housing, and food shortages.This rewritten sentence corrects the spelling and grammar of the original. It also rephrases it to be a clear, introductory sentence for a paragraph arguing against the statement.
Some people may strongly diagree with this statement because even though you want to be safe the more people who come immigrate into a country the more crowded it is and more discrimination would startThis is an interesting counter-argument, suggesting that immigration for any reason can have negative consequences like overcrowding and discrimination. like Judement of how other people view you and how you speak. However Some People may strongly agree with this statement because we should keep people safe and they dont dieaserve to stay in a country with Trauma and fear.This is a strong point in favour of the statement, focusing on the moral duty to help those escaping the trauma of war. and also they should imigrate for their saftey and killing them could be someones family. to conclude I personally believe that agree and dissagreYour conclusion is very confused. You need to decide on one clear opinion and explain it, rather than trying to argue for both sides at once. because I agree think that moving to another country you might make other people feel unsafe and because that is there own country they grew up in and moving their they could be an asylum seeker which wont let them and making them having to stay in a worser dirty area. I agree because it is not their fault they have to move from a country they grew up in.
To conclude, this is a complex issue. While I believe people must be allowed to escape danger, I also think that the impact on host countries, such as making existing residents feel unsafe, needs to be considered.This rewritten sentence clarifies the confusing original. It presents the student's conflicting thoughts in a structured and evaluative way, showing that they understand the complexity of the issue.
Agreed dised gred because there still might wa and nou people need to live to rome the people may strongly agree with this statement because to fap and the good live because However, many people may strongly disagree with this statement because is bad live and the war is dentrousThis appears to be a point that war is dangerous, which is a reason to immigrate. mare the live because to conclude, I personally is believe the contries to mare the differente conteris to pare live to bad live to be good liveThis seems to be a conclusion about moving from a 'bad live' to a 'good live', which relates to the topic of immigration., live to at the contion and pare to the peopre contries the live good live
To conclude, I personally believe that people should be able to move from a country where life is bad to a country where they can have a good life.This sentence has been rewritten to be legible and grammatically correct. It interprets the core idea of the original text and presents it in a clear, understandable way.
because there still might be war and some people need to live some might be because of money and medeson to help them sofive and health careThis appears to be a list of reasons other than war for immigrating, such as for money or healthcare. However some People may strongly disagree with this statment because some People care about athoer things like not finding another pice to live or not just carering about there family wichs menes they don't care. or some people don't no how to talk and there from another cointry that make them havel to spek and that still might remmber about time in there contry because of boming and other things.This seems to be a point about the trauma of war (remembering bombing) being a reason people are affected by their experience.
However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because people immigrate for other reasons, such as finding a better place to live or to be with their family.This rewritten sentence clarifies the original's confusing ideas. It corrects the spelling and grammar and presents the points in a logical, easy-to-understand way.
People Should only move because of war this is a strong stament. People may disagree on this because people should not only stay in there country they should travll to anywhere they want to feel safe and to meet families to get a job for moneyYou have provided a good list of reasons to disagree with the statement, including safety, family and economic reasons. However, some people may agree on this statement because they would like people that are only in danger to move to their country because they might think it will overcrownd if it wlasnt war.This is a good point in favour of the statement, suggesting that limiting immigration to just war refugees prevents overcrowding. I personally believe that you should move to another country if is you want they should not make you leave a country only if your on risks.This conclusion gives a clear opinion, suggesting people should be able to move if they want, but especially if they are at risk.
I personally believe that while people should be free to move to another country if they want, it is especially important that they can leave if they are at risk.This rewritten sentence improves the grammatical structure and clarifies the student's point. It uses 'while' to balance the two ideas, creating a more sophisticated sentence.
Some people may strongly disagree because, from all around the world. should people be able to Some people may strongly disagree because people will feel happy where they live some may have there country because they might not feel safe so they might move. But people can also leave there country because of dangerous hazards like, (tornado, flood cyclops e.g).This is an excellent counter-argument. Using specific examples of natural disasters makes your point much stronger. But in the other hand some people strongly agree with this statement because if many people leave there country they could possibly have been moving to the UK some country is you at it could put pressure in schools hospitals and it could get overcrowded in some areas of your country and people with could become homeless because there are to many people in the country and it also can have less job opportunbys because there is to many people. To conclude, I personally believe that people should move if they are in danger or if they are unsafeYour conclusion is clear and links back to the idea of danger that you discussed in your main paragraphs. because of someone.
On the other hand, some people strongly agree with this statement because if many people immigrate to one country, like the UK, it can cause problems.This rewritten sentence simplifies the confusing original, making the point clear and direct. It corrects grammatical errors and improves the overall flow.