Feedback Focussing on Evaluation — 12 Marker: Is the UK's unwritten constitution fit for purpose

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 10629

Word Count: ~219 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

In My opinion, I agree with floressor Evelyn Reed. The reason why I agree with his is because, She States that "Constitutions are hid to Change and our System allows it to [illegible] evolve" It allows for laws to be passed lasedogs debates and democracy insted os a constitutional way where there are sor requirements it must meer. Another reason why I agree with Evelyn is [illegible] because She States that it provides balance and it is a very democratic arrangment. line previously stated an unwritten constitution allows for democ racy to fm Smoower by allowing for Opinions to be Showed instenel of written Ales. rules. On the other hund, Dr Julian Crast disagrees. A reason why he [illegible] disagrees is be- Cuse he believes that it is Dangerously unsit for he modern world and that it is a weakness as it lachs Clarity. Due to the Suet that it "lachs Clarity" he belicurs that "Citizens rights ure being Scattered across a Sumble of dissecent laws" and also that it Andres Crentes Confusion about the foue Pont limits of the Government. Another reason whe he disugross is Lecause it Crey-os a warisk of dictatorsnip which Could possibly ruin our comtry jine onde besoro. Overall, Dr. Julion Coust had some amzing pounis But I still agree with prosessor Evelyn reed he to her Strong Points.

Quality of Evaluation Good. You have done a great job of understanding and describing the main arguments from both Professor Reed and Dr Croft. Your answer is well-structured, making it easy to see that you have considered both sides. However, to improve your score, you need to move from describing their views to evaluating them. This means weighing the arguments against each other and explaining *why* you think one is stronger or more convincing than the other.

Developing a judgment: Instead of just stating who you agree with, try explaining your reasoning. For example, your final sentence could be rewritten like this:
"Overall, while Dr. Croft's concern about a 'risk of dictatorship' is a serious one, I find Professor Reed's argument about flexibility more convincing. In a rapidly changing modern world, the ability for our laws to evolve without a crisis is a greater strength than the rigid clarity a written constitution might provide."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have organised your answer very well. You deal with Professor Reed first, then Dr Croft, and finish with a conclusion. This makes your argument logical and easy to follow.
Good Use of Evidence: You have effectively selected key ideas and quotes from the source material to show you understand both writers' points, for example when you mention Croft's concern that rights are "Scattered across a Sumble of dissecent laws".

Targets

Explain Your Reasoning: When you make a point, ask yourself "why?". For example, you say Reed's system allows for democracy. *Why* is this better than the alternative? Explain the link: "This is more democratic because it means our elected MPs can change laws to reflect what society wants today."
Substantiate Your Conclusion: Your final judgment needs more support. Instead of just saying Reed has "Strong Points", compare her main idea directly with Croft's and explain why you prefer it. For example, "Reed's idea of a flexible constitution is more persuasive than Croft's call for clarity because..."
Introduce Own Knowledge: To get the highest marks, you need to include your own specific examples. Could you name a law that shows the constitution is flexible (like the Human Rights Act 1998)? Or an example of a government with a big majority that critics called an 'elective dictatorship'?
Develop Your Points: Your word count is a little low. By adding more detailed explanations and your own examples (as mentioned above), you will naturally write more and add greater depth to your evaluation.

Candidate 10869

Word Count: ~180 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I agree with professor Evelyn reed because of the points that has been made like how Unwritten constitution is one of its greatest strengths So that could help the united kingdom in the elected house of commons for the final say. Another reason is how tradition, flexibility and accountability are all together to serve the country well by providing lies with the people's representatives. The mixture of dynamic law and common law adapted so the Ability to change shows a effective system without constitutional. But also the bodies which are public in the Government act fairly and lawfully. I agree with julian croft because he was saying how the checks and balances are too weak which is felling us new dangerous it is for the modern world and also how our liberties are not puny protected because the so called 'unaritten constitution' has & its greatest weakness called its lack of clarity which is unclear unthings that every other citizen in united kingdom can understand so the Bill of rights also need to find a stronger safeguard to clearly difine the power of state. Another reason is that all the rights are jombled up in different laws so its hard to acctually read binich right is in what category so the people and democracy needs & understand and get a clear writings of laws. I also agree with professor Evelyn reed because The dynamic mix of Citizen itous rights has been like that since the magna carta to meet of occur more challanges.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have done a good job of picking out the main arguments from both Professor Reed and Dr Croft. Your best moments are when you explain the real-world impact of these arguments, especially when discussing why Dr Croft thinks the constitution is unclear for ordinary people. To improve, you need to do this more consistently for both sides and try to weigh the arguments against each other to reach a final, supported judgment.

Developing a Point with Evaluation: Let's look at your first point. You wrote: "Unwritten constitution is one of its greatest strengths So that could help the united kingdom in the elected house of commons for the final say." To make this evaluative, you could add a 'however' to bring in the other side: "Professor Reed argues the unwritten constitution is a strength because it allows the elected House of Commons to have the final say, which is democratic. However, Dr Croft would challenge this by saying it creates an 'elective dictatorship', where a government with a big majority can ignore people's rights. This suggests that while flexibility is good, it might come at the cost of protecting citizens' liberties."

Strengths

Engaging with Both Sides: You made a clear effort to discuss the arguments from both Professor Reed and Dr Croft. This is essential for a balanced answer.
Explaining the 'Why': Your best point was explaining why Dr Croft believes the constitution is unclear: "all the rights are jombled up... so its hard to acctually read". This shows you are thinking about the consequences, which is the start of evaluation.

Targets

Develop Your Points: For each point you make, explain it further. For example, when you mention 'flexibility', explain *why* this is a good thing (e.g., it can adapt to new technology quickly) or a bad thing (e.g., it could be changed too easily by a powerful government).
Use 'Evaluation Language': Use phrases that compare the two arguments. For example: "Professor Reed's argument is convincing because..., however, Dr Croft's point about... is more important because...". This forces you to weigh them up.
Write a Concluding Judgment: At the end, try to write a short paragraph that sums up your view. Which writer do you find more persuasive overall, and why? For example: "Overall, I find Dr Croft's argument more convincing because in a modern society, the protection of rights should be clearer than it currently is."
Proofread for Clarity: Take a minute at the end to read through your work. Some small typos like 'jombled' or 'unaritten' can make your excellent points a little harder to understand. A quick check can fix this easily.

Candidate 16079

Word Count: ~315 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 8/10

In this argument I mostly agree with Prosesur Evelyn Reed who belives the unwritten constabution is a good thing. She belives the unwritten constitution is one of the UKs greatest strengelles because it provides Sramework for sovermace that is both and stable and remarkably slexible and I agree because the UK's Constantion has been doing its Job well and so stable for centerues and it works so well that other countres that have gaind inde independeme have copyed or taken Inspiration from the magna carter which is the earlyest earlyest version of the UK's constitution. Evelyn Reed "Our System can evalere organicaly to meet new challenges". this is great because that meand the UKs constitution on and laws can grow and adapt to the modern world. This constitution has served us well for centerues and has a denamee perfect mix of Statube law and common law which makes Sure that the UK is Sair Strand Strong and ready for change. Dr. Julian Go Crost belives that the UKes unwritten Constitution is a weakness becuell as it dos lack se clarity which is a for Sair paint because if its unclear what the rules are then the public cant to have it written down there for them to read and understand like the USA's Constitution which is written down and that can be acessed and read by the citizens of there nation. Dr. Julian Crost belives that an unwritten constitution means that our rithbs are not proply protected because the constitution does not have unchangeable righs that cant be changed by parlement which is a Sair point but if parlement did change laws that what went against the citizens basic human rights they would loose power So they would not do that So the point is not as valid as it could be. Over all I agree with Prosesseur Evelyn Reed the most becuse her points are a clear Justiside and better in my opionion but Dr. Julian did have Strong points.

Quality of Evaluation Good. You have produced a well-structured answer that clearly engages with both sides of the argument. You show a solid understanding of the key points from both writers and you make a consistent judgment. Your evaluation is strongest when you use your own knowledge (like the USA example) and when you challenge a writer's point directly, as you did with Dr. Croft's argument about rights.

Developing Your Conclusion: Your final sentence is a good summary, but it could be more powerful. Instead of saying Reed's points are 'better', explain *why* based on your earlier arguments. For example: "Overall, while Dr. Croft raises valid concerns about clarity, I agree with Professor Reed. The unwritten constitution's proven flexibility and the real-world political checks on Parliament, which prevent it from removing basic rights, make it a more effective and stable system for the UK."

Strengths

Excellent Counter-Argument: You didn't just explain Dr. Croft's view on rights, you challenged it with a clever real-world point about how Parliament would 'loose power' if they acted against citizens. This is high-level evaluation.
Using Own Knowledge: Bringing in examples like the Magna Carta's influence and the USA's written constitution really strengthens your points and shows the examiner you can think beyond the source material.
Clear Structure: Your answer is easy to follow. You deal with each writer in turn, evaluate their points as you go, and finish with a clear conclusion. This makes your argument very effective.

Targets

Develop Your Reasoning: Sometimes you say a point is 'great' or 'fair' but could explain the impact in more detail. For example, when you say flexibility is good for the 'modern world', what specific modern challenges might it help solve (e.g., new technology, terrorism laws)?
Use 'PEEL' Structure: To deepen your paragraphs, try using Point, Evidence, Explain, Link. You make a good Point (e.g., Croft is right about clarity), but you could 'Explain' the consequence of this more. Why is it a problem if citizens can't understand the constitution? (e.g., they can't hold the government to account).
Strengthen Your Conclusion: Your conclusion restates your view but doesn't summarise *why* you hold it. Try to briefly bring together your best one or two arguments from the essay to create a more powerful final statement (see the rewrite example above).
Proofread for Key Terms: Take 30 seconds at the end to check the spelling of key terms like 'constitution', 'parliament', and the writers' names. Getting these right makes your work look more professional and authoritative.

Candidate 19678

Word Count: ~180 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

Only one makes me agree with them the most Professor everlyn reed the most I agree with both ~~writers because~~ This is because though they both state pros and cons to the unwritten constituition ~~and they both make sense~~ one of them makes more logic and they both make sense. For example, Proffesor Evelyn Reed says the uk's unwritten constituition is fit for the purpose because it is remarkably Flexiable Which is a hundred percent true because the goverance wouldnt need to spend time writing out rules out just for one small change anna. Not to mention it is very hard work to change laws in a written constituition like in the US where they have to struggle to legislate about the use of gun's. However, someone else may completely disagree with professor Everlyn reeds arguement because they may feel like it would be easier to understand our rights & laws but also provide a stronger safeguard to important laws. An another reason a person may disagree with evenlyn is because lots of citizens would have ~~Parliamentariages inquiries~~ because the government wouldn't show ~~projecting~~ the law and rules meaning it would be difficult for a person to have their knowledge. Th It is also beneficial to have written consituturions because most democracies around the world have written constituous so we should follow those example and take their ideas into consideration. Now going back to agreeing another reason would be to is that the uk has had this unwritten constiution for a lang time and its been somewhat very succesful.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have made a good start here by considering arguments from both writers and using your own knowledge to support your points. You make a clear judgement and try to explain your reasoning. To improve, you need to develop your points in more detail and give your answer a clearer structure, which will help you to build a more sustained and convincing evaluation.

Explaining the Counter-Argument: When you wrote that it would be "difficult for a person to have their knowledge," you could have explained Dr. Croft's point more clearly like this: "On the other hand, Dr. Croft argues that this lack of a single document makes the constitution inaccessible. For an ordinary citizen, it's difficult to know what their rights are or how to challenge the government, as the rules are scattered across many different laws and traditions. This lack of clarity could weaken democracy."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start your answer with a clear decision, stating that you agree most with Professor Reed. This gives your writing a clear focus from the beginning.
Using Own Knowledge: You bring in your own knowledge to support your points, for example when you mention the difficulty of changing gun laws in the USA. This is a key skill for reaching the top marks.
Considering Both Sides: You don't just focus on the writer you agree with. You use phrases like "However, someone else may completely disagree..." which shows you are thinking about the counter-arguments.

Targets

Develop Your Points: When you make a point, try to explain it in more detail. For instance, you say the unwritten constitution has been "somewhat very successful". *How* has it been successful? Could you give an example of a time its flexibility helped the country?
Structure Your Argument: Your argument jumps from Reed, to Croft, and back to Reed. A clearer structure would be to explain all of Reed's points first, then evaluate them using Croft's ideas, before making your final judgement.
Use Key Terms from the Source: You mention Reed's idea of flexibility, but you could also have discussed her points on 'parliamentary sovereignty' or Croft's idea of an 'elective dictatorship'. Using the key terms from the sources shows the examiner you have understood them fully.
Expand Your Answer: Your answer is around 180 words. To include the detail needed for a top-level evaluation, you should aim for a word count of around 320-340 words.

Candidate 19726

Word Count: ~205 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

Somewhat with I agree with Professor Evelyn Reed as he saye says 'This ability to change without Constitutional creis is a sign of a meature and essective system' This shows that the unwiritten Constitution is fit for purpose as it dosen't cause crisie and everyone is ok with it. Another statement I agree with is when he says 'Our Constitution provides robust checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power' This shows us that they are Constitutions are able to make sure no one abuses their power which shows us that no one is above the Law. However I somewhat agree with Dr. Julian croft as he says 'Its greatest weakness is its lack of clarity' this tells us that it isn't fit for the modern world as it just a relic of the past. He also says 'A government with a large majority can pass almost any law it chooses' this shows us that election could sometimes be called unfair and creates a risk of an 'elective dictatorship' Overall I behest believe agree with Dr. Julian Croft as he brings up thery very solid argument and points such as highlighting the weakpoints with the Unwiritten Constitution. Although Professor Evelyn Reed highlights the strength with the unwiritten Constitution it wasn't as convincing as the points Dr. Julian croft made.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have a good foundation here. You've clearly understood the arguments from both writers and used quotes to back up your points. You also make a clear judgment at the end, which is great. To improve, you need to move beyond just explaining what the writers say and start analysing their arguments in more depth, using your own knowledge to judge how convincing they are.

From Explaining to Evaluating: Instead of just saying flexibility is good because it "dosen't cause crisie", try adding your own knowledge to show *how* it is effective:
"Professor Reed's point about flexibility is convincing because we can see it in action. For example, the constitution adapted to include devolution for Scotland and Wales and accommodated leaving the EU, all without needing a huge, disruptive process to rewrite the entire system. This suggests it is a mature system that can handle modern challenges."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have structured your answer well, looking at Professor Reed first, then Dr Croft, before giving a final judgment. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Using Evidence: You have selected relevant quotes from both writers to support your points. For example, you correctly identified Dr Croft's concern about an 'elective dictatorship'.
Making a Judgment: You have made a clear overall judgment at the end, explaining which writer you find more convincing. This is a key skill for evaluation questions.

Targets

Develop Your Explanation: After a quote, try to explain its importance in more detail. Instead of saying 'this shows us...', try using phrases like 'This is a significant weakness because...' or 'This is a convincing argument as it can be seen when...'.
Add 'Own Knowledge': To reach the higher marks, you need to bring in your own specific examples. When discussing 'checks and balances', could you name one, like the Supreme Court or House of Lords, and explain how effective it is? This adds depth to your analysis.
Evaluate Throughout: Try to evaluate as you go, not just in the conclusion. After explaining one of Reed's points, you could say 'However, this point is weakened by...' and then bring in a counter-argument. This makes your evaluation more sustained.
Word Count: Your answer is a little short. By developing your points with more detail and own knowledge (your other targets), you will naturally increase your word count and the quality of your answer.

Candidate 20967

Word Count: ~180 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I agree with [illegible] [illegible] Professor Evelyn says the UK unwritten constitution is 'fit for purpose'. This is because the United Kingdom's unwritten constitution is one of its greatest strengths making sure it is both stable and remarkably flexible. The system can also evolve organically to meet new challenges. He also states that the courts through judicial review can't intrude into public bodies and largely judify. On the other hand Dr. I Croft says the UK unwritten constitution isn't 'fit for purpose'. He states that the unwritten constitution is a relic of the past that is dangerously unfit for the modern world. He also states that key rules and citizens' rights are scattered across a jumble of different laws, historical documents and vague unwritten conventions and states modern democracy deserves a single clear written constitution that every citizen can read and understand. Overall I agree with Professor Evelyn Reed* as he says 'the UK unwritten constitution is fit for purpose'. This is because it is one of its greatest strengths and is stable / flexible which means the system can evolve organically to meet new challenges.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have done a good job of describing the key arguments from both Professor Reed and Dr Croft, showing you understand the debate. You also give a clear final judgment. However, to improve your score, you need to move from describing to evaluating. This means explaining *why* you think one argument is stronger than the other, rather than just repeating the point. The low word count also limits the depth of your analysis.

How to build evaluation: Instead of just repeating Reed's point, you could weigh it against Croft's: "I find Professor Reed's argument about flexibility more convincing. While Dr Croft is right that a written constitution seems clearer, Reed's point that our system can 'evolve organically' is more important in a fast-changing world. For example, a rigid constitution might not have adapted to challenges like Brexit as quickly, proving that flexibility is more valuable than the clarity Dr Croft calls for."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have structured your answer well, presenting Professor Reed's view first, then Dr Croft's, before giving your own conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Accurate Summary: You have accurately selected and summarised key arguments from both writers, for example when you explain Croft's view that the constitution is a 'jumble of different laws'.
Direct Judgement: You make a clear and direct final judgment by stating "Overall I agree with Professor Evelyn Reed*". This is a crucial skill for this type of question.

Targets

Develop Your Evaluation: Instead of just repeating a writer's point to support your judgment, explain *why* you find it more convincing than the counter-argument. Ask yourself: "Why is flexibility more important than clarity?"
Add Your Own Knowledge: To reach the higher marks, you need to bring in your own examples. When discussing flexibility, you could mention a recent law change. When discussing rights, you could mention the Human Rights Act 1998.
Increase Your Word Count: Your answer is currently 180 words, but a top-level response needs around 320-340. Use the extra words to develop your evaluation and add your own knowledge, giving each point its own detailed paragraph.
Check Your Understanding: Be careful to read the source closely. You mentioned that judicial review 'can't intrude', but Professor Reed actually argues that it's a key check on government power. A quick re-read can prevent these small errors.

Candidate 26817

Word Count: ~180 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

WELL On Source 1, Proffessor Evelyn ROAD ReeD SAYS yes. This is Because she says that the Constatation Presents the Abuse of Powers. I Agree with her Statement Because the Constatution is here to Provide Balance in our Community. Even though its teachanga not Changable Can't change, it still is a useall thing to use in our Society. Prosfesor reed Says yes but Doctor Julian Croft Says No. this may be because he thinks that this will cause An elective Dictatorship this means that there would be A Dictafor in Britan. So I think, I Disagree with his statement Because, AS Prossessor Reed Says that the Constatation is only here to keep Balance in the community AND with the constatution the community wouldn't Break up. SO E Belive that Julian is wrong About his Statement. So in Conclusion the Person I Agree with more is Proffessor Evelyn. this is Because She belives that the house of Commons ensures that the Constitution would Stay Safe. She Also trust them with all the laws. The house of Commons would use it to make the Safirest laws. SO I Belive that Proffesor Evelyn is Right to Say yes.

Quality of Evaluation Underdeveloped. You have made a clear judgment and tried to give reasons for your opinions, which is the right idea. However, your evaluation is weakened because you have misunderstood some key arguments from the sources, especially Professor Reed's points. Your reasons are also very simple and need more explanation and evidence to become convincing.

Developing your evaluation: Here is how you could have challenged Dr. Croft more effectively:
"I disagree with Dr. Croft's fear of an 'elective dictatorship'. Professor Reed provides a strong counter-argument when she says that ultimate power rests with the 'elected House of Commons'. This is a democratic strength, not a weakness, because it means the people we vote for are the ones making the laws, which stops one person from having total control."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You make your own opinion very clear throughout the answer, stating who you agree with and why. This is a vital skill for evaluation.
Using Key Terms: You correctly identified Dr. Croft's key concern about an 'elective dictatorship' and made a good attempt to explain what this means.

Targets

Read the Source Carefully: Your top priority is to read the sources more slowly. For example, you argued the constitution 'can't change', but Professor Reed's main point is that it *is* flexible and *can* evolve. A careful reading is essential.
Explain, Don't Just State: When you make a point, explain it fully. Instead of just saying the constitution provides 'balance', explain *how* it does this using an idea from the source, like 'judicial review' or 'select committees'.
Use Specific Source Evidence: Try to refer to specific phrases from the sources to back up your points. For example, you could have mentioned Reed's argument that power lies with 'elected representatives' to challenge Croft.
Develop Your Paragraphs: Your word count is low. Try to write one full paragraph explaining Reed's view, another for Croft's view, and then a final conclusion paragraph where you decide who is more convincing. This structure will help you add more detail.

Candidate 28691

Word Count: ~180 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I agree with G. R because the constitution is flexible, meaning that it can be changed instantly, unlike america's written constitution. However, I do agree that the written constitution is clearer to understand as it is written, and displayed to the public for you to see. The UK's unwritten constitution has evolved over time which contradicts with J.C's point that the unwritten constitution is a relic of the past. I disagree with this. I agree on the point that the written constitution is more democratic because it isn't 1 person having a final say, it is many people. I agree that the combination of tradition, flexibility and all rounder thing has served the country well, making parliament as a whole better. I disagree with J.C's point that parliamentary sovereignty creates a risk of an elective dictatorship because if that happens that party will just not get re-elected. I disagree with the point that judicial review only looks at if the law was passed fairly, and not the actual fairness of the law. This is because they will look at the law and have a quick think about it to see if they agree with it. I agree that a written constitution is more clearly defined because you can physically see what is on there. To conclude, I mainly agree with G.R because their points about evolution of the constitution, and fairness/democracy talks about the UK's unwritten constitution

Quality of Evaluation Some evaluation. You have understood the main points from both writers and you make your own judgements clear by stating whether you agree or disagree. However, your reasoning is often too simple or, in the case of judicial review, not accurate. To improve, you need to develop your points with more detail and specific knowledge.

Developing a point: Instead of your point on judicial review, you could write:
"I disagree with Dr. Croft's view that judicial review is too weak. While it's true it cannot overturn an Act of Parliament, it is a powerful check on government actions. For example, in 2019 the Supreme Court ruled that the government's prorogation of Parliament was unlawful, forcing MPs to return. This shows it can hold even the Prime Minister to account, which is a significant check on power."

Strengths

Clear Judgements: You are confident in stating your own opinion. Phrases like "I agree..." and "I disagree..." are used effectively throughout your answer to show the examiner your view.
Balancing Arguments: You do a great job of using one writer's point to challenge the other. Your point about the constitution's evolution contradicting the 'relic of the past' idea was particularly effective.

Targets

Develop Your Reasoning: Your points need more depth. When you say a party "will just not get re-elected", explain *why*. Is it because of media scrutiny, public protests, or the role of the opposition? Always try to add a 'because...' or 'this means that...' to your points.
Use Specific Knowledge: Try to include a real-world example to make your argument stronger. When discussing flexibility, you could mention how quickly laws were passed during the Covid-19 pandemic. This shows deeper understanding.
Improve Your Terminology: Avoid informal phrases like "quick think about it" or "all rounder thing". Use precise citizenship terms. For example, instead of judges 'thinking about it', you could say they 'scrutinise the lawfulness of a government action'.
Check Your Understanding: Your explanation of judicial review was incorrect. It's a common mistake! Make sure you revise key concepts like this. Judicial review checks if a decision was made lawfully and fairly, not whether a judge personally agrees with the outcome.

Candidate 60982

Word Count: ~180 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I mostly agree with Julian croft because I believe that by having unwritten laws it is less clear and harder to understand whereas if it was written it would be more clear and understandable. Since it is unwritten, it can easily be changed and people can't do anything about even if it was unfair. It also makes it inaccessible to the public and creates uncertainty about the true limits of government power. A government with large majority can pass almost any laws it chooses, including laws that might erode fundemental rights without any higher constitutional authority to stop it. On the other hand people would agree with Proffesor Evelyn because they believe that our system can evolve organically to meet new challenges. And also that the courts hold the government to account through judicial review, ensuring that public bodies act lawfully and fairly, the select commitees act as powerful watchdogs, scrutinising the work of every government department. tradition, flexibility and accountability served the country well - making stable and democratic governance for centuries.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have done an excellent job of understanding and explaining the arguments from both writers. You clearly state who you agree with and use evidence from the source to back this up. However, your answer currently describes the arguments more than it evaluates them. To improve, you need to weigh the arguments against each other, explaining *why* one is stronger or more convincing than the other.

Developing an evaluative point: Instead of just listing Reed's point about judicial review, try to challenge it using Croft's argument. For example: "Professor Reed suggests that judicial review is an effective check on government power. However, Dr Croft's view that these checks are too weak is more convincing. This is because judicial review can only challenge the *process* of how a decision was made, not the fairness of the law itself. This means a government can still pass unfair laws, limiting the power of the courts and supporting the idea of an 'elective dictatorship'."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start your answer with a very clear statement of which writer you agree with ("I mostly agree with Julian croft"). This gives your writing a strong focus from the beginning.
Good Use of Source B: You have an excellent grasp of Dr Croft's arguments. Your explanation of the 'elective dictatorship' risk is particularly strong and shows you understand the core of his concerns.

Targets

Move from Description to Evaluation: Your second paragraph lists Professor Reed's points but doesn't challenge them. To evaluate, you need to weigh the arguments against each other. For example, say: "Although Reed claims judicial review is a strong check, Croft's argument that it is weak is more persuasive because..."
Develop Your Judgement: You state your judgement at the start, but you need to refer back to it throughout your answer. Use phrases like 'This supports my view that Croft is correct because...' to link the evidence back to your main point.
Incorporate Own Knowledge: To reach the top marks, bring in your own specific examples. When discussing rights, you could mention the Human Rights Act 1998. When discussing an 'elective dictatorship', you could refer to a specific government policy. This shows the examiner you can apply these ideas to the real world.
Word Count and Depth: Your answer is a little short. By developing your evaluation and adding your own knowledge (Targets 1-3), you will naturally add more detail and depth, helping you reach the expected word count and access the higher marks.

Candidate 67012

Word Count: ~197 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

Personally, I agree with Evelyn Reed S argument as it clearly States that a country without a written consitution is better and creates a fairer society. She Say S that it can change laws to fit how society is making it easier to know whats un right and wrong for Society. It also makes sure power lies with who the people voted for, not what the consitution Say's. For example, in America, the use of guns used to be affective but now it isn't. This law would be hard to change as they need to go through a long process to try change it. On the other hand, people may agree with Juliancroft as he believes having a written consitution is better as it creates is a clear written consitution that everyone can understand. People say it clearly States the law and provides Stronger Safeguards to important laws to protect our human rights. He believes it shows a lack of clarity and uncertainty about how much power the goverment really has. It also means that the public are not sure about the laws as they aren't clearly Stated for you to read and understand on your own.

Quality of Evaluation Okay. This is a solid start. You have a clear structure, looking at both sides of the argument, and you show a good understanding of the main points from both writers. Your evaluation of Professor Reed's argument is the strongest part, especially when you use the USA gun laws example to support your point. To improve, you need to evaluate Dr Croft's argument more, rather than just describing it, and then weigh the two writers against each other to form a concluding judgment.

How to build your evaluation: Instead of just describing Croft's point, try weighing it against Reed's. For example: "While Reed's flexibility is useful, Croft's argument is more convincing because this lack of clarity creates real dangers. A government could pass a law that limits protest rights, and without a clear, written constitution, it would be much harder for citizens to challenge this, creating what Croft calls an 'elective dictatorship'."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have a good 'on the one hand, on the other hand' structure, which shows you understand how to build a balanced argument.
Good Use of Evidence: You've accurately picked out key arguments from both writers, like Reed's point about flexibility and Croft's point about clarity.
Using Own Knowledge: Your example about US gun laws is a great piece of own knowledge. It perfectly supports Reed's argument about the benefits of a flexible constitution.

Targets

Evaluate, Don't Just Describe: In your second paragraph, you mostly describe what Dr Croft says. To evaluate, you need to say how convincing his argument is compared to Professor Reed's. For example, "Croft's argument about protecting rights is stronger because..."
Develop Your Points (PEEL): Try to explain your points in more detail. After you make a Point, Explain *why* it is a strong or weak argument and use an Example to back it up. This will add more depth and increase your word count.
Use Key Terminology: To sound more like an expert, try to include key terms from the source like 'parliamentary sovereignty', 'codified constitution', or 'elective dictatorship'.
Write a Conclusion: To get top marks, you must end with a short paragraph that weighs up both sides and explains which view you find most convincing overall and why. This is where you make your final, substantiated judgment.

Candidate 67801

Word Count: ~190 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

Firstly I agree more with Professor Evelyn reed as the great arguement of keeping an unwritten constitution seems to have many strengths within it. For example, when she states "An unwritten constitution is precisely its greatest strength". This supports the arguement because unwritten constitutions make laws easy to change according to the needs of society, which makes the people of a country happier. Additionally, within a written constitution, it is much harder to change laws, making unwritten constitutions more ideal in society. However, I partially agree with Dr eron crayf and his arguement for using a written constitution in comparison to an unwritten constitution. This is because you could argue that, Unwritten constitutions make it easier for people to understand their rights and laws and provides stronger safeguards, providing a backbone for the laws. Overall I agree more with Professor E.R as the idea of an unwritten constitution makes laws easier to change for the needs of people, which is lacking in a democracy that uses a written constitution. Additionally, countries that use written constitutions differ from others, as most countries use unwritten constitutions, putting countries using written constitutions under pressure.

Quality of Evaluation Okay. You have a clear structure and you make a judgment, which is great. You have also started to explain your reasoning, for example by linking flexibility to meeting society's needs. However, the main issue is a significant misunderstanding of Dr Croft's argument, which you have accidentally reversed. To get a higher mark, your first priority must be to show you understand both writers' views accurately before you can evaluate them.

Developing a counter-argument: Here is how you could have explained and evaluated Dr Croft's point accurately:
"However, Dr Croft makes a powerful point that an unwritten constitution is dangerously unclear and confusing for ordinary citizens. He argues this creates the risk of an 'elective dictatorship', where a government can pass almost any law it wants. This is a very strong argument because if people don't fully understand their rights, it is much harder for them to challenge a government that is becoming too powerful, which undermines democracy."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have a logical structure: you discuss Writer A, then Writer B, and finish with an overall judgment. This is the correct way to approach this type of question.
Making a Judgment: You state your opinion clearly at the start and end ("I agree more with Professor..."). This shows you are answering the evaluation part of the question directly.
Using Evidence: You effectively selected a direct quote from Professor Reed's text to support your first point. This is a key skill.

Targets

Read for Accuracy: Your top priority is to read the sources very carefully. In your second paragraph, you argued the exact opposite of Dr Croft's point. Always double-check that you have understood a writer's view before you start to analyse it.
Develop Your Reasoning: When you make a point, explain its impact. For example, laws being 'easy to change' is a good point. To develop it, ask yourself 'So what?'. So... the government can react quickly to crises like a pandemic, or update laws to reflect modern values. This is a 'chain of reasoning'.
Use Specific Own Knowledge: It's great that you tried to use own knowledge, but the fact you used was incorrect. Instead, try to use specific examples from your lessons, like the Human Rights Act 1998 or the role of the Supreme Court in judicial review.
Engage with Key Terms: The sources use important terms like 'parliamentary sovereignty' and 'elective dictatorship'. Try to use these terms in your answer and explain why they are important to the writer's argument. This shows a deeper level of understanding.

Candidate 67892

Word Count: ~237 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 8/10

I agree more with Professor Evelyn Reece (E.R.) as we have not had a written constitution before and I don't think we actually need it, the country hasn't bee running on one before." It gives space for mesasary changes that affect us for example, an emergency law had to be made for Covid-lockdown- and the uk could easily adapt to it, but America had to go through a long process because of their written constitution. However she makes some really weak points aswell such as "without constitutional crisis is a sign of a mature and effective system" and "our constitution provides robust checks". This is really weak saas we've had civil wars due to imbalance of power. Julian Croft on the other hand cripsizes our unwritten constitution and makes really strong points. "Citizens' rights are scattered across a jumble of different laws, historical documents, and vague, unwritten 'conventions'". This is true as we can't really see the laws and figur rights in one place. Also he says "the existing checks and balances are too weak"! We can see this in Judicial review it only checks the process of the laws not the actual fairness, During Parliament was about to pass the Ravandan prisoners law- to send British prisoners to Ruanda. This is a total breach of our human rights and was only stopped on how fair the process was not is it's actually fair. Parliament could have tried to pass it again and could've passed it. So now what, Parliament has so much power over our lives that there's no check of power and fairness/no way rules for morality for them to abide by. For these points I agree with Julian Croft now because of the pure imbalance of power and no real checks of of power

Quality of Evaluation Good. This is a strong response because you don't just describe the arguments, you actively weigh them up against each other. The way you use your own knowledge, particularly the Rwanda policy, to test Dr. Croft's ideas about weak checks and balances is a high-level skill. It's also impressive that you show how your own opinion changes from the start to the end of your answer – this is what evaluation is all about! To reach the top band, focus on maintaining this evaluation for both sides throughout the answer, rather than dismissing one writer early on.

Improving your opening: Your first sentence is a simple statement. Try to make it more analytical. For example: "Initially, Professor Reed's argument for flexibility seems convincing. The ability to pass emergency laws, such as those for the Covid-19 lockdown, demonstrates a key strength of an unwritten constitution that a more rigid system might lack."

Strengths

Excellent Use of Own Knowledge: Your use of the Rwanda policy to explain the limits of judicial review is fantastic. It's specific, relevant, and shows you can apply concepts to real-world events.
Clear Evaluative Language: You confidently label points as "really weak" or "really strong" and then, crucially, you explain *why* you think that. This shows you are making judgements, not just describing.
Developing Argument: The best feature of your answer is how you start by agreeing with Reed but are then persuaded by Croft's arguments. This shows you are genuinely thinking and evaluating as you write.

Targets

Develop Both Sides More Evenly: You quickly dismiss Professor Reed. To improve, try to evaluate both writers throughout. For example, after criticising judicial review, you could have considered how Reed might respond by mentioning the power of select committees as another check.
Be Precise With Your Knowledge: Your point about the Rwanda policy was excellent, but it involved asylum seekers, not "British prisoners". Getting these details right makes a strong argument even more convincing. Always double-check the facts of your examples.
Build a Balanced Structure: Your ideas are good but could be structured more clearly. Try a 'point-by-point' comparison. For example: 1) Discuss flexibility (Reed vs Croft). 2) Discuss checks and balances (Reed vs Croft). This helps ensure you evaluate both sides fairly.
Increase Your Word Count: You are writing well below the guideline. By developing both sides of the argument and adding more detail to your points, you will naturally write more and be able to provide the depth needed for the top marks.

Candidate 68170

Word Count: ~201 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I agree with both writers to an extent as they both provide realistic evidence and pros and cons of having a written constitution in the united kingdom. A constitution is a set of laws put in place. Professor Evelyn Reece argues that having a unwritten constitution is one of the greatest strengths as it is flexible and easy to change. I agree with this point because if constitutions were written they would be rigid codified and a hassle to change. Another point made by him is that they were Sair because our constitution provides robust checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. Overall this provides a strong argument as to why the constitutions should be unwritten. On the other hand, Julian crost provides a well balanced arguments as to why constitutions should be written in the united kingdom. Julian says that its greatest weakness is the lack of clarity as its not physically visible to the public. This makes the constitution inaccessible and it creates uncertainty about the true limit of government power. This makes the government far from being direct and clear about rules and regulations. To conclude my argument I mostly agree with Julian crost as the constitution should be written to provide a stronger safeguard for citizens rights and to clearly define, divide and measure limit, the power of state.

Quality of Evaluation Okay. You have a good understanding of the arguments from both sources and you use them to make a clear final judgement. Your answer describes the points well, but to improve your mark, you need to evaluate them in more detail throughout your response. At the moment, you state a point and then make a brief comment, rather than exploring *why* an argument is strong or weak. Adding your own specific knowledge would also elevate your analysis.

Developing Evaluation: Instead of just saying a lack of clarity is a problem, try explaining its impact like this:
"Dr Croft's point about a lack of clarity is crucial. If citizens don't know the exact limits of government power, it becomes much harder to hold them to account. This vagueness could allow a government with a large majority to push the boundaries of its power, creating what Croft calls an 'elective dictatorship' where our rights are not secure."

Strengths

Clear Structure: Your answer is well-structured with an introduction, a paragraph for each writer, and a conclusion. This makes your argument very easy for the examiner to follow.
Direct Use of Sources: You have successfully picked out key arguments from both Professor Reed (flexibility) and Dr Croft (lack of clarity) to form the basis of your answer.
Clear Final Judgement: Your conclusion is decisive. You state who you agree with more ("I mostly agree with Julian crost") and give clear reasons why, which is exactly what the question asks for.

Targets

Develop Your Evaluation: Instead of just describing a point from the source, explain *why* it is a strong or weak argument. Use phrases like 'This is a convincing argument because...' or 'However, this point is weak as it fails to consider...' to show you are analysing, not just listing.
Integrate Own Knowledge: To reach the top marks, you need to bring in your own specific knowledge. For example, you could mention the Human Rights Act 1998 when discussing citizens' rights, or a specific Supreme Court case to discuss checks and balances.
Increase Word Count & Detail: Your answer is quite short. Aiming for 320-340 words will give you the space to develop each of your points, add your own knowledge, and explain your reasoning more fully.
Analyse, Don't Just Describe: In your paragraph on Dr Croft, you mostly describe his points. Try to analyse them. For example, when you mention the constitution is 'inaccessible', explain the real-world impact of this. Does it mean people don't know their rights or how to challenge the government?

Candidate 71689

Word Count: ~106 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I agree with evelyn Veed because the States how It's one of the UKS Greases wengths backing that hp with Claminy that our System can evolve organically to meet the New Challanges, but on the other hand theres Julian Croft who say how to the StarMehry he mentions how Gohit ConGELOS are a 'revil of the past' and Sabins A Modern demowy deserves a Single / Clear, written Lobstituon that every Citzen can read and Lähderstand' GuThongh he lawy Lip good points I beleve If cousitus here written / the user alorones can dish out Laws / Punishment to people deserving of It

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have clearly understood the main arguments from both writers and have used specific points from the source to show this. You also state a clear judgment at the start. However, your own reasoning to support this judgment is brief and based on a misunderstanding of what a constitution does. To improve, you need to develop your evaluation much further and explain *why* one argument is stronger than the other in more detail.

Developing Your Judgment: Let's look at your final sentence. A better way to evaluate might be: "Although Dr Croft makes a good point about clarity, I believe Professor Reed is more convincing. The current system's ability to 'evolve organically' means Parliament can respond quickly to new threats like terrorism or online crime, which a rigid written constitution might struggle with. This flexibility is more valuable than the clarity a written constitution would provide."

Strengths

Identifies Both Sides: You do a good job of showing you've read both sources, picking out key ideas from Professor Reed ('evolve organically') and Dr Croft ('relic of the past').
Clear Structure: Your answer is structured logically. You state your view, explain Writer A's points, explain Writer B's points, and then give your own reason to conclude.

Targets

Develop Your Evaluation: Instead of just stating your opinion at the end, try to evaluate throughout. For example, after explaining Reed's point, you could say "This is a strong argument because..." and explain its importance.
Explain Your Reasoning Clearly: Your final point about punishments is confusing. A written constitution is usually about limiting government power, not making it easier to punish people. Make sure your reasoning is directly linked to the arguments about how the country is run.
Increase Word Count: Your answer is very short (106 words). To get higher marks, you need to write in much more detail. Aim for around 320-340 words to allow you to fully explain and evaluate the arguments on both sides.
Use 'Own Knowledge': Try to bring in a real-world example. For instance, when discussing flexibility, you could mention how Parliament passed laws quickly during the Covid-19 pandemic. This shows deeper understanding beyond the source.

Candidate 72916

Word Count: ~200 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

Professor Evelyn Reed says the UK's unwritten constitution is fit for purpose, however I disagree. One point stated was " the government is held to truth via Judicial review" however Dr Julia Croft challenges this point perfectly mentioning how judicial review only challenges the process and not the fairness of the law. Dr Julian Croft also makes two other great points stating, "A modern democracy deserves a clear, single, written constitution that everybody can understand." He also states, "A government with a large majority can pass any law it chooses without a higher authority able to stop it. Therefore, I believe agree with SC the most. On the other hand some may agree more with Professor E.R due to the fact that the UK law right now is a dynamic mix of laws: statue, common and convention which allows to adapt to different situations and create/remove laws when needed eg. Covid-19 safety regulations, regulations In conclusion, the writer I agree with most is Julian Croft. This is because Julian Croft highlights key points about judicial review on the fact it doesnt challenge the fairness of the law and how citizens need a clear written constitution that is readable and understandable.

Quality of Evaluation Good. You have a clear argument and you start to evaluate the sources well, especially when you use Dr. Croft's point on judicial review to directly challenge Professor Reed. Including your own example of Covid-19 regulations is also a great skill. However, your evaluation is a bit one-sided. To reach the top marks, you need to weigh up both sides more consistently and explain in more detail *why* one argument is stronger than the other, rather than just describing the points. The low word count is preventing you from adding this crucial depth.

Developing Evaluation: Here’s how you could have evaluated Professor Reed's point more deeply:
"While Professor Reed’s point about flexibility is valid, as seen with the rapid creation of Covid-19 laws, this very flexibility can be a weakness. Dr Croft would argue that this speed comes at the cost of proper scrutiny and could allow a government to rush through laws that threaten rights. This risk of an 'elective dictatorship' is a more significant danger in a democracy than the inconvenience of amending a written constitution."

Strengths

Direct Comparison: You effectively use one writer to challenge the other, especially when you use Dr. Croft's view on judicial review to argue against Professor Reed. This is excellent evaluation.
Clear Judgement: Your opinion is clear from the very first sentence and you support it again in your conclusion. This gives your answer a strong, confident focus.
Use of Own Knowledge: It was great to see you bring in your own example of the Covid-19 regulations. Using relevant, real-world examples is a key skill for achieving high marks.

Targets

Develop Your Points (PEEL): To add more depth, explain the *impact* of each point. For example, after stating that a written constitution is 'clear', explain *why* this clarity is so important for a democracy (e.g., "This empowers citizens to understand their rights and more easily hold the government to account.").
Balance Your Evaluation: Your second paragraph explains Professor Reed's view but doesn't evaluate it. Try to weigh the arguments against each other. Is the flexibility Reed praises more important than the lack of protection for rights that Croft warns about? Tell the examiner which you think is more significant and why.
Increase Word Count: Your answer is currently around 200 words. Aiming for the 320-340 word guideline will give you the space you need to develop your evaluation and add the depth required for the higher mark bands.
Use Evaluative Language: Instead of saying a point is 'great', use phrases like 'a more convincing argument is...' or 'while this point is valid, it overlooks the more significant issue of...' This explicitly shows the examiner you are weighing up the evidence.

Candidate 74180

Word Count: ~296 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I personally agree with Professor Evelyn Reeds ideology of an unwritten constitution because she claims it is hard to changs and isn't a modern system. However, Dr. Julian Croft does make some strony points too to support her point. Firstly, Reed says that, "Rigid, codified constitutions that are difficult to change..." Here, shes speaking about a written constitution. The Parliamentary Inquires purpose is to raise concons about issue the government doesn't address. If the UK had a written constitution, the responses would take long to change, making it unethical and est critising the government for having a written one. However, Croft claims that, "Its greatest weakness is its lack of clarity" A written constitution has cleus points and has a brief understanding. One thing the UK has a professional select committee, which means the work of government and Parliament is checked. Most Higher quality work tends to happen when it is written, which explains why a written constitution is more clear and understandable for the population, making it beneficial. Therefore, there is an advantage to using a written constitution. Going back to Reeds point another benefit of having an unwritten constitution is because it has regular checks, showing they're affectionate. For example, she says, "Our constitution provides robust checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power." The UK is capitalist but does not tolerate abusing power, hence why we have judicial review to ensure the people are happy. If the government didn't do these checkups, they would have a reason to switch to a written constitute. This means that an unwritten constitution would not fail but rather be a success, whilst also being easier to change laws. Although Julian Croft did make some fair and strong points, I overall agree with Evelyn Reed because as she makes clear, strong points which intrigued me.

Quality of Evaluation Good attempt. You have made a solid attempt to evaluate the two writers, using evidence from the source and some of your own knowledge. You clearly state your judgment at the start and end. However, your evaluation is often one-sided and doesn't always explain *why* one argument is stronger than another. To improve, focus on directly comparing the writers' ideas and explaining your reasoning in more detail.

Developing Your Judgment: Instead of just saying a writer's points are 'strong', explain *why*. For example, you could rewrite your final sentence like this: "While Dr. Croft's argument for clarity is valid, I ultimately agree with Professor Reed. Her point about flexibility is more convincing because it allows the government to adapt to new challenges like online safety or environmental issues, which a rigid, hard-to-change constitution might struggle with."

Strengths

Using Own Knowledge: You did a great job bringing in your own knowledge of 'judicial review' and 'select committees'. This is a high-level skill and your point about judicial review was particularly well-explained.
Selecting Evidence: You consistently selected relevant quotes from both writers to support the points you were making. This shows you have understood the source material well.
Clear Structure: You stated your view at the start, discussed both sides, and gave a final judgment. This P.E.E (Point, Evidence, Explain) structure is a great foundation for your writing.

Targets

Check Your Understanding: At the start, you said Reed claims the constitution is 'hard to change', but she actually argues the opposite – that it's flexible and easy to change. Always re-read the source carefully to ensure you are representing the writers' views accurately before you evaluate them.
Develop Your Reasoning: You explain the writers' points well, but to get top marks you need to compare them directly. Ask yourself: Why is flexibility (Reed) more important than clarity (Croft)? Or is the risk of an 'elective dictatorship' (Croft) a bigger problem than the benefit of tradition (Reed)?
Substantiate Your Judgment: Your final conclusion says you agree with Reed because her points are 'strong'. To improve, you must explain *why* they are strong. Which specific point was the most convincing for you, and why did it outweigh Croft's arguments?

Candidate 76921

Word Count: ~129 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I somewhat agree with Evelyn Reed as having an unwritten constitution comes with many advantages like rules in an unwritten constitution are easy to change which means there would be no problem in changing new rules/laws. Having a written constitution means the opposite and will put pressure on the government as they may not want to change any rules/laws as it would be hard to and would raise problems. However, I also agree with Julian Croft as having a written constitution comes with advantages like it is easily accessible. This is an advantage as members of public can access the constitution and read/understand it. In conclution to what I have said, I mostly agree with Evelyn Reed's points to why we should keep an unwritten constitution

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have the right structure for a good answer: you introduce your view, look at both sides, and then conclude. You've correctly picked out a key idea from each writer. The next step is to move from describing their ideas to evaluating them in more detail, explaining *why* one argument is stronger than the other.

Developing Your Evaluation: For example, instead of just explaining that the public can access a written constitution, you could evaluate its importance: "Dr Croft's point about accessibility is crucial. If citizens cannot easily understand the rules that limit government power, it makes it harder for them to hold politicians to account. This lack of clarity could weaken democracy, making his argument very persuasive."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have a clear and logical structure. You state your view, examine both writers, and then give a final conclusion. This is exactly what examiners are looking for.
Identifies Key Arguments: You successfully identified a central argument from each writer – flexibility for Reed and accessibility for Croft. This shows you have understood the source material well.

Targets

From Description to Evaluation: Your explanation of Dr Croft's point is more descriptive than evaluative. Try to always ask 'So what?' Why is it important that the public can access the constitution? Link it to bigger ideas like democracy or holding power to account.
Add Depth and Detail: To push into the higher marks, add more specific detail. For Reed's point on flexibility, you could mention how this allows Parliament to pass laws quickly in an emergency. For Croft, you could mention the risk of an 'elective dictatorship'.
Use 'Own Knowledge': Try to include key terms you've learned in lessons, such as 'parliamentary sovereignty', 'judicial review', or 'entrenched rights' to support your points and show the examiner your deeper understanding.
Develop Your Word Count: Your answer is quite short. By adding more depth and detail to each point as suggested above, you will naturally increase your word count and be able to provide the level of analysis needed for top marks.

Candidate 78962

Word Count: ~180 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

To I agree with Julian Croft to a extent because i agree with her points for example if it is unwritten it will be very easy to Forget and i also agree with her She Said its greatest weakness is its lack of clarity and how the unwritten constitution is a relic of the past Since it was created in 1215 by the king which is called the Magna Carten but i also agree with professor Evelyn Reed Since the unwritten constitution is very senlide and Strong and i agree with him when he Said The UK's Unwritten constitution is one of it's greatest Strengths and i like the points he's gave like when he Said Futhermore our constitution provides pobust checks and balances to prevent the abusive of power and i like how the unwritten constitution can be adapted over the years but i don't like how you can change it without constitutional crises So I agree with Julian Croft more Since She has Some good points and how unwritten constitution is a pelic of the past and how a gemment with a Carge maiorits can pass almost any law it chooses even laws tat Migt eroule Fundamental rights So I agree with Sulian Cropt the mose.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have done a good job of identifying arguments from both writers and have made a clear decision on which one you agree with more. However, your evaluation is currently a list of points you agree with. To improve, you need to explain *why* one argument is stronger than another, comparing them directly and explaining the real-world impact of their ideas. Your reasoning is often asserted ("she has some good points") rather than explained.

Developing a Judgment: Instead of "So I agree with Julian Croft more Since She has Some good points", you could write:
"Overall, I find Dr. Croft's argument more convincing. While Professor Reed's point about flexibility is valid, Croft's warning about an 'elective dictatorship' seems more significant. The fact that a government with a large majority can change fundamental rights, as Croft suggests, is a more serious risk to citizens than the potential difficulty of changing a written constitution."

Strengths

Balanced Structure: You have a clear structure where you look at Dr. Croft's views, then Professor Reed's, before making a final decision. This is a great way to organise your answer.
Using Evidence: You have correctly identified and used several key arguments from both sources, such as 'relic of the past' and 'checks and balances', to build your points.
Making a Judgment: It's excellent that you make a clear decision at the end, stating who you agree with more ("So I agree with Sulian Cropt the mose"). This is a key skill for evaluation questions.

Targets

Explain Your Reasoning: When you agree with a point, always explain *why*. For example, *why* is it a problem that the constitution is a 'relic of the past'? What problems does this cause today? Always ask yourself 'so what?'.
Compare, Don't Just List: Instead of discussing each writer separately, try to directly compare their ideas. For example: "Professor Reed sees flexibility as a strength, *however*, Dr. Croft would argue this same flexibility leaves citizens' rights unprotected."
Check Your Understanding: You said you "don't like how you can change it without constitutional crises". Professor Reed argues this is a good thing (it's smooth and stable). Make sure you show you understand the writer's point first, even if you plan to disagree with it.
Add More Detail: Your answer is a bit short. You can easily add more words and depth by explaining each of your points in more detail, as suggested in the targets above. Aim for around 320-340 words.

Candidate 82790

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

Evaluation Score: 7/10

In my personal opinion, both sides of the argument are extremely good yet they are polar opposites, Evelyn argues that the unwritten constitution is better than a written one and Croft argues that the written constitution is better. However I must agree with Evelyn due to the flexibility of not having a constitution which is written. Firstly, I agree with this statement that "Unlike codified constitutions that are difficult to change, our system can evolve organically to meet new challenges." This is a good bonus as this can help people become more protected. For example, the UK banned a dangerous breed of dogs known as "XL Bully", However they were faced with another problem, People were making cross-breeds that were just as dangerous with similar animals used, meaning danger was still present, However they could easily change this law by making it so other dog breeds and dogs you can breed others with illegally, protecting the community. Another strength is law checks within Parliament and constant changes (eg Parliamentary ping pong) to ensure all laws are fairly made. However, someone might argue that the unwritten constitution is "scattered across a jumble of diffrent laws" and messy, according to Croft. This is a good argument because written constitutions can be seen as more easy to read and understand as a list instead of a vast amount of laws mixed with old documents and vague rules. A written constitution is also much more strict on creating laws which is helpful as it ensures there isnt any illegal laws or laws people would strongly rebuke. Another reason why is the unwritten constitution supporters can argue that they already have law checks and also in the case of an emergency or a loophole is found it would take longer for the law to be initiated. In my opinion I agree with a more Hexible unwritten constitution then a strict, written one.

Quality of Evaluation Good. You have made a strong start here by including your own knowledge and giving a clear judgement. You successfully analyse points from both writers and explain why you agree or disagree with them. To improve, you need to develop your analysis further, explaining the impact of each point in more detail and ensuring your sentences are always clear and focused on building your argument.

Developing Your Evaluation: Your point about emergencies was good but could be clearer. Try building a chain of reasoning like this:
"While Croft's argument for clarity is strong, it overlooks the key advantage of flexibility that Reed highlights. For instance, if a loophole in a law is discovered that puts the public at risk, our system of parliamentary sovereignty allows the government to pass new legislation quickly. Under a rigid written constitution, this process could be much slower, showing that flexibility is sometimes more important than clarity for protecting citizens."

Strengths

Excellent Use of Own Knowledge: Your example of the XL Bully ban was a perfect way to support Professor Reed's argument about flexibility. It shows you can apply the concepts to real-world events.
Clear Structure and Judgement: You state your opinion clearly in the introduction and conclusion. This gives your answer a strong, confident structure.
Engaging with Both Sides: You didn't just focus on the writer you agreed with. You effectively used Dr Croft's argument to create a counter-argument, which is a key skill in evaluation.

Targets

Develop Your Analysis: Instead of just saying an argument is "good", try to explain its impact. For example, why is it a problem that the constitution is "messy"? You could say: "This is a significant weakness because it makes it difficult for ordinary citizens to know their rights, potentially allowing the government to overstep its power."
Link Own Knowledge to Key Terms: When you used the XL Bully example, you could have explicitly linked it to a key constitutional idea. For example: "This demonstrates the power of parliamentary sovereignty, allowing our elected MPs to act decisively..." This shows the examiner you understand the underlying principles.
Clarity of Expression: Read your work back to yourself. The sentence beginning "Another reason why is..." was a little confusing. Make sure each sentence clearly builds your argument step-by-step.
Use More Concepts from the Source: Try to engage with more of the specific ideas mentioned, such as 'elective dictatorship' or 'judicial review'. Explaining what these mean and why they are important would add more depth to your evaluation.

Candidate 86120

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

Evaluation Score: 7/10

I mostly garer with Dr. Julian Calls Croft's gaunant argument Hout that the the UK's unwritten Constitution is unfit for purpose. Firstly I will analyse Professor Evelyn Reed who arques for the opposite. She believes and says that an upwritten constitution onovicles a framework for governance that is stable and remarkably Her ble. Whilst this has is, Cclimaths, the disadvantages antwich the advangas. The lexbilitypt of an Suhwritten constitution means that the public are, more likely not to know the limits of government, Dower, the Parliament could pass certain laws which nicht be bevand the authorty vat the public would be unaware. She continues to say that the ability to change without Crisis is a sign of a mature, and effective system. That part is especially dangerous as the limits to the change is unfenown and as Dr. Julion Croft lafer salls, creates a risk of an 'elective dictatorship" as an unwit unwritten constitution makes maits unknown to atizens and members of the public. Or Julian Critt laker says that, Medical review can only challenge process which a decision was made not the fairness and means that with the right process, the members of government can, extend the limits of their power. Or. Julidung also says that our liberties and pohts exist only at the pleasure of the government and dad be removed and along with fre right process, the judiciary can, Wifimately not challenge eny, grounds and ferlus of the law showing that our rights are not fully protected. If particument, gaisg a majddly, the have the ability to pass almost bany law that it plasses and puts our pighits at nisk. In conclusion, I believe, that an unwritten constitution is unht as if it ultimately malas the powers of government unknown and puts any right and service we have access, to at risk of beling changed or lost, simply with an Act of Parliament it if carried out with the right process further defending my point that and ununten constitution is ught as a written one, gives the public something to refer to when farliament oversteps and [crossed out] lowers the Crisik of a dictatorship.

Quality of Evaluation Good. You have built a very clear and consistent argument, agreeing with Dr. Croft. You do a great job of using his points to directly challenge the arguments made by Professor Reed. Your answer is structured like a debate, which is an effective way to show evaluation. To improve, you need to add more balance. Instead of just dismissing Reed's points, try to acknowledge their strengths before explaining why you find Croft's arguments more persuasive. This creates a more sophisticated evaluation.

How to develop your evaluation: Instead of just stating Reed's point and moving on, try weighing it up like this: "Professor Reed makes a strong point that flexibility allows the constitution to adapt to modern issues, such as new technology, without a major crisis. This is a clear advantage. However, Dr. Croft’s argument is more convincing because this same flexibility creates dangerous uncertainty. As he points out, if citizens don’t know the exact limits of government power, it raises the risk of an 'elective dictatorship' where our rights could be changed by a simple majority in Parliament."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You make your own opinion clear from the start ("I mostly agree with... Dr. Julian Croft") and support it consistently, finishing with a strong concluding statement that summarises your view.
Effective Use of Evidence: You have selected powerful ideas from Dr. Croft, such as the 'elective dictatorship' and the weakness of 'judicial review', to directly challenge Professor Reed's points. This shows you understand both sides.

Targets

Balance Your Evaluation: Your argument is very one-sided. To reach the top marks, you must also explore the strengths of the view you disagree with. For example, explain *why* flexibility might be a good thing before explaining why the risks identified by Dr. Croft are more significant.
Develop Points with Own Knowledge: When you say Parliament could pass laws that put rights at risk, try to add a brief example (real or hypothetical) to make your point stronger. For instance, "a government could pass a law limiting the right to protest."
Engage with All Arguments: Professor Reed also argued that parliamentary sovereignty is democratic because power rests with elected MPs. A top-level answer would also challenge this key idea, not just her point about flexibility.
Proofread for Clarity: Take a moment to read your work aloud. Some spelling and grammar errors (like 'garer' for 'agree' or 'unht' for 'unfit') make your excellent points a little harder to follow. A quick check can fix this!

Candidate 90128

Word Count: ~424 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

Page 1
Date: 10/2/2026 (Citizenship)

~~In the passage both Professor Evelyn Reed and Dr. Julian Croft
Can both be concidered as polar opposites wer Evelyn Reed as gues Nes/ agrees with the statement that the Uks conwritten constitution'f it for purpause arguing its one of the greatest stre ghnins providing a framework for governence, however Dr Julian Craft atis, can be seen to Criticise the UK unwritten constitution disa greing with it arguing it arguing it is a the relic of the past and is dangerously unfit, Were I mainly agree with Evelyn Reeds views on how poscative A unwritten Constitution is.~~

On the one hand Evelyn Reed agrees and advocates for an uncoded (unwritten Constitution), prioritising the balance of power flexibility and morality, arguing that it is not confining Calling it daganic dynamic and organic as it does not confine or inrich the Constitution with to a big single document, sey and that it can be amended and changed Like in Covid-19 when laws were instantly changed due to our unwritten Constitution Compared to Americas en ore, alowing the State to adapt quickly to Modern crises, Sach as national Security issives / threat insuring ous laws are organic and upto date were laws and Simple Acts can easily be amended helping many people and minorities. bring a better and strong society at heart and more effective Systems of governing. Howere / on the other hand Dr Julian Coft disagrees with her advorary arguing that a written Constitution is much more Stable and outlines people srelight Saejing that an unwritten Constitutions greatest weakness is simple lands of clarity, were they believe written Constitutions are more conventional and withe Dr Coft identifying executive overeach arguing as

Page 2
Date: 10/3/2026 (Citizenship)

A written Constitution provides in a ~~way Asa source of~~ entrenchment. By having a single supleme legal document were citizens ~~Eright Jare~~ outlined and are protected from being easily charged, and that without this, a country the danger of a cost of pre militantand elective dictatorship, were because of the writtene Constitution people light are upholded showing both Stregun ths and weakneses to the Di's argument.

In evaluation, while Dr Julian Caft's arguements are quite strong and adaptable. Evelyn Reeds argument is ultimately more strong / Persualive. A unwritten Constitution holds freedom and Checks and balances as well as judicial review enabeling the people and government to be more pietective and strategic when problemes occur bring tose amounts of politicial grid lock and rage at how slow written constitu fons can be, wore a written Constitution may outline peoples oright but can be very slow to gamerd, hens why although Evelyn Reed ~~Spalat~~ P Tarquement can be legional the smoothness of Dr ~~For Dr Julians print maybe logicial idea of~~ Fuelyns Reeds argument is more stable and effective

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have a very good understanding of the arguments presented by both writers and you make a clear final judgement. Your use of the Covid-19 example was excellent. The main area for improvement is to weave your evaluation throughout the answer. Currently, you describe what Reed thinks, then what Croft thinks, and only start to evaluate them against each other in the final paragraph. To reach the top bands, you need to be comparing and judging them point-by-point.

Integrating Evaluation: Here is how you could have evaluated Croft's point on the 'elective dictatorship' more directly:
"Dr Croft's point about an 'elective dictatorship' is a powerful criticism. It suggests that without a written constitution, a government with a large majority could threaten our rights. However, this view could be challenged by Professor Reed's argument that parliamentary sovereignty is actually more democratic, as ultimate power rests with our elected MPs, not with unelected judges."

Strengths

Good Source Comprehension: You have a clear understanding of the main arguments from both Professor Reed and Dr Croft, accurately picking out key ideas like 'flexibility' and 'elective dictatorship'.
Using Your Own Knowledge: It was great to see you bring in your own example of Covid-19 to support Professor Reed's point about flexibility. This is a key skill for top marks.
Making a Clear Judgement: Your final paragraph makes a clear and confident decision on which argument you find more persuasive, and you start to explain why with your own reasoning.

Targets

Evaluate Throughout: Instead of describing one view then the other, try to compare them directly. For example: "Reed argues for flexibility, which is persuasive because... however, Croft rightly points out that this flexibility comes at the cost of clarity for citizens."
Develop Key Terms: You mention important ideas like 'judicial review' and 'checks and balances'. To improve, briefly explain what they are and *how* they support the argument you are making.
Balance Your Argument: Your evaluation is focused on why Reed is better. To improve, show that you have considered the strengths of Croft's argument too, even if you disagree. Acknowledge his good points before explaining why you still favour Reed's view.
Improve Conciseness: Your answer is longer than needed. Practice making your points clearly and directly. This will make your argument sharper and more focused.

Candidate 91708

Word Count: ~160 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

I would like to start off by Saying that both writers raise good points and there answers are ticked backed up with evidence however they both have there flaws like D.E (Professor evelyn) Beleving the uk's constitution is one of the uks greatest strength due to it being hard to change however with usesp if a new Party is elected they could abuse there power and change certain laws in which can benifit them e.g gender Pay gap or fair Pay for teachers or little things such as Replaceing Park benches but mostly just the Small thing that may not have been promised in that Partys manifesto Julian crofts (JC) argument is more Stronge as it shows the flaws of a written constitution as with one a state would gauh too much Power So without it Society can remain become fair and citizens can see and remember their laws So JC has the wass is who i agree withine the most

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You show good instincts by trying to weigh up the arguments and make a final judgment. However, your evaluation is based on a misunderstanding of what both writers are saying. For example, you state that Dr. Croft argues against a written constitution, when he is actually arguing in favour of one. This means your judgment isn't supported by the evidence in the source. The top priority is to read the sources very carefully to ensure you understand each writer's point of view before you begin to evaluate them.

Improving your evaluation of Dr. Croft: Instead of "JC's argument is more Stronge as it shows the flaws of a written constitution", you could write: "Dr. Croft's argument is more convincing because he highlights the danger of an 'elective dictatorship'. He argues that without a clear, written constitution to limit government power, a party with a big majority could pass laws that harm citizens' rights, making the system unfair."

Strengths

Making a Judgment: You clearly state which writer you agree with ("JC argument is more Stronge"). This is a key skill in an evaluation question and you have the right idea.
Thinking Critically: When discussing Professor Reed, you correctly identify a potential flaw – that a flexible system could be abused by a new government. This shows you are thinking critically about the arguments.

Targets

Read the Source Carefully: Your top priority is to make sure you fully understand what each writer is arguing before you start writing. For Writer B, you argued he was against a written constitution, but he is actually in favour of one. Read each source twice to be sure.
Use Specific Source Details: Refer to specific phrases from the text. For example, you could say, "Dr. Croft's idea of an 'elective dictatorship' is a powerful criticism because..." This proves you have understood the source in detail.
Develop Your Examples: Your examples (pay gaps, park benches) are a good start. To improve, link them directly to the constitutional point. For example, "A government could abuse its power by passing a law that weakens workers' rights, which supports Croft's point that our rights are not properly protected."
Check Spelling and Grammar: Proofread your work to catch common errors like 'there' (should be 'their'), 'beleving' (believing), and 'stronge' (stronger). This makes your arguments clearer and more professional.

Candidate 91826

Word Count: ~296 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

I agree more with Professor Evelyn Reed as she argues that the UK's unwritten constitution is one of it's greatest strengths as it's both stable and remarkably flexible. One way it example of a benefit of not having a written constitution was Covid Whilst countries like the USA who had a written constitution took months to start a lockdown, the the UK's ability to make new laws quick (allowed by not having a written constitution) prevented many lives from being lost. Another way an unwritten constitution hascar Genisitted the UK is that it's main principal is parliamentary sover eignty. This makes sore that power res ides in the hands of elected represan titives of the people not unelected judges which is more democratic However some people agree with Dr Juli an Cost (JR) as they say that it is dangerously unfit for the modern way world. One example of it being unfit for the modern world is that it allows 'elective dictatorship' where a goverment can pass any law it likes even if it impedes human rights if they have the majority - however I disagree with this statement as any 'elective dictatorship' would lose lose a lot of popularity lea-ding to them being to them being voted out in the next election. Another way ha ving a written constitution could bene ficell for people is that it provides clarity. New laws and conventions are jumbled up and some times go against each other older laws can contradict newer ones. A written constitution would allow all laws and conventmions to be clear and balanced. In conclusion, Alt although some may argue a written constitution is better as it provides clarity, I believe an unwritten constitution is better as it is both stable and flexible, allowing us to respond to any em ergencies or crises swiftly and eggefative ly

Quality of Evaluation Good. You have produced a well-structured answer that considers both sides of the argument. You move beyond simply describing the sources and start to evaluate them, particularly when you challenge Dr Croft's idea of an 'elective dictatorship'. This shows you are thinking critically about the issues. To reach the higher marks, your evaluation needs to be more detailed, using more specific own knowledge to support your points.

Developing Evaluation: Here is how you could have strengthened your point about the 'elective dictatorship'.
"However, I disagree with this statement. While a government with a large majority is powerful, the idea of an 'elective dictatorship' is an exaggeration. In reality, a government's power is limited by other factors, such as scrutiny from the House of Lords, legal challenges through judicial review, and constant pressure from parliamentary select committees and the media. These checks and balances mean a government cannot simply pass any law it likes without facing significant opposition."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly in the introduction and conclusion. This gives your answer a strong sense of direction and makes your argument easy for the examiner to follow.
Direct Counter-Argument: Your rebuttal of the 'elective dictatorship' point is excellent. Directly disagreeing with a source and explaining why is a high-level skill that you have demonstrated well.

Targets

Develop Your Reasoning: When you make an evaluative point (like disagreeing with 'elective dictatorship'), try to add more specific detail. Instead of just saying they'd be 'voted out', could you mention other checks on power, like the House of Lords, the Supreme Court, or select committees?
Use Precise Own Knowledge: Using the Covid pandemic was a great idea! To make it even stronger, be more specific. You could mention the 'Coronavirus Act 2020' as the specific law that was passed quickly, showing how parliamentary sovereignty allows for swift action.
Evaluate Every Point: You explained Dr Croft's point about 'clarity' but didn't evaluate it. Do you agree that the constitution is confusing? Or could you argue that its traditions are well-understood? Try to challenge or agree with every key point you introduce.
Expand Your Points: Your answer is a little short. By adding more detail and specific examples to support your arguments (as suggested above), you will naturally get closer to the ideal word count of 320-340 words and make your evaluation stronger.

Candidate 97128

Word Count: ~180 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I agree with Professor Evelyn the most because she agrees on using on unwritten constitution. This is because it is easier to change when necessary, being able to change when the public says it needs to. She says with an unwritten constitution, it can still hold it's tradition whilst being able to adapt to Modern society. Also, without having a constitutional crisis it is a more mature and effective system. I disagree with Dr. Julian because they said that it is a relic of the past scattered between different laws which isn't true. This is because if there is an unwritten constitution, it is easier to access and change without having any trouble. Also they said that the government can change it if the majority agrees which is true but the puldic still needs their own opinion it before it can go through fully. With a written constitution, you can't change it easily which means it can't adapt to Modern society which isn't good as everything is always changing around the world. False Another reason why I agree with Professor Evelyn is because she says that is a combination of traditional and Modern which makes more sence as we change and develop more. In conclusion, I still agree with Proffe Professor Evelyn because a constitution is a list of things we should and shouldn't do which always needs to change as we evolve as humans.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have made a clear and consistent judgement, arguing that the flexibility of an unwritten constitution is its greatest strength. You have selected relevant points from Professor Reed's argument to support this. However, your evaluation is very one-sided. To reach the higher marks, you must engage more seriously with Dr. Croft's arguments, explaining why a reader might find them convincing before you explain why you ultimately disagree. Your reasoning also needs to be more detailed and specific.

Developing a Counter-Argument: Instead of just saying a point "isn't true", try to explain the counter-argument in more detail. For example:
"Dr. Croft argues the constitution is a 'relic of the past' because its rules are scattered and unclear for citizens. While this is a valid concern, Professor Reed's view is more convincing because this flexibility is a strength. It allows Parliament to pass new laws, like the Human Rights Act 1998, to adapt to modern values. This shows the system can evolve effectively, which is more important than having all the rules written in one place where they might become outdated."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start and end your answer with a very clear decision, stating who you agree with and why. This gives your writing a strong focus and structure.
Focus on a Key Concept: You have really grasped Professor Reed's main point about the flexibility of an unwritten constitution and you use it multiple times to support your view (e.g., 'easier to change', 'adapt to Modern society').

Targets

Engage with Both Sides: To improve, you need to treat Dr. Croft's arguments as seriously as Professor Reed's. Instead of just dismissing his points, explain *why* his concerns about an 'elective dictatorship' or unprotected rights might be valid, even if you disagree with them in the end. A balanced argument gets more marks.
Use Specific Evidence: Your points are a bit general. Try to use specific terms from the source or your own knowledge. For instance, when you talk about checks on power, you could mention 'judicial review' or 'select committees' from the source text.
Develop Your Reasoning: Try to explain your points in more detail. When you say the public needs to give its opinion, explain how this happens (e.g., through elections, consultations, the media). This adds depth to your evaluation.
Word Count: Aim to write more to develop your points fully. A good target for this question is around 320-340 words. This will give you space to explore both sides in more detail before reaching your conclusion.

Candidate 98607

Word Count: ~312 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

One advantage stated by Evelyn Reed is that an unwriten constitution povides a gramework for governance that is both Stable and remarkalily flexible. This is a good point as is an issue occurs it is alle to be dealt with compared to a writen one. An example would be the Magna carta (signed in 1215 by king John) was changed and adapted into what we know today. However B Evelyn Reed Says that The ability to change without constitutional crises is a sign of a mature and effective system. This is a problem as is it is not writen down it can be unclear or can be congues is not outlined. On the other hand Dr croft has Some considurable points such as is a constitution is not written it makes it inaccesible and create uncertainty for the public. This is a goud counter argument as is it is not accesiable people may have troubles knowing or remembering them. However, I disagree that Judicial Reveiw can only chalkinge the procees by which it was made not the fairness. As the role of the Judical Revew (Thee Highest court) is to ensure all lows are Made lowfully and fairly and that a judge that has to avaluate the Law. Another point made by Evelyn Reeds is that within parlimint Select committers act as a powerful watchdog- This is a good thing as it has the to belive by the people at heart. A point made by Dr craft Says A government with a Large ma jority can pass almost any law it chooses. This can have both pasative and negative impacts or a law may be to corrupt where it erudes the goverment. Hower this is where the Judicial reveiw and Supreme cort come into place. However it can be a pasotive as it will have a large amount of opinions or veiws on a topic. This helps the partie chose there best laws. Overall, both argument have good and bad points. However, I do agree with both of them I do teane lean more to Dr. Julian croft as they make more point that I belive or agree with that out way the negatives.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You've done a good job of picking out key arguments from both writers and you try to weigh them up against each other. However, your evaluation often stops at saying whether a point is 'good' or 'bad' without fully explaining *why* in detail. To improve, you need to develop your reasoning and link your points together to build a stronger, more convincing argument.

Developing your evaluation: Instead of seeing a large majority as positive because of 'more opinions', try to explain the *danger* Dr Croft is highlighting. For example: "Dr Croft rightly warns that a government with a large majority can become an 'elective dictatorship'. This is a significant risk because it means the government can pass controversial laws, like the Investigatory Powers Act, with very little opposition, potentially threatening citizens' privacy without a higher constitutional law to stop them."

Strengths

Engaging with Both Sides: You consistently address points from both Professor Reed and Dr Croft, which is essential for a balanced answer. For example, you use Dr Croft's idea of a lack of clarity to challenge one of Professor Reed's points.
Making a Clear Judgment: You end with a clear conclusion where you state which writer you lean towards and give a reason. This shows you are thinking about the overall question and trying to reach a decision.

Targets

Develop Your 'Why': When you say a point is good or bad, always follow it up with "because...". For instance, when you say select committees are good, explain *how* they hold power to account (e.g., by questioning ministers and publishing critical reports).
Use Specific Examples: Your Magna Carta example was a good idea! To make it stronger, use more modern and relevant examples. When discussing the risk of a government with a large majority, you could mention a specific, controversial law that was passed.
Check Your Knowledge: You mention Judicial Review. Be precise about its role. Remember, Judicial Review checks if the government has acted lawfully and followed the correct process, but it can't strike down an Act of Parliament just for being 'unfair'. This precision will make your arguments much stronger.

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 10629

Candidate 10869

Candidate 16079

Candidate 19678

Candidate 19726

Candidate 20967

Candidate 26817

Candidate 28691

Candidate 60982

Candidate 67012

Candidate 67801

Candidate 67892

Candidate 68170

Candidate 71689

Candidate 72916

Candidate 74180

Candidate 76921

Candidate 78962

Candidate 82790

Candidate 86120

Candidate 90128

Candidate 91708

Candidate 91826

Candidate 97128

Candidate 98607