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 0274

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

Evaluation Score: 4/10

Initially, both following statement arguments contrasting arguments both have ideas I partially agree with, as they both inform the redeau on constitutional knowledge however In my opinion I agree with Dr Julian Croft's argument as he states that a written constitution leads to key rules and citizens rights scattered across a jumble of different laws. Although you could consider it being apart of our democracy which brings me on to my next point about Professor Evelyn Reed. Reed proclaims that the UK having an unwritten constitution is one of its greater strengths as it provides a framework for governance that is "stable" and flexible". This argument states that means that the constitution promotes laws that are "stable" however I disagree due to the fact that it could change at any time just because its unwritten doesn't mean its legitimate. This is a problem for our democracy and could make the UK citizens feel anxious about laws in the UK. Although our constitution provides checks and balances that prevent the abuse of power, which could lead courts to hold the government to account through judicial review the thought of it being unwritten sounds very unstable. Ultimately in regards to the following arguments both promote ideas...

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You make a clear attempt to evaluate the sources and give your own opinion, which is the right approach for this question. You directly challenge Professor Reed's argument about stability and explain your reasoning. However, a significant misunderstanding of Dr Croft's main point holds your answer back. Your evaluation also focuses heavily on just one side of the debate.

Developing your reasoning: Instead of your opening sentence about Dr Croft, you could show a clearer understanding and evaluate it like this: "I find Dr Croft's argument more persuasive because he highlights how the UK's unwritten constitution is confusing and inaccessible. This is a significant problem for democracy, as if people cannot easily understand their rights, it is much harder for them to challenge the government when those rights are threatened."

Strengths

Making a Judgement: You clearly state which writer you agree with ("In my opinion I agree with Dr Julian Croft's argument"). This gives your answer a clear direction from the start.
Challenging the Source: You don't just describe the arguments. You actively disagree with Professor Reed's point on stability ("however I disagree") and give a reason why, which is a key evaluation skill.

Targets

Read for Understanding: Your top priority is to read the sources carefully to make sure you understand each writer's core argument. You mistakenly claimed Dr Croft said a *written* constitution scatters rights, when he argued the opposite. Always double-check what each writer is saying.
Develop Your Points: When you make a good point, like the constitution being "unstable", push it further. Explain *why* this is a major problem. For example, you could say this instability means a future government could easily scrap important laws like the Human Rights Act.
Evaluate Both Sides: Your answer mainly criticises Professor Reed. To improve, you must also evaluate Dr Croft. For instance, could you find a weakness in his argument? (e.g., "While Dr Croft wants clarity, would a written constitution be too rigid and hard to change in an emergency?").
Increase Word Count: A score of 5 or more requires more detail. Aim to write a paragraph evaluating Writer A, a paragraph evaluating Writer B, and a concluding paragraph that gives your overall judgment. This will naturally increase your word count and the depth of your analysis.

Candidate 12906

Word Count: ~322 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

I agree with Julian Croft (JC) and that this unwritten constitution is outdated and unworkable. He states that 'our liberties are therefore not properly protected', which is a strong point as it highlights the disadvantage of the unwritten constitution, which is not clear. To it's uncertain rules and treating of boundaries, it can lead to an elected dictatorship as the government's power is not restricted by the constitution as it can be changed and adapted to the government's will, which hides away the main value of democracy; that being the influence of the citizens on the law. JC also states that the unwritten constitution 'is unfit for today's modern world', which is also a strong point, as with the digitalization of the world, such as voting or shopping becoming more digital. An unwritten constitution is disadvantageous, as its citizens cannot access it online so they do not know their rules and rights, or that the constitution should give them. However, some may agree with Evelyn Reed (ER), and that the unwritten constitution 'is actually advantageous for the state as it can adapt to the changing state of todays world with the development of new technology. For example, when a new invention is publicised, a codified constitution would struggle to make new laws about it, however the UK's unwritten constitution could be adapted to the new technologies. This is therefore a strong point, as it relates to the challenges that the UK is facing today. ER also mentions that parliamentary sovereignty is beneficial for the state, which is a weak point, as she overlooked the fact that parliamentary sovereignty paves a way into the possibility of the UK becoming a dictatorship, as with the combination of an unwritten constitution which can be changed to the government's choice, but also the supreme power that parliamentary sovereignty grants the UK, it proves to put the UK into a very disadvantageous situation. In conclusion, Overall, JC has a stronger argument due to his analytical view on the overall disadvantageous position that the unwritten constitution puts the UK into, as it not only gives it the possibility of becoming a dictatorship, but also struggles to clarify the rules and regulations to the citizens, which could cause issues due to the lack of clarity.

Quality of Evaluation Good. This is a strong response that clearly evaluates both sides of the argument. You effectively use concepts like 'elective dictatorship' to analyse the sources and you directly challenge one of Professor Reed's points, which is a high-level skill. Your final judgment is clear and well-supported by the points you made earlier in your answer.

Developing Your Own Knowledge: Here's how you could have made your point about the 'digital world' more specific and analytical:
"Dr Croft argues the constitution is 'unfit for the modern world'. This is a strong point because in a digital age, where issues like online surveillance, data privacy, and the regulation of AI are major concerns, a flexible, unwritten constitution could allow a government to pass intrusive laws without them being checked against a clear, entrenched Bill of Rights that citizens can easily access and understand."

Strengths

Direct Challenge: You confidently challenge Professor Reed's view on parliamentary sovereignty, calling it a 'weak point' and explaining exactly why. This is excellent evaluation.
Synthesising Ideas: Your best moment is when you link the unwritten constitution with parliamentary sovereignty to explain the risk of a dictatorship. This shows you can combine ideas to build a powerful argument.
Clear Structure: Your answer is well-structured. You deal with each writer in turn before reaching a clear, well-supported conclusion.

Targets

Deeper Own Knowledge: Your point about the 'digital world' was a good idea. To improve, try to be more specific. Instead of just 'voting or shopping', think about specific modern issues like data privacy or online surveillance, and explain how a constitution relates to them.
Engage with More Arguments: You focused well on parliamentary sovereignty and clarity. Try to also engage with other points in the sources, like Professor Reed's mention of 'judicial review' or 'select committees', to show a broader understanding. You could have challenged her claim that these are 'robust checks and balances'.
Refine Expression: Be careful with grammar, for example, "To it's uncertain rules..." should be "Due to its uncertain rules...". Reading your work aloud can help you spot these small errors and make your arguments even clearer.

Candidate 207011

Word Count: ~161 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

Firstly, Evelyn Reed (ER) has a strong point in saying that an uncodified constitution is democratic, explaining "the clear principle of parliamentary Sovereignty," with "power lying with the people's representatives." This is a good argument as with an unwritten constitution, laws are changed and adapted more easily, leaving the "Supreme legal authority with the elected House of Commons". This means that the views of the public are more reflected in their votes, giving the elected party a larger likelyhood of living up to the changes they promised in their manifesto. A written constitution against this This would have many benefits such as increasing voter turnout as more people would see the worth in voting if they see actual changes being made. A written constitution would make it much harder to implement changes and adapt laws to the changing views of the public. However, a weaker point of ER's is that a potential challenge to this point is that while an uncodified

Quality of Evaluation Promising. You have made a strong start by focusing on one of Professor Reed's key arguments and trying to develop it with your own ideas. You show good understanding of her point about flexibility and democracy. However, the evaluation is entirely one-sided, as you don't bring in any of Dr. Croft's counter-arguments to create a debate. To reach the higher marks, you must weigh up both views against each other.

Developing a balanced point: Instead of just saying a written constitution would be harder to change, try directly using Dr. Croft's view. For example: "While Professor Reed sees this flexibility as a strength, allowing governments to deliver on their promises, Dr. Croft would argue this creates an 'elective dictatorship'. He would say that a government could use this same power to easily remove citizens' rights, showing a dangerous lack of protection."

Strengths

Focus on the Source: You've done a great job of selecting a key argument from Professor Reed – parliamentary sovereignty – and using her words to support your points.
Developing Arguments: You don't just state Reed's point; you try to explain its consequences, for example, by linking it to manifesto promises. This is the start of good evaluation.

Targets

Engage with Both Writers: Your top priority is to analyse arguments from both sides. After explaining one of Reed's points, immediately bring in one of Dr. Croft's counter-arguments to create a direct comparison and debate.
Use 'Signpost' Language: Use phrases like 'On the other hand, Dr. Croft argues...', 'A weakness in this view is...', or 'While Reed's point is valid, it overlooks...' to clearly show the examiner you are evaluating.
Complete Your Thoughts: Your final sentence starts to make a counter-argument but cuts off. Plan your points and make sure you fully explain them before moving on.
Aim for a Higher Word Count: Your answer is quite short. A fuller response (around 320-340 words) will give you the space to explore both sides of the argument in detail and reach a final, well-supported judgment.

Candidate 20791

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

Evaluation Score: 5/10

constitution promotes democracy, democracy isn't always necessary for a well-functioning society. For example, there are a few countries led by a dictator where the people are still listened to and are not suffering. Democracy isn't the only thing which indicates how functional a country is. Secondly, Julian Croft (JC) has a strong point in stating that a weakness of the unwritten constitution is its lack of clarity. This is true because with no concrete document of what is or isn't a law, it can easily be ambiguous. For example, the USA has a written constitution, which is constantly referred to in legal settings as it provides a concrete guide to things like sentencing. However, a criticism of this point is that the UK, [illegible] has with an unwritten constitution, has also a clear guide to sentencing and makes it clear to citizens what's a law and what's legal illegal. Overall, I agree most with ER as I do not believe that an unwritten constitution is a 'relic of the past' and I think it is better to have flexible laws which can easily be changed to adapt to changing views.

Quality of Evaluation Solid. You have a good structure here, looking at both sides of the argument and reaching a clear conclusion. You use some of your own knowledge (the USA) and even challenge your own points, which is great to see. However, your reasoning is a little limited and your opening point isn't connected to the source material. To improve, you need to develop each point with more specific detail from the sources.

Developing a Point: Instead of focusing on sentencing, you could have made your USA example more powerful by linking it directly to Dr. Croft's argument about rights. For example:
"Dr. Croft's point about clarity is proven by countries like the USA. There, fundamental rights like freedom of speech are protected in a single written document, meaning the government cannot easily remove them. This supports his argument that UK citizens' rights are weaker because they aren't properly entrenched in the same way."

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You don't just agree with one writer. The moment you wrote "However, a criticism of this point is..." shows that you are thinking critically and considering different perspectives.
Clear Judgement: Your final paragraph is effective. You state who you agree with and use a key idea from the source (flexibility) to explain why.
Use of Own Knowledge: Bringing in the example of the USA's constitution is exactly what you need to do to access higher marks. It shows you can think beyond the source text provided.

Targets

Focus on the Source: Your first paragraph about democracy and dictators was not relevant to the arguments in the source. Always start by directly addressing a point made by Reed or Croft.
Develop Your Reasoning: When you use an example like the USA, explain *why* it is a good example. How does a written constitution make rights safer or the law clearer? Adding this "so what?" detail will deepen your evaluation.
Use Key Terminology: Try to include specific terms used by the writers, such as 'parliamentary sovereignty', 'elective dictatorship', or 'checks and balances'. This demonstrates a stronger understanding of the debate.
Expand Your Answer: At 180 words, your points are a little brief. Aim for 320-340 words to give yourself space to fully explain two or three points with the level of detail needed for a top grade.

Candidate 21687

Word Count: ~358 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

Though both sides have very clear and reasoned arguments I agree with with Evelyn Reed (ER) as the United Kingdoms unwritten constitution is one of its greatest strengths as it allows the Government to easily create or abolish laws, which helps our system evolve organically to meet new challenges. I further agree as having a unwritten constitution has provided robust checks and balances which prevents the abuse of power, further more having a unwritten constitution means courts hold Government to account with Judicial review, ensuring that Public bodies acts lawfully and fairly, this reflects the rule of law as even though the Parliment is Soverign they can still be held accountable. However to be Objectively analysed with ER statement as Dr Julian Croft (DJC) contradicts her by argument by stating the existing checks and balances are too weak and the Judicial review can only challenge the process by which a decision is made, not the legality of the law itself. I further challenge ER's point as the Principle of Parliaments Soverignty, that when there's a slender, creates 'elective dictatorship' which is as long as a Party gains the large majority it has the Power to Pass down almost any law it chooses even if that law could fundamentally violate rights. This shows the UK's unwritten constitution doesn't always for purpose as instead provides a component of our governance that is both stable and flexible it gives Party's Power to create laws that create fundamental risks which somewhat dictates the UK as it shows votes that aren't supported aren't in the majority aren't valued which debases the UK's democracy and human rights as some people aren't valued the same as others. For example the 2016 referendum on Brexit though there was a high majority that voted leave EU the votes who didn't now have to live in the consequences of leaving. This shows our liberties are not properly protected; they exist only at the pleasure of the Government of the day and can be removed by a simple Act of Parliament. In conclusion though both sides explain have arguments with clear and absolute intentions I Personally agree more with DJC as his points have a clear message and I believe his argument goes beneath the surface rather than claims such as the constitution rather than stasis at the surface viewing only the positives like ER did.

Quality of Evaluation Good. You have built a well-structured answer that considers both sides of the argument before reaching a justified conclusion. You have successfully selected key ideas from both sources, especially Dr Croft's concept of an 'elective dictatorship', and used them to support your points. To reach the top bands, your evaluation needs to be more balanced and create more of a direct 'debate' between the two writers throughout your answer.

Developing Evaluative Language: Your point about democracy was good, but the wording was a little unclear. Here's how you could have phrased it to be more powerful:
"This 'elective dictatorship' directly challenges Reed's view that our system is democratic. A government can win a large majority of seats on a minority of the national vote, and then use this power to pass laws that ignore the rights and interests of millions. This suggests that, as Croft argues, our liberties are not secure and depend entirely on the government of the day."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have a great structure. You explain one side, use a clear pivot phrase ("However to be Objectively analysed...") to switch to the other, and then give a final conclusion. This makes your argument very easy to follow.
Effective Use of Sources: You accurately select key arguments from both writers, such as 'elective dictatorship' from Dr Croft and 'judicial review' from Professor Reed, to build your answer.
Reaching a Judgement: You don't just describe the views; you make a clear judgement on which one you find more convincing and give reasons for it in your conclusion. This is a key evaluation skill.

Targets

Create a Direct Debate: Instead of explaining one writer and then the other, try to make them 'argue' with each other in your paragraphs. For example: "While Reed claims checks and balances are 'robust', Croft convincingly argues they are weak because judicial review cannot challenge the fairness of a law itself."
Refine Use of Examples: It's excellent that you used your own knowledge (Brexit). To make it even more effective, ensure the example precisely supports the point. The 'elective dictatorship' point is about a government with a majority in Parliament, so an example of a controversial law passed by a government might be a stronger fit here.
Clarity of Expression: Some of your sentences are quite long and complex. Try reading your work aloud. If it's hard to say in one breath, it might be better as two or three shorter, clearer sentences. This will make your excellent points even more impactful.

Candidate 21769

Word Count: ~406 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 8/10

The UK's unwritten constitution can be argued to be be both a benefit and disadvantage of its democracy. However I agree mostly with Evelyn Reed's (ER) view although Julian Croft (JC) makes some strong points. ER says 'our system can evolve organically to meet new challenges'. This is a good point as we see throughout the years how our unwritten constitution has been an advantage. For example through the 2010 equality act which was only just over a decade ago and the use of case law and precedent to echo the needs of people, making the country more demo-cratic. However, JC says 'a modern democracy deserves a single, clear, written constitution that every citizen can read and understand. this is a strong point as as it is important that laws are accessible to people in a demo-cracy, especially a modern one like ours where the media could influence the public or spread fake news. However that being said, I disagree with their point as the flexibi-lity of an unwritten constitution works best for a changing society. Additionally, we see examples such as the USA, where the written constitution actually places its citizens at risk through old laws such as the legalisation of weapons like guns. Howe-ver, JC says also says 'the existing checks and balances are too weak.' and I disagree with this statement because the UK has a multitude of greater checks and balances that have proved to be effective. For instance, the legislature, judiciary, and government are constantly in checks with each other despite being different bodies. There are also checks in place such as judicial review the shadow cabinet and the entire law making process that goes through the 3 readings at each the house of commons and the house of Lords as well as royal assent. That being said, JC also says that "a government with a large majority can pass any law it chooses" this is a good point as this means they cannot be outvoted when deciding deciding a law but and JC does not mention the tedious law making process, or how the laws made must follow the ruling party's manifesto to avoid and falling out of power. In essence, I mostly agree with ER because they make strong and rational points as to why the unwritten constitu-tion is best for our society. Despite JC's sophisticated points, an unwritten constitution is one of the best way to be democratic and echo the views of the people.

Quality of Evaluation Excellent. This is a very strong response that demonstrates consistent and well-supported evaluation. You engage directly with the arguments from both writers and use a wide range of your own specific knowledge to develop and challenge their points. You build a clear, well-supported argument throughout, leading to a convincing and substantiated judgment.

Developing Your Evaluation: You wrote: 'this is a good point as this means they cannot be outvoted'. To improve, try explaining the *impact* of this: "This is a powerful point, as it highlights the danger of an 'elective dictatorship'. For example, a government with a large majority could potentially pass laws that limit civil liberties, like the right to protest, facing very little opposition in the Commons."

Strengths

Excellent Use of Own Knowledge: You bring in a wide range of specific examples to support your points, such as the Equality Act 2010, the US constitution, and the details of the UK law-making process. This makes your arguments much more convincing.
Clear and Consistent Judgment: From your first paragraph to your last, you maintain a clear line of argument. You state who you agree with and consistently explain *why*, using evidence to back up your view.
Strong Counter-Arguments: You don't just describe the views. You actively challenge them, for instance when you counter Dr Croft's point about weak checks and balances by listing several strong ones like judicial review and the Shadow Cabinet.

Targets

Use Key Terminology: When you discuss a government with a large majority passing any law, this is a perfect opportunity to use the key term 'elective dictatorship' from Dr Croft's source to show the examiner you understand this concept.
Explain the 'Why': When you say the Equality Act is an advantage, explain *why* flexibility was key. For example: "...because society's views on equality had changed, and our unwritten constitution could adapt without a difficult formal amendment process." This adds more depth.
Word Count Management: Your analysis is excellent, but at over 400 words, you are well over the typical guideline. Practice being more concise so you can fit all your great ideas into the expected length without losing detail. This is a key exam skill.

Candidate 21770

Word Count: ~209 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

One reason why I agree with Evelyn Beck that the UK's constitution is fit for purpose is because it means that the power ultimately lies in the hands of the public due to the soverenty that parliment that has, meaning no other powerfull organisation can get in-volved. And that people's voices get heard due the them voting for the MP's in the house of commons. For example she says 'this is far more democratic than having one unelected judge or jury having the the final say on laws'. This is an extremely valid point as at the end of the day, the UK tries to be as democratic as they need in order to have what they believe is a fair society. One reason why I agree with Julian Croft that the UK's constitution is not fit is because of the 'lack of clarity' that it has, what is dangerous in a modern society. For example due to it being so old and to have being developed over the years makes it extremely confusing for the public so they might accidently break some of the laws without realing what is not fair in a modern society because it's not written down means in a sense their way that could be loop holes around different laws causing people to be able to get around making it absolutley very unjust. In conclusion I agree with X more

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You've done a good job of picking out key arguments from both writers and have started to evaluate them. You explain *why* you agree with the points, especially when discussing Dr. Croft's view on the constitution being confusing. To improve, you need to deepen this evaluation by using specific own knowledge and by directly comparing the two arguments to build a stronger final judgment.

Deepening Your Evaluation: Instead of saying the UK "tries to be democratic", you could link the two views together like this: "Professor Reed's point about parliamentary sovereignty is strong because it links to the democratic principle of representation from general elections. However, Dr. Croft might argue this creates an 'elective dictatorship', where a government with a large majority could pass laws that limit rights without any real challenge, making the system less fair than it appears."

Strengths

Good Use of the Source: You have clearly understood and selected key arguments from both writers, such as parliamentary sovereignty for Reed and the 'lack of clarity' for Croft.
Developing Explanations: You don't just state the points, you try to explain their impact. For example, you explained how a confusing constitution could lead to 'loop holes' and injustice, which is good evaluative thinking.

Targets

Use Specific Own Knowledge: To reach the top marks, bring in your own knowledge. When discussing parliamentary sovereignty, you could mention a specific Act of Parliament. When discussing rights, you could refer to the Human Rights Act 1998.
Develop a 'Dialogue' Between Writers: Instead of treating the two paragraphs separately, try to make the writers 'argue' with each other. For example: "While Reed sees parliamentary sovereignty as democratic, Croft would challenge this by arguing it can lead to an 'elective dictatorship' because..."
Write a Substantiated Conclusion: Your conclusion was incomplete. A good conclusion must state who you agree with *and why*, briefly summarising your strongest argument. For example: "In conclusion, I agree more with Dr. Croft because the lack of clarity in an unwritten constitution poses a greater risk to citizens' rights."
Check Writer Names: A small but important detail – make sure you use the correct names from the source (Professor Reed, not Evelyn Beck). This shows careful reading.

Candidate 290217

Word Count: ~216 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I personally agree with Professor Evelyn Reed (E.R) Firstly, Professor Evelyn Reed (P.E.R) states that the unwritten constitution is one of its greatest strengths as of its framework for governance that is 'nimble and remarkably flexible which is a great point because the even though the constitution is uncodified, it is yet to still be stable and can evolve and be continue to be adapted. the ability to be able to change and adapt laws and acts and conventions for the better is another key point for so say that the unwritten constitution is fit for purpose. For example, over the years the LGBTQ+ community had slowly become more introduced and welcomed into society, so as we have the unwritten constitution, the government were able to remove or adapt the law passed against the LGBTQ+ society. The process of passing laws is far more democratic than the opposing point of Dr. Julian Croft (Dr. J.C) as he says no to the statement and that it creates a risk of an 'elective dictatorship'. P.E.R states that the supreme legal authority rests with the elected house of commons, ensuring that the power leads with the publics representative which involves majority of the public voice which can have a final say on the validity of laws.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have made a good start here by clearly stating your judgment and supporting Professor Reed's view with a fantastic piece of your own knowledge. The evaluation of Reed's points is solid. However, the answer is very one-sided and doesn't analyse Dr. Croft's arguments in any detail; you mention his main point but then immediately dismiss it. To get into the higher bands, you must evaluate both sides of the debate before reaching your conclusion.

Developing your evaluation: Instead of just dismissing Dr. Croft, try weighing up the two views like this: "While Professor Reed sees parliamentary sovereignty as democratic, Dr. Croft's concern about an 'elective dictatorship' is a serious one. A government with a large majority could pass almost any law it wants. Although Reed would argue that checks like judicial review prevent this, Croft's point that these checks are too weak is convincing, as they cannot overturn an Act of Parliament itself. This suggests the risk of too much government power is a significant weakness."

Strengths

Excellent Use of Own Knowledge: Your example of how laws affecting the LGBTQ+ community have been adapted is a perfect way to support Professor Reed's point about flexibility. This is exactly what examiners look for!
Clear Structure: You begin with a clear judgment and then use points from the source to build your argument. This makes your answer easy to follow.

Targets

Engage with Both Sides: Your answer focuses almost entirely on Professor Reed. To improve, you must analyse Dr. Croft's arguments in the same level of detail. Explain his point about the 'elective dictatorship' and why he thinks citizens' rights are not properly protected.
Develop 'Weighing Up': Instead of just agreeing with one side, try to directly compare their arguments. Use phrases like "While Reed argues X, Croft's point about Y is more convincing because..." or "Reed's argument is strong, but it fails to address Croft's concern about...".
Use More Source Detail: You picked out the key phrases, which is great. Next time, try to weave in more specific details. For example, mention Dr. Croft's point about rights being in a "jumble of different laws" or Reed's mention of "select committees".
Expand Your Answer: Your answer is a little short. By developing your analysis of Dr. Croft's view and adding more evaluative comments where you weigh up the two sides, you will naturally increase your word count and the depth of your answer.

Candidate 29187

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

Evaluation Score: 5/10

Despite source B providing a well sequenced and reinforced argument, I agree with source A. This is because a written constitution like the USA's is largely outdated, however due to it being written, it is much more difficult to a much longer process. In addition to this, within a written constitution, it is far less democratic, as it promotes a system where not only do unelected judges have the final say on the validity of laws, but it also displays an image of corruption. On the otherhand, Professor Evelyn Reed gives a much more convincing and logical argument as although the UK constitution is not written, the basis/foundation of them was the Magna Carta, and we know, that the ideology and main principles behind the Magna Carta were to reduce power from the king to erradicate corruption and integrate a voting system which would be much more suitable in maintaining peace and solidarity. The Magna Carta is also the basis of the UDHR so its up to you to ask yourself the question of what would you prefer? A country whos laws derive from a book which despite being over 700 years old is still the foundation of many human right and British laws or a country with an outdated written constitution which helps silence care instead of resolve and tackle it. In conclusion, after reading both sources, I can firm and confident in my decision to stand with source A. Also I know that Also a country which has a written constitution has much more procedure that it has to go through before the law is changed which is just ineffective and time wasting.

Quality of Evaluation Okay. You make a very clear judgement and support it with some good points from Source A and your own knowledge, especially about the Magna Carta. However, your evaluation is entirely one-sided. You don't engage with any of the specific criticisms Dr. Croft makes in Source B, such as the risk of an 'elective dictatorship' or the lack of protection for citizens' rights. To reach the higher bands, you must analyse and weigh up the arguments from *both* sources before deciding which is more convincing.

Balancing Your Evaluation: Here is how you could have developed your point to include both sides:
"While Professor Reed's argument about the historic importance of the Magna Carta is strong, Dr. Croft would argue this tradition isn't enough. He claims that without a single written document, our rights are not properly protected and a government could create an 'elective dictatorship'. For example, a government could pass a law limiting protest rights, which would be much harder to do if those rights were entrenched in a written constitution. Therefore, although the flexibility Reed praises is useful, Croft's point about the lack of clear protection for citizens is a very serious concern."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the start and end of your answer ("I agree with source A"). This gives your writing a strong, confident focus.
Using Own Knowledge: You did a great job bringing in your own knowledge to support your points, for example by mentioning the USA's constitution and linking the Magna Carta to the UDHR. This is a key skill for top marks.

Targets

Engage with Both Sources: Your answer focuses only on why you agree with Professor Reed. To improve, you must also discuss Dr. Croft's arguments. Try explaining one of his points (e.g., about the constitution being 'unclear') and then state why you still find Reed's view more persuasive.
Develop Your Reasoning: Some of your ideas could be explained in more detail. For example, you say a written constitution "displays an image of corruption". How? Why? Always try to explain the reasoning behind your statements to make your argument stronger.
Check Writer Names: You correctly identify Professor Reed, but you introduce her as if she is making a new point, when you have been supporting her argument all along. Double-check which writer is making which argument to avoid confusion.
Aim for a Higher Word Count: At 200 words, your answer is a bit short. By addressing the targets above, especially by including arguments from Source B, you will naturally write more and provide the depth needed for a higher score.

Candidate 4253

Word Count: ~146 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

Initially, buth arguments go against eachather, providing very Strong ideas.

(P.E)
Personally I agree with professor evelyn, who believes the unwritten constitution is fit for a purpose. P. E goes on to Say that it provides a framework for governance, ea that is stable and flexible. I agree with this argument as if its easier unwritten, it makes it way easier to be changed cand allows different views to be heard, giving people a voice.

Some people may disagree with me as an unwritten constitution can create chaos and cause uncertainty. These are the kind of risks that Dr. Julian croft talks about. He talks about the risk of an 'elective dictatorship'

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have a clear structure here: you state who you agree with, use evidence from their argument, and then introduce a counter-argument from the other writer. This is the right approach. However, your evaluation is currently one-sided. You explain why you agree with Professor Reed but you only state Dr. Croft's point without explaining why you find it less convincing. To get higher marks, you need to weigh the two arguments against each other directly.

Developing Counter-Arguments: Instead of just stating Dr. Croft's point, try evaluating it like this: "On the other hand, Dr. Croft raises the serious risk of an 'elective dictatorship'. While this is a valid concern, Professor Reed's argument is more convincing because she points to existing checks and balances, like judicial review and select committees, which prevent the government from abusing its power. Therefore, the flexibility of the unwritten constitution outweighs the potential risks Croft identifies."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start with a really clear statement saying you agree with Professor Reed. This gives your answer a strong focus from the beginning.
Using Both Sources: You successfully picked out key ideas from both Professor Reed ('stable and flexible') and Dr. Croft ('elective dictatorship'), showing you understood the core of the debate.

Targets

Develop Your Reasoning: When you explain why you agree with a point (like flexibility), try to add more detail. For example, explain *how* being "easier to be changed" is a benefit in a modern society. Does it allow laws to keep up with technology?
Evaluate, Don't Just Describe: When you introduce Dr. Croft's idea of an 'elective dictatorship', don't just state it. Explain why you find Professor Reed's argument *more* convincing despite this risk. This is the key skill of evaluation.
Build a Direct Comparison: Use 'evaluative language' to directly compare the two views. Phrases like "While Croft argues X, Reed's point about Y is stronger because..." or "Although there is a risk of..., the benefit of... is more significant" will show the examiner you are weighing up the arguments.
Add More Detail: The low word count means you haven't had space to develop your points. Aiming for another 150-200 words would allow you to explain each writer's view in more detail before you evaluate them.

Candidate 4280

Word Count: ~364 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

Whether whether the UK's unwritten constitu- tion is fit for purpose has many arguments For example the constitution is unwritten meaning there is ambiguity which makes it unfit for purpose. For example However this means it is flexible and easy to change. On the one hand professor Evelyn Reed (E.R) believes it is fit for purpose this is because it 'flexible.' This is credible and there are many examples of when this has been useful. For example a taxi driver who had been drinking was forced to drive a terrorist attacker to the city centre. However because he was forced the courts created a new law establishing that if you are forced you shouldn't be accountable if your life is in danger. E.R also mentions Judicial Review and how it keeps power to account and makes sure it isn't abused However What E.R has forgot to mention is that an unwritten constitution cause ambiguity as people don't know what their rights are in the legal system. On the other hand Dr. Julian Croft (J.C) says that an unwritten constitution is 'dangerously unfit' for the modern world' However this loses credibility as America has an unwritten constitution which isn't flexible. This means countries like America still have guns which you cant run from which is the real danger. Although an unwritten constitution is cause ambiguity it ensures that the public are safe. J.C also says that an unwritten constitution creates a risk of 'elective dictatorship.' this is true as a party with a large majority can pass any law it wants however the role of a political party is to protect and look after the interests of the public if they fail to do so they wont be re-elected into power. This also loses credibility as if a law passed is seen as unlawful it will be challenged by the judiciary meaning the legislative and Executive branches can't abuse power. In conclusion I agree more with E.R because an unwritten constitution means it is flexible and can be easily changed and adapted whilst a written constitution means that it is hard to change and there are dangerous things such as guns in America.

Quality of Evaluation Okay. You have a solid structure here and you engage with both writers, which is great. There are moments of very strong evaluation, especially when you challenge the idea of an 'elective dictatorship'. However, your overall mark is limited by a major factual error about the US constitution which undermines a large part of your argument against Dr. Croft. Focusing on accuracy and fully explaining your points will push you into the higher bands.

Using Own Knowledge Accurately: Let's look at your point about America. Here's how you could have used it correctly to evaluate Dr. Croft:

"Dr. Croft argues a written constitution is needed for clarity, and a country like the USA supports this. Their written constitution clearly sets out rights, like the First Amendment. However, this also reveals a weakness, as the Second Amendment 'right to bear arms' is very difficult to change, which many argue makes the country less safe. This shows that while a written constitution provides clarity, it can lack the flexibility Professor Reed praises."

Strengths

Strong Counter-Arguments: You make some excellent challenges to the source material. For example, when you argue against the 'elective dictatorship' by pointing out that parties need to be re-elected, you are showing high-level evaluation skills.
Clear Structure: Your 'On the one hand... On the other hand...' structure is very effective. It allows you to directly compare the two viewpoints and ensures your answer is balanced.
Using Source Evidence: You consistently select key quotes from both writers, like 'flexible' and 'dangerously unfit', to build your points around. This is a vital skill for this type of question.

Targets

Check Your Facts: Your biggest target is to ensure your own knowledge is accurate. The USA has a famous *written* constitution. This mistake weakened your whole argument against Dr. Croft. Always double-check key examples you use.
Develop Your Examples: Your 'taxi driver' example was an interesting idea, but you need to explain *how* it proves the constitution is flexible. For instance, you could explain that this is an example of 'common law' evolving, which is a key part of our unwritten constitution.
Explain Your Evaluation: Instead of just saying an argument 'loses credibility', explain precisely *why*. For example, when you mention the judiciary, explain *how* it challenges the government and limits an 'elective dictatorship' by ensuring they act within the law.
Avoid Simple Assertions: Be careful of making big statements without backing them up. The line 'it ensures that the public are safe' needs evidence or an example to be a convincing point.

Candidate 4356

Word Count: ~91 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 3/10

I agree with this as the unwritten constitution likes to promote democracy while we let she also believes there is a lack of clarity for example key rules and citizen rights are scattered across a jumble of different laws this creates uncertainty about the true limits of government power I also agree with this as they sometimes tend to abuse their power A modern democracy deserves a single clear written constitution that every citizen can read and understand I agree also as its not even written for the people to see.

Quality of Evaluation Underdeveloped. Your answer shows you have understood Dr. Croft's main arguments against the unwritten constitution. However, your evaluation is one-sided and doesn't engage with any of the points made by Professor Reed. To achieve a higher score, you must analyse both viewpoints and explain *why* you agree or disagree with them, rather than just stating that you do.

Developing a Point: You wrote, "I also agree with this as they sometimes tend to abuse their power". Here's how you could develop that into a stronger evaluative point:
"I strongly agree with Dr. Croft's warning about the government's potential to abuse its power. This links to his idea of an 'elective dictatorship', where a government with a large majority can pass almost any law it wants. For example, without a written constitution to protect them, fundamental rights like the right to protest could be weakened by a simple Act of Parliament, which shows the current checks and balances are too weak."

Strengths

Identifies Key Arguments: You have successfully picked out some of Dr. Croft's main arguments, particularly the lack of clarity and the need for a single, accessible document.
Makes a Clear Judgment: Your own opinion comes across clearly. You consistently state that you agree with the arguments for a written constitution, which is the first step in evaluation.

Targets

Engage with Both Sides: Your answer only discusses Dr. Croft. To improve, you must also analyse Professor Reed's arguments. For example, what do you think about her point that the current system is flexible and can adapt over time?
Explain Your Reasoning: Instead of just writing "I agree", explain *why* you agree. Use evidence from the source and your own knowledge to support your judgment. The P.E.E.L (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) structure is great for this.
Develop Your Points: The point about the government abusing its power is a good one, but it needs more detail. Try to link it to specific concepts from the source, like 'parliamentary sovereignty' or 'elective dictatorship'.
Increase Word Count: The very low word count prevents you from developing your ideas. Aim for 320-340 words to allow you to explore both sides of the argument in sufficient detail and provide a balanced conclusion.

Candidate 4386

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

Evaluation Score: 3/10

The UK constitution is the UK's unwritten constitution to sit for purpose? Professor Evelyn Reed Say's She believes the UK's unwritten constitution is on of it's greatest strengths providing a very strong frame work for governance that is both stable and remarkably flexible unlike rigid codified constitutions I agree with the fact that its the UK's greatest strength as it provides alot of rules most countries do not condone On the other hand Dr Julian Croft Say's no she believes the unwritten constitution is a relic of the past that is dangerously unfit for the modern world

Quality of Evaluation Underdeveloped. You have done the first step well by identifying the main idea from both writers. However, the answer is a description of their views rather than an evaluation. Your own judgement is stated but the reason you give is confused and not linked to the evidence in the source. To get more marks, you need to explain *why* you agree with one writer, using their specific points as your evidence.

Developing a Judgement: Instead of "I agree... as it provides alot of rules...", you could write:
"I agree with Professor Reed that the constitution's flexibility is a great strength. For example, she argues it can 'evolve organically to meet new challenges'. This is important because it means the UK can adapt to modern issues like terrorism or the internet without the huge political crisis that changing a formal written constitution might cause."

Strengths

Identifies Both Sides: You have clearly understood and stated the main arguments from both Professor Reed and Dr Croft. This is the essential first step to a good answer.
Makes a Judgement: You make your own view clear by stating "I agree...". Showing your own opinion is crucial for an evaluation question.

Targets

Explain Your Judgement: When you give your opinion, you must follow it with a strong 'because...'. Your reason needs to be clear and, ideally, use evidence from the source. For example, "I agree with Reed because parliamentary sovereignty means our elected MPs have the final say, which is democratic."
Use the Source as Evidence: Don't just say what the writers believe, use their specific ideas to support your own argument. Quote or refer to points like 'elective dictatorship' or 'judicial review' and explain why they are important.
Develop Your Points (P.E.E.L): Try using the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link structure. Make your point (e.g., The constitution is unclear), find evidence in the source (e.g., Croft calls it a 'jumble of different laws'), then explain why this is a problem for citizens.
Increase Word Count: Your answer is very brief. Aim for around 320-340 words to give yourself space to explain both sides in more detail and develop your own evaluation with clear reasons.

Candidate 4393

Word Count: ~350 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I agree with proppessor Evelyn small saying that a unwritten Constitution isn't fit for purple as it gives low flexability. For example, Currently the uk has an unwritten constitution this means that the law isn't written thayne it can easily be change or devoloped. Having the ability to devolop is crucial especially in the modern day where soceitys ideals or norms are constantly adapting. If the USA's constitution is written. For instance the government has been tryed to devolop there law on proposing anybody Acesses to over-18. This is really dangerous and is the reason the USA's gun violence rates are so high. In order to change these constitution they would have to not only get over 50% of votes in there branches but also 75% in there upper this makes it virtually impossible to change the law in the US. Here with an unwritten constitution law can be easily devoloped upon in order to represent soceity. We see are Johnlords. This is a great point as through our Constitution being unwritten it allows us to evalulate and devolop our law making the leading more democractic by acting in acordence to peoples views. On the other hand, one may agree with Dr Julius pubb stating that unwritten constitutions give government too much power. For example the current unwritten constitution is very unclear and uncodified. It doesnt have a strict syntax to run on it lacks clarity. Also, unlike in nations such as the united states people dont have direct acess to the constitution meaning it gives people uncertanty on the limits of government. More over one Codified written constitution would make people fully unawere the laws government must in. This prevents the posibility of an relative dictatorship. Overall this is a good point but it doesn't recognise how checks and balances such as juridical review are put in place in order to control government using there authority. Finally I think UK's unwritten constitution is fit for purpose because of parlimentry Soverignty. Soverignty means that the law and supreme legal authority lies in the people and is lending through government. This means it so that people are kept and government is made up of the peoples representitive as to be like this democracy this prevents power from being held by one person or one state. Spreading it out through the nation. This is a good point as it shows how parliment and government is a reflection of the peoples beliyes through there representatives having the law at the power of the people. Government is more in of the peoples votes representatives.

Quality of Evaluation Good. You have understood the main arguments from both writers and have attempted to evaluate them. Your use of the USA as a comparison to make your point is a real strength, and your counter-argument about checks and balances in the second paragraph is an excellent example of high-level thinking. However, your evaluation is sometimes limited because your writing can be unclear, which makes your reasoning difficult to follow.

Developing your point: Your sentence "More over one Codified written constitution would make people fully unawere the laws government must in" was a little confused. You could rephrase it for clarity and impact like this: "Moreover, a single, codified constitution would make citizens fully aware of the rules the government must follow. This clarity helps to prevent the government from overstepping its power, which is a key safeguard against a potential 'elective dictatorship'."

Strengths

Effective Comparison: You effectively used your own knowledge to compare the UK and US systems to support your argument about flexibility. This is a great way to show deeper understanding.
Strong Counter-Argument: Your point at the end of the second paragraph, where you used 'checks and balances' to challenge Dr Croft's view, is excellent. This shows you are thinking critically about the sources.
Clear Judgement: You state your final judgement clearly in the last paragraph and give a reason for it (parliamentary sovereignty), bringing your answer to a logical conclusion.

Targets

Clarity of Expression: Some of your sentences were difficult to understand (e.g., 'We see are Johnlords'). Try reading your work aloud to yourself. If it sounds confusing, rephrase it to make your meaning clearer.
Check Your Understanding: At the very start, you said an unwritten constitution has 'low flexability' but then argued that it is flexible. Always double-check you have understood the writer's core argument before you start writing.
Develop Key Terms: When you use an important term like 'parliamentary sovereignty', briefly explain what it means and *why* it supports your argument. You started to do this well in the final paragraph – keep building on that skill.

Candidate 4424

Word Count: ~134 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

In the UK, our constitution (tells you what you can and can't do) is unwritten. Some may disagree that having the constitution unwritten is fit for its purpose, however [illegible] others may think otherwise. I somewhat agree with Dr. Julian Croft (JC) that argues that having an unwritten constitution is unfit for the UK. Having a constitution that is unwritten could be seen as messy, unorganised and useless. This could make people think its unclear, as they have nothing to refer to when it comes to them wanting to understand [illegible] what what they can/can't do. JC has a strong point where he says 'a modern democracy deserves a single, clear, written constitution' as it is only fair to be clear on what the ment the people in your country must and what not to do. However, JC has a weak

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have made a good start by stating your judgment clearly and using evidence from Dr. Croft to support your view. You also show the beginning of evaluation by explaining *why* you think his point is strong. However, the answer is very one-sided and doesn't engage with Professor Reed's arguments at all. To reach the higher bands, you must analyse both sources and provide a more balanced evaluation before reaching your final conclusion.

Developing a Point with Evaluation: Dr. Croft's argument that the constitution is 'unclear' is very persuasive. Because key rules are scattered across different laws and traditions, an ordinary citizen would find it almost impossible to know their exact rights without a lawyer. This supports his claim that 'a modern democracy deserves a single, clear, written constitution', as this would make rights more accessible and easier for everyone to understand and protect.

Strengths

Clear Judgment: You state your opinion clearly at the start ("I somewhat agree with Dr. Julian Croft"). This is a great way to structure your answer and immediately shows the examiner the direction of your argument.
Good Use of Evidence: You effectively used a direct quote from Dr. Croft's text to support your point about the need for a clear, written constitution. This shows you can select relevant information from the source.

Targets

Analyse Both Sides: Your answer only focuses on Dr. Croft. To get higher marks, you must also discuss Professor Reed's arguments. For example, what do you think of her point that our constitution is flexible and can change easily to meet new challenges?
Develop Your Points (The 'So What?' Test): When you say the constitution is 'unclear', explain the consequences. Ask yourself 'So what?'. Does this lack of clarity give the government too much power? Does it mean our rights are not well protected? Adding this next step will deepen your analysis.
Finish Your Thoughts: You started to write "However, JC has a weak...". This is a brilliant evaluative instinct! Always try to finish these thoughts. Considering the weaknesses of the argument you agree with is a high-level skill.
Word Count: A detailed answer needs more space. Aim for around 320-340 words to give you room to explore both sides of the argument fully and develop your own judgment.

Candidate 4434

Word Count: ~141 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

point where he says that a codified constitution would be a 'stronger safeguard for citizens' as if there was a recent issue that needs a law to change, having an unwritten constitution would make it easier and quicker to change. However on the other hand, I somewhat agree with Professor Evelyn Read (ER). This is because it is proven that having an unwritten constitution not-only makes it quicker to change things, but also easier. This ensures that the constitution is flexible, meaning things can be changed quickly when needed to. ER has a strong point where she says "adapted over centuries" as if the constitution hadn't changed from the Magna Carta. Some things may have been irrelevant and could impact us for the worst.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have correctly identified the core arguments from both writers and have started to evaluate them by making simple judgements. For example, you use the idea of flexibility to challenge Dr. Croft's point. However, your reasoning is undeveloped and lacks the specific examples or 'own knowledge' needed to explain *why* these points are strong or weak. Expanding on your ideas is the key to moving up the mark bands.

Developing a point: Instead of just saying old things might be "irrelevant", try explaining the benefit of change with a specific example:
"Professor Reed's point that the constitution has 'adapted over centuries' is convincing. This flexibility is vital in a modern society. For example, it allowed Parliament to quickly pass new laws in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, something a more rigid, codified constitution might have slowed down, potentially putting public health at greater risk."

Strengths

Comparing Writers: You do a good job of using one writer's argument to challenge the other. Your first paragraph, where you use the idea of flexibility against the need for safeguards, is a great example of starting to evaluate.
Engaging with Both Sides: It's excellent that you have included points from both Dr. Croft and Professor Reed. This shows you have understood the debate and are trying to create a balanced answer.

Targets

Develop Your Points (The 'So What?' Test): After making a point, ask yourself 'So what?' or 'Why does this matter?'. When you say the constitution can be changed quickly, explain *why* this is a good thing in practice. Does it help respond to emergencies? Does it reflect the will of the people more easily?
Use Specific 'Own Knowledge': To get top marks, you need to bring in your own examples. When discussing flexibility, you could mention a specific law that was passed quickly (like COVID-19 laws). When discussing rights, you could mention the Human Rights Act 1998.
Explain Your Judgements: You say Reed has a 'strong point'. This is a good start! The next step is to explain *why* it's strong. For example: 'Reed's point about flexibility is strong because it shows the constitution can adapt to modern challenges, such as...' This turns a simple statement into a well-reasoned evaluation.
Expand Your Answer: Your answer is very short at 141 words. Aiming for around 320-340 words will give you the space you need to develop your points, add examples, and write a proper conclusion, which is essential for the highest marks.

Candidate 4510

Word Count: ~341 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

This topic has been a continuing debate. While it is true that unwritten constitutions (such as the one we have in the UK) can create ambiguity and confusion, it can also be argued that our unwritten constitution is an invaluable strength of our democracy because it can easily adapt to changing attitudes and beliefs. On one hand, Julian Croft (JC) argues that an unwritten constitution is a relic of the past and its greatest weakness is its lack of clarity. While it is true that its lack of clarity can confuse the general public, JC neglects to mention the fact that its lack of clarity allows it to easily adapt to changing public opinion. Furthermore, JC also accentuates that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty creates the risk of an 'elective dictatorship', but this is not entirely true because although parliament can pass or abolish any law, powerful checks and balances such as the media and pressure groups stops them from abusing their power. JC mentions that existing checks and balances are too weak and backs this statement up by saying 'judicial review can only challenge the process by which a decision was made'. This is a strong point because JC correctly identifies that checks and balances like judicial review also have limits. On the other hand, Evelyn Reed (ER) argues that the UK's unwritten constitution is one of its biggest strengths. ER accentuates this point when she adds that our constitution is 'remarkably flexible' and 'stable'. This is a strong point because ER not only ident identifies the fact that our unwritten constitution is a strength because it can allow for quicker legislation to better adapt to changing public opinion. However, ER neglects to mention the impact that unwritten constitution can have on the public. ER doesn't make prominent that the ambiguity created from an unwritten constitution can lead to public discontent and result in eventual riots/protests which could destabilise our democracy. ER reinforces her early point when she says 'it is a dynamic mix of statute law, common law and conventions'. This mix of many different topics can allow for our constitution to have a broader perspective. Ultimately, while it is true that an unwritten constitution can create ambiguity, I agree more with ER because she identifies more beneficial strengths of our constitution such as its flexibility and adaptability.

Quality of Evaluation Excellent. This is a strong response that clearly understands the debate. You evaluate both writers' arguments well, using phrases like "neglects to mention" and "this is a strong point because..." to show you are thinking critically. You also bring in your own knowledge about the media and pressure groups, which is great to see. Your final judgment is clear and supported by your analysis.

Developing Your Points: Your sentence "This mix... can allow for our constitution to have a broader perspective" is a good idea, but a little vague. To make it stronger, you could add more detail, like this: "This mix of statute law, common law, and conventions allows the constitution to draw wisdom from different sources – from democratically passed laws to long-established legal principles – making it more resilient and comprehensive than a single document might be."

Strengths

Balanced Evaluation: You do a great job of evaluating both sides of the argument. For example, you challenge Croft's view on parliamentary sovereignty by bringing in your own knowledge of the media and pressure groups.
Using Evaluative Language: You consistently use phrases like 'This is a strong point because...' and 'neglects to mention...' which clearly signals to the examiner that you are analysing the source, not just describing it.
Clear Judgement: Your conclusion is effective. You weigh up the arguments you've discussed and make a clear, well-supported decision to agree with Professor Reed.

Targets

Deeper Development: Some of your points could be developed further. When you say the mix of sources gives a 'broader perspective', try to explain *what* that means in practice. Does it mean it's more stable? More fair? Be specific.
Use Source Language Precisely: You mention Croft's point about judicial review being weak. To improve, you could directly quote or paraphrase the source more closely, e.g., "Croft rightly points out that judicial review is limited as it can only challenge the *process* of a decision, not the fairness of the law itself, which strengthens his argument that rights are not secure."
Introduce More Own Knowledge: You made a good start by mentioning the media and pressure groups. To reach the top marks, try to bring in a specific, real-world example. Could you think of a recent law that was controversial, or a pressure group campaign that influenced Parliament? This would make your argument even stronger.

Candidate 4511

Word Count: ~337 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

Although Dr Julian Croft (JC) and Professor Evelyn Reed (ER) both make noteworthy points I'm partially inclined to agree with ER as she states that the UK's unwritten constitution is one of it's greatest strengths. This is a notable point as in this day and age society is constantly changing leading to a need for a change in laws to prevent people from causing harm to themselves or others. A benefit of having this 'unwritten' constitution is that since it is not in writing it can be constantly adapted and changed allowing new laws to be passed or older laws to be amended or edited. This point counters JC's point that says to it is 'dangerously unfit for the modern world', as however since the world is constantly changing the constitution would need to follow suit. On the other hand ER also mentions that as the heart of the unwritten constitution lies parliamentary sovereignty however this is countered by JC's point that press decisions needs for the country could be in an elective dictatorship as the reelected government could pass any law they wanted to if there's party had a large majority over the opposition. This is a good point because a written constitution could clarify and prevent the abuse of power by the political government. This is also a good point because the voters who didn't vote for the re elected party almost have their voices completely drowned out as permanent. A poor argument that's made by ER on the other hand is that because of parliamentary sovereignty that the power lies with the peoples representatives however due to an the increase in voter apathy and lower voter turnout recently means that the elected party don't truly represent all the peoples voices. Another good point that ER makes is that selects comitees constantly watch on parliament scrutinising their work meaning it puts the checks on parliament power including judicial review is more than enough to keep it however JC says that they are too weak which is a poor point as having the written wouldn't lead to much change. Overall I agree more with ER as society is constantly changing and the constitution needs to be flexible enough to do so aswell.

Quality of Evaluation Well done. This is a strong response that clearly understands the task. You have successfully created a debate between the two writers and used your own knowledge to challenge their points, which is a high-level skill. Your evaluation is good and mostly well-reasoned, but it is held back by one or two points that are asserted rather than fully explained.

Developing Your Evaluation: You state that JC's point about weak checks and balances is 'poor'. To improve this, you need to explain your reasoning. For example: "While JC argues these checks are 'too weak', this is a limited view. A written constitution wouldn't necessarily create stronger committees, and judicial review would still be a key check on government power. Therefore, ER's point that these systems are already robust holds more weight."

Strengths

Clear Debate Structure: You have structured your answer as a debate, directly using one writer's point to challenge the other's. For example, when you use JC's 'elective dictatorship' argument to counter ER's point on parliamentary sovereignty.
Using Own Knowledge: You effectively bring in your own citizenship knowledge to support your evaluation. Your point about voter apathy weakening the idea that MPs 'represent all the peoples voices' is an excellent and well-developed example of this.
Making Judgements: You confidently make judgements on the arguments, calling points 'good' or 'poor'. This shows you are thinking critically about the source material, which is exactly what evaluation requires.

Targets

Explain Every Judgement: Your third paragraph makes a judgement ("which is a poor point") but doesn't explain it. Always follow a judgement with 'because...' or 'this is because...' to ensure you are fully developing your reasoning.
Focus on the 'Why': When you say a written constitution "wouldn't lead to much change", you need to explain *why* you think that. Would the committees be the same? Would judges have the same powers? Adding this detail turns an assertion into a strong argument.
Refine Your Phrasing: Some sentences are a little unclear (e.g., "press decisions needs for the country"). Read your work back to yourself to check it makes sense and clearly communicates your excellent ideas.

Candidate 4528

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

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I agree fully with Professor Evely Read (ER) that the UK's unwritten constitution is fit for purpose. This is because ER mentioned how the UK constitution is a dynamic mix of [illegible] statute law, common law and conventions that has adapted over centuries from Magna Carta to modern parliamentary acts. ER also mentions how the UK's constitution's heart lies the clear principle of parliamentary sovereignty ensuring that power ultimately lies with the people's representatives @ the Supreme legal authority rests with the elected HOC. However, ER failed to mention that the [illegible] principle of parliamentary sovereignty creates the risk of an elective dictatorship as it's far from being a strength. Some may agree with Julian Croft (JC) that the UK's constitution does not fit for purpose. JC mentions that its greatest weakness is its lack of clarity and how key rules and [illegible] citizens' rights are scattered across a jumble of different laws, historical documents and vague, un-written conventions. However, [illegible] JC never mentioned that UK constitution provides robust checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. JC also failed to include that the courts hold government to account through judical review which makes sure public bodies act lawfully and fairly.

Quality of Evaluation Good. You have made a strong start here by moving beyond simply describing what the writers say. You correctly identify key arguments and then try to challenge them, for example by pointing out what you think a writer has 'failed to mention'. This shows you understand that evaluation means judging the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. To improve, you need to develop this further by explaining *why* an omission is a significant weakness, and by weighing up the arguments against each other in more detail.

Developing Evaluation: Instead of just saying "JC never mentioned that UK constitution provides robust checks and balances...", you could develop this by weighing the arguments:
"While Dr Croft raises a valid concern about the lack of clarity, his argument is weakened by downplaying the importance of existing checks and balances. For instance, he dismisses judicial review, but as Professor Reed argues, this is a crucial way the courts ensure the government acts lawfully. This suggests Croft's view of an 'all-powerful' government might be an exaggeration, as real limits on its power do exist."

Strengths

Directly Challenges Sources: You don't just summarise the writers; you actively challenge them. Your use of "However, ER failed to mention..." is a great example of starting to evaluate the strength of an argument.
Uses Evidence from Sources: You effectively use points from one writer to critique the other. For example, you use Reed's point about judicial review to find a weakness in Croft's argument. This is a key skill.

Targets

Develop Your Points: Instead of just stating a writer 'failed to mention' something, explain *why* this omission makes their argument less convincing. How does it weaken their overall case? This moves from identifying a point to analysing its impact.
Bring in Own Knowledge: To reach the top bands, you need to add specific examples from your own knowledge. Could you mention a real-life example of judicial review (e.g., the Supreme Court's ruling on the prorogation of Parliament) or an Act that changed rights (e.g., the Human Rights Act 1998)?
Balance Your Argument: Your answer is clearly in favour of Professor Reed. A top-level answer explores both sides in more equal depth. Try to find the strongest part of Dr Croft's argument and explain why it is a powerful point, even if you ultimately disagree with him.
Increase Your Word Count: At 180 words, your answer is too brief to allow for detailed analysis. Aim for around 320-340 words to give yourself space to fully develop your evaluative points and add your own knowledge.

Candidate 4540

Word Count: ~399 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I agree with Professor Evelyn Reed (ER) as it is jst a 16. Because constitution is meant to help structer a country and in its written down Certian things that might of helped but it often might not help now and I quote "stodgy, remarkably inflexible" This ensure anything need to be changed that it and then can. for example if America they are allowed guns to protect them says but people exploit their power with it and use it for the wrong reasons, so its an argument. Thats a reason why the UK's constitution shouldn't be written. p16. Sir Julian Leys (pc) However, on the other hand you may argue and agree with it should be written as another people argue it everyone knows their legal rights clearly "modern democracy. a single, clear, written constitution... every citizen can read and understand" This means no one should be wondering about and Doc. there are you them as the world has changed a lot so keeping the constitution unwritten can lead to many problems and confusion as it should be easy to access. In a school if they have unwritten school rules some people will forget and students would not know what to do and how the sancations there would be like. It should be keeping everyone in place and order you can clear understand Some may argue with ER as in its should remain unwritten. How would we be able to do checks and balances on what people say and hold them accountable. "A sign of a mature and effective system" How would that we should be able to see the mistakes in certains laws no, its keeping unwritten to hide it Lastly, I agree with RD most the UK is a more safe place as it being unwritten can allow everyone to show how we can get bigger laws into one and its more easier to analysis rather than it taken forever to change and having bumpy arguments on the way. And some argue that it isn't shown the correct standards and it has helped the UK be a great place it is today, unlike America as every other day gun crimes occur the other day. It also helps everyone and it being codified it may be hacked or changed which can affect us in a bad way.

Quality of Evaluation Okay. You have some really good ideas here and you try to evaluate both sides of the argument, which is the right approach. You use your own knowledge with the USA/guns example and the school rules analogy, which is great to see. However, your evaluation is limited because some of your sentences are very difficult to understand and your arguments can become confused. This means your reasoning isn't always clear enough to support your judgement.

Developing your evaluation: Let's look at your third paragraph. You could challenge Professor Reed's point on 'checks and balances' more directly, like this:
"While Professor Reed claims the unwritten constitution has 'robust checks and balances', this is a weak argument. As Dr Croft suggests, these checks are too weak to stop a government with a large majority creating an 'elective dictatorship'. Keeping the rules unwritten could be seen as a way to hide the true limits of government power from citizens, rather than being a sign of a 'mature system'."

Strengths

Using Own Knowledge: Your example of US gun laws is a very strong and relevant point. It clearly shows a downside of a rigid, written constitution and is a great way to support Professor Reed's argument about flexibility.
Building a Balanced Argument: You have structured your answer well. You look at Professor Reed's view first, then consider Dr Croft's counter-arguments before coming to a final judgement. This is the correct structure for an evaluation question.

Targets

Clarity of Expression: Some of your sentences are very long and confusing, which hides your good ideas. Try reading your work out loud before you finish. If it doesn't sound right when you say it, you probably need to rewrite it into shorter, clearer sentences.
Develop Your Points Logically: Your third paragraph starts by agreeing with Reed but then seems to criticise her view. Plan each paragraph around one clear idea. For example: "My first point supporting Reed is... My first point supporting Croft is..." This will keep your reasoning focused.
Accurate Use of Sources: You use quotes, which is good, but be careful to copy them accurately. Also, make sure you clearly explain what the quote means and how it supports your own point.
Relevance of Arguments: Your final point about a constitution being "hacked" is not a strong political argument. Focus on the ideas in the source text, such as power, rights, democracy, and clarity, as these will lead to much stronger evaluation.

Candidate 4552

Word Count: ~325 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

Page 1

Writing Task: 12 mark question (conflicting beliefs)

Candidate number: 4552 Date: 10/07/23 (Citizenship)

Task: Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

The UK constitution is uncodified, which means instead of one single erdocument it is made from conventions. The key parts is the magna carter and human rights. which some people argue that his system works well as it allow it to adapt to change. However others believe it is unclear and weak at proveting rights.

I agree with professor Evelyn reed as I believe that due to the UKs unwritten constitution it is fit for it purpose because it is flexible and able to adapt to change. Since parliament is sovereign it can quickly new laws with no need of long or difficult processes. For example the Reform act in the 2000's which helped with the seperation of judiciary and government. This shows the constitution is able to undertake current problems such as migration and change in society quicly. Therefore its flexibility makes the system effective as it allows the government to respond to political changes quickly.

Page 2

Writing Task: 12 mark question (conflicting beliefs)

Candidate Number: 4552 Date: (Citizenship)

However Dr. William Croft says is unfair as it is unclear what laws apply. This poses the constitution as dangerous as people are unable to learn it and use it to its full effect which I agree with.

Another Reason why I agree with Professor E.R is because the constitution has been developed over historic documents making it developed stability over time. These documents include the magna carta and Human rights Acts. This long and gradual development has created a very strong and democratic development tradition in the UK. Although the constitution is not one document these acts and conventions guide how the government operates. Therefore the constitution has to work effectively as we live in a country to carry democratic stability and laws. This is because of the government being held accountable by others like judiciary.

Quality of Evaluation Good. You make a clear judgement and support it with relevant points from the source and your own knowledge, especially your example of the Constitutional Reform Act. Your evaluation of Professor Reed's arguments is solid. However, your analysis of Dr Croft's view is very brief and you contradict yourself by saying you agree with him, which weakens your overall argument. To reach the top marks, you need to analyse both sides in more detail while maintaining a consistent line of argument.

Developing a Counter-Argument: Instead of just agreeing with Croft, try to use his point to strengthen your own argument, like this:
"While Dr Croft raises a valid concern that the constitution is unclear, which could make it difficult for citizens to know their rights, I believe this is outweighed by the benefits of flexibility that Professor Reed highlights. Although clarity is important, the ability to adapt laws quickly, such as with the Constitutional Reform Act, allows the government to respond to modern challenges effectively, which ultimately provides better governance for the UK."

Strengths

Using Own Knowledge: Your reference to the "Reform act in the 2000's" is excellent. It provides a specific, factual example that makes your argument about flexibility much more convincing.
Clear Judgement: You state exactly who you agree with at the start ("I agree with professor Evelyn reed") and then build your points around that. This gives your answer a clear focus.
Good Source Use: You have successfully identified several key arguments from Professor Reed's text, such as flexibility, historical development, and the role of the judiciary in holding the government to account.

Targets

Sustain Your Judgement: Avoid contradicting your main argument. When you wrote "which I agree with" about Dr Croft's point, it undermined your support for Professor Reed. Instead, try to say "While Croft makes a valid point about clarity..." This shows you've considered his view without agreeing with it.
Balance Your Analysis: Your paragraphs supporting Reed are much more developed than your single paragraph on Croft. To improve, give more space to explaining Croft's arguments (e.g. 'elective dictatorship', weak protection of rights) before you explain why you disagree with them.
Explain 'Why': Push your evaluation further. For example, you say the constitution's flexibility makes it effective. The next step is to explain *why* flexibility is more important than the clarity that Dr Croft calls for. This direct comparison is the key to top-level evaluation.

Candidate 4571

Word Count: ~208 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I agree the most with Professor Evelyn Reed (PER). This is because we have had an unwritten constitution for centuries and changing it now would be very unusual as it has been what you can a "tradition". We as a whole have adapted to the unwritten constitution so if it is written it would take long to adapt to. It is also very stable and flexible. However, on the other hand, some may argue that an unwritten constitution is not fit for purpose and I slightly agree. This is because I agree with the point that Dr. Julian Croft (JC) said "its greatest weakness is its lack of clarity". The reason as to why I agree with this point is because sometimes it may be unclear to citizens as it is unwritten and it creates uncertainties of the true limits of government power. Lastly, the other reason as to why I mostly agree with ER is because with an unwritten constitution there are checks to make sure the government is not over using their power. For example, Judical review. Judical review ensures that public bodies act lawfully and fairly. So even if the government over use there power they will get called out and have to take accountability for it. I don't agree with JC's point when she said: "checks and balances are too weak" this is because they are very effective and make people take accountability. In conclusion I heavily agree with PER as her argument is more effective than JC's in my opinion.

Quality of Evaluation Solid. You have built a well-structured answer, making a clear judgement and using evidence from both sources to support it. You show balance by considering the opposing view, and you attempt to explain your reasoning. To move into the higher bands, your evaluation needs more depth. This involves not just stating that one argument is better, but explaining precisely *why* it is more convincing and directly challenging the weaknesses in the opposing view.

Developing Counter-Arguments: Here's how you could have developed your point about checks and balances:
"I disagree with Dr Croft's claim that checks and balances are 'too weak'. In my view, mechanisms like judicial review are very effective at making the government accountable. However, I understand her concern. For example, judicial review can only challenge *how* a decision was made, not if the law itself is fair. Despite this limitation, I still find Professor Reed's argument stronger overall because these checks, combined with parliamentary scrutiny, provide a powerful safeguard that has worked for centuries."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start and end your answer with a clear, consistent judgement. Stating "I agree the most with Professor Evelyn Reed" and sticking to this gives your writing a strong focus.
Using the Source: You effectively select key arguments from both writers to build your answer, such as Reed's point on 'tradition' and Croft's on 'lack of clarity'. This shows good comprehension skills.
Balanced Structure: You successfully address both sides of the argument. Your second paragraph, starting with 'However...', shows the examiner that you can think critically about different viewpoints.

Targets

Develop Your Evaluation: Instead of just stating that checks are 'very effective', explain *why*. For example, why is the flexibility of an unwritten constitution more important than the clarity of a written one? Use phrases like 'This is more convincing because...' or 'This argument is weaker as it fails to consider...'.
Challenge the Sources: You dismiss Dr Croft's point that checks are 'too weak'. A top-level answer would explore the weakness she is hinting at. Could a government with a huge majority ignore a select committee report? Acknowledging the weaknesses in the argument you support makes your own judgement stronger.
Introduce 'Own Knowledge': To reach the top marks, bring in a specific, relevant example of your own. When discussing judicial review, you could have mentioned a real-life case, like the Supreme Court's ruling on the prorogation of Parliament in 2019, to prove how effective it can be.
Expand Your Points: Your answer is a little short. Try to add more detail to each point. When you mention 'tradition', you could briefly explain what that tradition includes (e.g., common law, important historical acts) to show deeper understanding and increase your word count.

Candidate 4581

Word Count: ~171 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 3/10

Partially agree

I agree with professor Evelyn reed Says. This is because She makes good points on how the UK's written constitution is one of it's greatest strengths the like being an unwritten constitution means that they can react to changes in society, while a written other is a written constitution - The rules the UK's grammar is very stable and flexible as it can react quickly to any changes.

Because might disagree as well, my thoughts are Say that they agree with Dr Julian Cook because they say that the constitution should be something that requires our leaders to read this shows that politicians like Donald Trump can see how the constitution is. This is a good point as it shows that like people like our prime ministers live in their political. But they cannot do so even it would be more important it you would easily change it rather than it the public direct access to it.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have made a start by identifying a point from each writer, which is the first step to evaluation. However, your reasoning is undeveloped and often unclear, which makes it hard to follow your argument. To improve, you need to explain the points you make in more detail and weigh them up against each other to form a clear judgement.

Developing Your Evaluation: Instead of your point about Donald Trump, you could make a more relevant and developed point like this:
"Dr Croft's argument that the constitution should be clear enough for everyone to read is very persuasive. An unwritten constitution can be confusing, which could allow a powerful Prime Minister to bend the rules. For example, some people argued that Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament in 2019 showed how unwritten conventions could be exploited. A single, written document would make it harder for any leader to do this, giving citizens a stronger check on their power."

Strengths

Addresses Both Sides: You have made a good start by looking at the arguments from both Professor Reed and Dr Croft. This is a key skill for evaluation.
Identifies Key Ideas: You correctly identified Professor Reed's main point about the constitution being 'flexible' and able to 'react quickly to any changes'.

Targets

Explain, Don't Just State: When you use a point from the source, explain in your own words *why* it is a strong or weak argument. For example, why is a flexible constitution a good thing for a country?
Use Relevant Own Knowledge: Your example of Donald Trump was not relevant as he is a US politician. Try to use UK-based examples to support your points, such as mentioning the Human Rights Act 1998 or a recent political event.
Develop Your Judgement: Instead of just saying a writer makes 'good points', try to explain which argument you find more convincing and why. For example, "Although flexibility is useful, I believe Dr Croft's argument is stronger because protecting citizens' rights is the most important job of a constitution."
Proofread for Clarity: Read your work aloud before finishing. Some sentences are very difficult to understand (e.g., 'it you would easily change it rather than it the public direct access to it'). Clear sentences will help you get your good ideas across to the examiner.

Candidate 60179

Word Count: ~307 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

I agree with professor Evelyn Reed because when he said say the United Kingdom's unwritten constitution is one of its greatest strengths, providing a framework for governance that is both stable and remarkably flexible. Here professor Evelyn explain the UK's unwritten constitution work and how stable. However, our system can evolve organically to meet new challenges. It is a dynamic mix of statue law, common law, and convention that has adapted over centuries, from Magna carta to modern parliamentary acts. This ability to change without constitutional crises is a sign of a mature and effective system. This statement shows our how the system can change or how it can be devolved. This means that the supreme legal authority rests with the elected House of Commons. This is a far more democratic arrangement than one where unelected judges in a supreme court have the final say on the validity of laws. Within parliament, select committees act as powerful watchdogs, scrutinizing the work of every government department. I disagree with Dr Julian Croft, because when he says the UK's so-called 'unwritten constitution' is a relic of the past that is dangerously unfit for the modern world. Its greatest weakness is its lack of clarity. Here Dr Julian think the unwritten constitution is dangerous and weak. However he clarify this statement, Key rules and citizens' rights are scattered across a jumble of different laws, historical document and vague, unwritten conventions. This makes it inaccessible to the public and creates uncertainly about the true limits of government power. Our libarties are therefore not properly protected. This mean they are not protected and are not in security. Judicial review can only challenge the process by which a decision was made. Finally, I think that in one side I agree and other side I disagree because where I agree is when the constitution are strong and in security, but in the other side

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have done a good job of understanding and explaining the key points from both Professor Reed and Dr Croft. You have a clear structure and you use the sources to show what each writer thinks. However, your answer is currently more of a summary than an evaluation. To improve, you need to move beyond describing what they say and start judging how strong or weak their arguments are, using your own reasoning to explain why.

Developing Evaluation: Here is how you could have developed your point about rights not being protected:
"Dr Croft argues that our liberties are not properly protected. This is a very strong point because it means a government with a large majority could pass a law that limits our rights, such as the right to protest, and there would be no higher constitution to stop them. This makes his idea of an 'elective dictatorship' seem very realistic and a serious danger to citizens."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have organised your answer very well by dealing with each writer in a separate paragraph. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Good Source Use: You have successfully pulled out the main arguments from both sources, showing you have understood the debate.
Making Judgements: You start your paragraphs by clearly stating "I agree" or "I disagree". This is the first step to building an evaluation.

Targets

Move from 'What' to 'Why': Instead of just stating what a writer says, explain *why* it is a strong or weak argument. Use phrases like "This is a convincing point because..." or "This argument is less persuasive when you consider...".
Develop Your Reasoning: When you say "I agree", back it up with a reason that isn't just repeating the source. For example, why do you agree that flexibility is more important than clarity? Explain your thinking.
Bring in Own Knowledge: To reach the top marks, try to include a specific example. When talking about the constitution changing, you could mention the Human Rights Act 1998 as an example of a law that protects citizens' rights, which would challenge Dr Croft's argument.
Complete Your Conclusion: You started to weigh up both sides, which is excellent! Next time, make sure you finish your conclusion with a final, clear decision. Which writer is more convincing overall, and what is the most important reason for your choice?

Candidate 62978

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

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I mostly agree with Dr. Julian Croft with Source D, this is because The UK is a democratic country and therefore citizens need to make sure that everyone's liberties are properly protected. Not only that but if the principle of parliamentary Sovereigaty are far from being a strength then this creates the risk of an elective dictatorship. This so would cause a lot of chaos and disorder around the country as people would have less rights and less votes. Others might argue that the United Kingdom's constitution is one of the best - it's greatest strength, unlike other constitutions that are difficult to change. The UK's constitution is easier to change because this is a democratic country and rights are being spread fairly. Not only that but also the parliament listens to citizens votes in order to change the laws. Overall I agree with Dr. Julian Croft because the UK could be in risk of a dicta

Quality of Evaluation Good effort. You have made a clear judgement and selected relevant arguments from both sources to discuss. Your support for Dr. Croft's view is stronger and uses key terms from the text well. However, your explanation of Professor Reed's argument is less clear, and your own reasoning needs more depth to push into the higher mark bands. To improve, focus on directly comparing the two views and explaining *why* one is more convincing than the other.

Developing your counter-argument: You could have explained Professor Reed's point more clearly before challenging it. For example: "On the other hand, Professor Reed argues that the constitution's flexibility is a key strength, allowing it to adapt over time. However, Dr. Croft would challenge this by saying this very flexibility is what puts citizens' rights at risk, as a powerful government could change laws to remove our liberties without a formal process to stop them."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a very clear statement of which writer you agree with ("I mostly agree with Dr. Julian Croft"). This gives your answer a strong focus right from the start.
Using Source Evidence: You successfully picked out the key technical term, 'elective dictatorship', from Dr. Croft's argument to support your point. This shows you are engaging directly with the source material.

Targets

Develop Your Points: When you make a point like "cause a lot of chaos", try to explain it further. What kind of chaos? Why would fewer rights lead to this? Using a structure like PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) will help add depth.
Directly Compare the Writers: Instead of having two separate paragraphs, try to weave the arguments together. For example: "While Professor Reed sees flexibility as a strength, Dr. Croft convincingly argues this is a weakness because..." This shows a higher level of evaluation.
Explain Counter-Arguments Accurately: Your paragraph on Professor Reed's view was a little confused. Before you disagree with an argument, make sure you have explained it clearly and accurately first. This makes your own argument much stronger.
Word Count and Conclusion: Your answer is quite short and ends abruptly. Aiming for a higher word count will give you the space to develop your points fully and write a complete concluding sentence that summarises your final judgement.

Candidate 67029

Word Count: ~369 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

Although both writers makes a good point about if the UK's unwritten constitution is fit for purpose. I agree more with Professor Evelyn Reed. I agree more with Professor Evelyn Reed argument that the UK's unwritten constitution is fit for purpose. I say this because the unwritten constitution is one of the UK's greatest foundation and strength. This creates a framework that is both stable and flexible. The UK's unwritten constitution system can evolve to meet new challenges and welcoming new laws. This can allow more flexible laws, not just in the UK but other places as well, for example America and their usage of guns. This ensures that power ultimately lies with the people's representatives. This also provides stability and democracy for the UK. This is a far more democratic arrangement than unelected judges in a Supreme court having the final say on laws because the people deserve to have a say on what type of certain law should be passed as it is protecting them and what they think is best for the others, maybe including their community, prevention of abuse of power. Abuse of power could also be prevented throug the constitutions robust checks. This has proven to be a far more mature and effective way to run. Although Dr. Julian craft makes strong points as to the citizens rights being scatted across a mix of different laws, making a point of unorganisation. and Dr. Julian also challenges the fact that the existing checks and balances are too weak and how the judical review can only challenge the process and not the decision in fairness of the law in itself. I disagree with the facten fact our current constitution is not a single, clear well written constitution that all citizens can read and undasta As both statements and arguments both have strong points on to how this benefits citizens. I agree more with Professor Evelyn Reeds argument with the constitution is fit for purpose as she makes strong points and clear explanation.

Quality of Evaluation Solid. This is a solid response where you show a very clear understanding of Professor Reed's argument and use the source well to explain her points. You also make a clear judgment. To improve, you need to give the same amount of attention to Dr. Croft's argument. Instead of just listing his points, try to challenge them directly using Reed's ideas. This will make your evaluation much stronger and more balanced.

Developing Your Evaluation: Here is how you could have directly compared the two arguments instead of just disagreeing:
"Although Dr. Croft makes a valid point that the constitution can be confusing, I believe Professor Reed's argument about flexibility is more important. A constitution that can adapt quickly to modern problems, like online safety or terrorism, is more effective than one that is easy to read but difficult to change. Therefore, the benefit of flexibility outweighs the problem of clarity."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your overall opinion very clearly at the beginning and end of your answer. The examiner is never in doubt about which writer you agree with.
Good Use of Source A: You have an excellent grasp of Professor Reed's arguments. You effectively select key ideas like flexibility, parliamentary sovereignty, and 'robust checks' to support your points.
Developing Your Reasoning: You started to explain *why* you agree with an idea, for example when you said parliamentary sovereignty is good "because the people deserve to have a say". This is the beginning of good evaluation!

Targets

Balance Your Argument: Your answer is very focused on Professor Reed. To get top marks, you must analyse Dr. Croft's arguments in the same amount of detail. Try to write one full paragraph explaining his views before you evaluate them.
Use 'Connective' Evaluation Words: Instead of just describing each writer's points, directly compare them. Use phrases like "However, this is less convincing than...", "A stronger argument is...", or "While Croft suggests X, Reed's point about Y is more persuasive because...".
Check Your Own Knowledge: It's great that you tried to bring in your own example about America and guns. However, be careful that your examples are accurate. A quick plan before you write can help you choose the best examples to support your case.
Proofread for Clarity: Some sentences, like the last one in your second paragraph, were a little unclear or unfinished. Always leave a minute at the end to read through your work and fix any small errors to make your great ideas easier to understand.

Candidate 68791

Word Count: ~210 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I Mostly agree with Julian Crost because as it could potentially be unfit for the modern world. Its greatest weakness is that it lacks of clarity. If we have an unwritten constitution then it limits the governments power. A country that has a written constitution could helps citizens read and understand the set of laws. Another point is that a codified constitution that entrenched Bill of Rights is needed in order to provide stronger safeguard for citizens rights, this is what limits the power of state. They fail to realise that if any of those laws are broken it could lead to consequences. Partially I disagree with professor Evelyn Reed as how having an unwritten constitution isnt one of its greatest strengths this is simply because it doesnt make our country well and stable. This leads to citizens not being able to read a set of laws. this makes our country less democratic as we don't have a set of laws. In conclusion Julian Crost gives a clearer understanding of why unwritten constitution isn't fit for purpose as it could make our country more stable and citizens can read and understand. Another clear point is that it's difficult to change.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You make a clear judgement and use evidence from the sources, especially from Dr Croft, to support your view. You also attempt to challenge Professor Reed's argument directly. However, your evaluation is quite one-sided and some of your reasoning is asserted rather than fully explained. A few points show some confusion about the writers' core arguments, which holds back your mark.

Developing Evaluation: Here's how you could have improved your evaluation of Professor Reed:
Your version: "...I disagree with professor Evelyn Reed... this is simply because it doesnt make our country well and stable."
Improved version: "While Professor Reed claims the unwritten constitution provides stability, I find Dr Croft's argument more convincing. Reed's idea of 'flexibility' could actually be a weakness, as Croft suggests it allows a government to act like an 'elective dictatorship' and change laws that affect our rights. This lack of a solid foundation could lead to instability, not the stability Reed suggests."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start your answer with a clear judgement ("I Mostly agree with Julian Crost") and maintain this position throughout, which is a key skill.
Using Source Evidence: You effectively select key arguments from Dr Croft's text, such as the lack of clarity and the need for a Bill of Rights to protect citizens.
Attempting Counter-Argument: In your third paragraph, you try to challenge Professor Reed's view directly. This shows you are thinking evaluatively, which is crucial for higher marks.

Targets

Explain, Don't Assert: When you disagree with a writer, explain *why* their argument is weak. Instead of just saying it 'doesnt make our country well and stable', use a point from the other writer to explain how a lack of clarity could lead to instability.
Engage with Both Sides Fully: Your answer focuses heavily on Dr Croft. To improve, analyse one of Professor Reed's key arguments in more detail (e.g. her point about flexibility) and then explain precisely why you find it unconvincing.
Check Your Understanding: Some points were confused, like saying an unwritten constitution 'limits the governments power' or that it's 'difficult to change'. Reread the sources carefully to make sure you are representing the writers' arguments accurately before you evaluate them.
Develop Your Points: Avoid vague statements like "...it could lead to consequences." Be more specific. What kind of consequences? Who would be affected? Adding this detail will strengthen your reasoning and make your evaluation more powerful.

Candidate 78910

Word Count: ~412 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

This is a very complex argument as a topic that's been been going on a tug of war for generations however I believe that Evelyn Reed (ER) is a stronger and more agreeable point on the unwritten constitution, stating the simultaneous stability and flexibility it provides us with as a country. ER states that our unwritten constitution provides a stable and flexible governance framework also stating that with the fact that codified constitutions are more difficult to change. This is a very strong point as for an unwritten constitution the only boundary to what we can do is public opinion and checks and balances. As generations move on over time, public opinion shifts to a more modern outlook, meaning parliament can make decisions that help a contemporary population without statements in a codified constitution getting in the way. Julian Croft (JC) makes a point that without a codified constitution, it means parliament has no power boundary and can make laws that "erode fundamental rights" however this fails to consider many different factors. A government's power (constitution or no constitution) is always limited by checks and different checks and balances making sure that the public is represented. For example, every Wednesday the PM is interviewed on the current actions he is making in parliament. The press also acts as an active watch-dog to "spill the beans" to the public whenever the government slips up. And a wise government would also never make laws that anger the majority of public (laws that erode human rights) as all parties aim to be elected again when the next election comes. If parties made decisions that do not align with public opinion, they are practically aiming to never be re-elected which is what makes sure that the government considers their citizens always. This makes an uncodified constitution even better as not only is there real-time modern flexibility, but government power is actively limited by checks + balances and its citizens. ER also talks about parliamentary sovereignty and how that ensures that legal authority is in the hands of the public representatives in the House of Commons. This again ensures that citizens have a democratic experience in a country with an uncodified constitution. When a country who has a codified constitution that possibly states things that opt for a realm of dictatorship rather than with public interest. JC makes a bold take that checks and balances are weak however I highly disagree as this fails to consider that we as the public act as the most powerful form of checks and balances. The select comitees, press and all interviews are designed to ensure that parliament power is limited. If checks and balances are so weak, why is the UK such a stable country even without a codified constitution?

Quality of Evaluation Good. This is a strong response with a clear and consistent argument. You make excellent use of your own knowledge, such as PMQs and the role of the press, to effectively challenge Dr. Croft's arguments. Your reasoning, especially about how the need to be re-elected limits a government's power, is a high-level evaluative point. To reach the top band, the next step is to add more balance by exploring the potential strengths of Croft's view before you counter it.

Developing a point: Your sentence about dictatorship was a bit vague. Here’s how you could make a similar point with more precision:
"Furthermore, a codified constitution is not a guarantee of freedom. For example, a country could write a constitution that gives the state immense power, and because it's so hard to change, citizens could be trapped under an oppressive but 'constitutional' government. This supports Reed's view that flexibility is more democratic in the long run."

Strengths

Clear Line of Argument: You start with a very clear judgment and maintain it throughout. The first sentence immediately tells the examiner which side you support and why.
Effective Use of Own Knowledge: You bring in excellent, specific examples like PMQs, the press, and select committees to support your points. This shows you can apply your own learning to the source material.
Strong Rebuttal Technique: You did a great job of directly challenging Dr. Croft's points. Phrases like 'however this fails to consider...' are a powerful way to build an evaluation.

Targets

Balance Both Sides: Your argument is very one-sided. To get top marks, you need to explore the *strengths* of Dr. Croft's argument before you challenge it. For example, you could say: "Dr. Croft has a valid point that rights can be changed by a simple Act of Parliament, which is a potential risk..." and *then* explain why you think other factors prevent this.
Develop Your Examples: When you mention select committees, briefly explain *how* they limit power. For example: "...select committees act as powerful watchdogs, scrutinising government departments and publishing critical reports that can influence public opinion."
Word Count Management: Your answer is well over the suggested word count. While your points are good, practice being more concise. This will help you manage your time in the exam and ensure your argument is sharp and focused.

Candidate 86291

Word Count: ~419 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

I agree more with, Dr. Julian Croft (JC) that the UK's constitution is unfit for purpose. Particularly, when JC says "its greatest weakness is its lack of clarity", he makes a great point as he is pointing out that the constitution being uncodified can lead to legal and political problems. Without a written constitution, what Acts of Parliament are legally allowed fall on the legislature and judiciary, the opinions of which can vary a lot. JC also saying that "no clear constitution creates uncertainty about the true limits of government power" backs up his main point well as he describes what may and does happen in the Chamber of Parliament due to the lack of Constitutional guidelines. Additionally, when JC says that "judicial review can only challenge the process by which a decision was made, not the fairness of the law itself" he makes a great point as he is saying that the system of checks and balances do not inherently work due to not being able to follow a set of guidelines for the legality of Bills like a constitution and only being able to check whether they have gone through the democratic process, which is only a small part of the Bill. Many [illegible] laws may follow the democratic process but that does not mean they are beneficial and may in fact be detrimental. However, JC has not considered here that a lack of a constitution allows British legal systems to adapt organically to meet modern problems instead of waiting for constitutional amendments like the US Constitution, which may take years. However, Evelyn Reed (ER) also makes a good point when she says that an unwritten constitution provides "a framework for governance that is both stable and remarkably flexible" because she is saying that a lack of rigid legal boundaries allows the government and Parliament to both remain legally adaptable and open to change. Instead of having to amend a constitution they can introduce any Bill or anything. This is what allows the British legal system to always adapt. Additionally, when ER says that "Parliamentary sovereignty means that the supreme legal authority rests with the elected House of Commons" she makes a great point as she says that a lack of a constitution has allowed Parliament to stay legally independent and sovereign, ensuring they can pass fair laws and remain unsusceptible to corruption, mostly. An independent Parliament can strike down or pass any law, however, which may be result in corrupt practises and be detrimental to citizens.

Quality of Evaluation Excellent. This is a strong response that clearly understands and explains the arguments from both writers. You have used quotes effectively and, crucially, you have started to evaluate the arguments rather than just describing them. Your point about the US Constitution as a counter-argument to Dr. Croft was particularly impressive and shows high-level thinking. To reach the top band, focus on making this evaluation more consistent throughout and linking the two writers' arguments together more directly.

Developing Evaluation: Your final sentence is a good evaluative thought. Here's how you could develop it further to make it even stronger:
"While Professor Reed sees parliamentary sovereignty as a strength, this can be challenged. Dr. Croft would argue this creates the exact 'elective dictatorship' he warns about, where a government with a large majority could pass detrimental laws, like the controversial Investigatory Powers Act, with few constitutional checks to stop them. This shows how flexibility can sometimes mean a lack of protection for citizens."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You've structured your answer very logically, dealing with Dr. Croft first and then Professor Reed. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Excellent Use of Evidence: You effectively select and explain key quotes from both writers, especially when explaining Croft's view on the weakness of judicial review.
Strong Evaluative Thinking: You don't just describe the arguments. Your point about the US constitution being slow to change is a great piece of evaluation and shows you are thinking critically about the debate.

Targets

Integrate Evaluation: Try to weave your evaluation throughout your paragraphs, not just at the end. For example, after explaining a point, you could immediately say "This is a convincing argument because..." or "However, this view is weak because...".
Use More 'Own Knowledge': Your reference to the US was excellent! To improve further, try to include specific UK examples. For instance, when discussing an 'elective dictatorship', you could mention a specific controversial law to make your point stronger.
Link the Writers Together: Make your evaluation even stronger by directly comparing the writers. For example: "While Reed praises flexibility, Croft would see this as a dangerous lack of clarity that leaves citizens' rights vulnerable."
Watch the Word Count: Your analysis is detailed, which is great, but at over 400 words, it's a bit long for the time allowed. Practise being more concise to ensure you can write this much quality in exam conditions.

Candidate 90217

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

Evaluation Score: 5/10

On the other hand, Dr J.C. Says NO, and that the UK's constitution isn't fit for purpose as the constitution is a relic of the past which is dangerously unfit for the world due to its lack of clarity. He states that the, one point that he makes is that the constitution is inaccessible to the public and creates uncertainty to the governments power which shouldn't be a [illegible] point as the government should also be using the public's voices and opinions which can lead to final decisions. Dr J.C also states that our liberties aren't properly protected as they only exist for the government for the by the day which is a strong point as parliament can remove any law they may disaprove of at any given time which can therefore limit the power of the state. In my opinion I partially agree with both sides as they make very strong points about the uncodified constitution and how the government have been acting on it. The constitution being unwritten can be quite useful as the government are able to remove or add any law or convention or act but it could also lead to abuse or weaken the power of the state.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have made a good start at evaluation. You clearly understand Dr Croft's arguments and have started to use your own reasoning to support or challenge them. The main challenge is that your answer is one-sided, focusing almost entirely on Dr Croft. To improve, you need to give equal attention to Professor Reed's points and weigh them against each other more directly to form a balanced conclusion.

Developing a Balanced Evaluation: For example, you could strengthen your conclusion like this: "While Professor Reed's argument for flexibility is strong, as it allows Parliament to adapt, Dr Croft is more convincing. His point that this same flexibility could lead to an 'elective dictatorship' where a government abuses its power to remove citizens' rights is a more significant risk in a modern democracy."

Strengths

Understanding the Source: You have a very clear grasp of Dr Croft's arguments, picking out key details about the constitution's lack of clarity and the poor protection of citizens' rights.
Making Judgements: You are starting to evaluate well. Phrases like 'which is a strong point as...' and your final sentence weighing up the pros ('useful') and cons ('could lead to abuse') are exactly what examiners look for.

Targets

Engage with Both Writers: Your answer focuses almost entirely on Dr Croft. To get higher marks, you must also explain Professor Reed's arguments (e.g., about tradition, flexibility, or parliamentary sovereignty) before you evaluate them.
Develop Your Conclusion: Your final judgment is a good start. To make it stronger, explain *why* you agree with one side more than the other. For instance, "Although flexibility is useful, I believe protecting citizens' rights with a clear, written constitution is more important because..."
Use Specific Terminology: Try to use key terms from the sources and your own knowledge. For example, instead of just saying the government has too much power, use Dr Croft's phrase 'elective dictatorship' to show you understand the concept.
Word Count: Your answer is a little short. By explaining Professor Reed's views in more detail and developing your own evaluation, you will naturally write more and be able to access the higher mark bands.

Candidate 987726

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

Evaluation Score: 5/10

effectivley pass almost any law it choses, even laws that might erode fundamental rights, making the country more unstable as said by Julian Croft. This idea of parliamentary sovereignty ensures that our rights & liberties are never fully protected & exist only within the control of the government. Reed also believes that the constitution provides a robust system of checks & balances in order to prevent the aformentioned abuse of power. Courts can hold the government to account through judicial review & different government departments can scrutinise eachother. As well as this, select comitees act as powerfull watchdogs to keep all government department in check. However Croft argues that under the current constitution these checks & balances are not strong enough. He uses the example that judicial review can only question the decision making process of parliament, not the decision itself. This endangers the safetey of citizens & provides an uncertain enviroment in regards to their rights & the power of state. Both writers make good points, however I am more inclined to agree with Proffesor Evelyn Reed as he speaks about the potential for an unwritten constitution to adapt & change in order to face new challenges & promote a more democratic enviroment, a key principle of UK societey.

Quality of Evaluation Solid. You have a very clear understanding of the arguments made by both writers and you structure your paragraphs well to compare them. Your answer explains the key ideas from the source accurately. However, most of your answer is descriptive (explaining 'what' they say) rather than evaluative (explaining 'why' one argument is stronger or weaker). The evaluation is only really present in your final paragraph, which means you miss opportunities to score higher marks in the main body of your answer.

Developing your judgment: "While Croft's concerns about an 'elective dictatorship' are valid, especially after events like the prorogation of Parliament in 2019, I find Reed's argument about flexibility more convincing. The ability to adapt laws quickly, such as with the Coronavirus Act 2020, shows a key strength that a rigid, codified constitution might lack. Therefore, Reed's view that our system is more responsive seems stronger overall."

Strengths

Clear Source Use: You've done a great job of picking out specific arguments from both writers, like Croft's point about judicial review only questioning the 'decision making process'.
Good Structure: You have structured your answer well, directly comparing what Reed and Croft say about checks and balances in your second paragraph. This 'point-counterpoint' approach is excellent.
Clear Final Judgement: Your final paragraph makes a clear and direct judgement, stating exactly who you agree with and giving a reason. This is a crucial skill for this type of question.

Targets

Develop Your Evaluation: Instead of just describing the arguments, try to evaluate them as you go. Use phrases like "Croft's argument is more convincing here because..." or "While Reed makes a good point, it is weakened by...".
Add Specific Own Knowledge: To reach the top marks, you need to bring in your own examples. When you mention select committees, could you name one (e.g., the Public Accounts Committee)? When you talk about rights, could you mention a specific Act like the Human Rights Act 1998?
Explain Your Judgement in More Depth: In your conclusion, explain *why* you find Reed's argument on flexibility more important than Croft's argument on rights protection. You need to weigh the two arguments against each other directly to show deeper thinking.
Increase Word Count: Your answer is currently 180 words. Aim for around 320-340 words to allow you to develop each of your points in more detail and include the evaluation and own knowledge needed for higher marks.

Candidate 98776

Word Count: ~268 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/10

Professor Evelyn Reed makes a good point in saying that the UK's unwritten constitution is one of its greatest strengths as it allows for the constitution to be flexible & adapt to different challenges the country may face, such as the COVID-19 lockdown, unlike a codified constitution such as America's where issues such as gun usage and ownership have to be voted on by several departments of congress in order to see change, a process that takes an extremely long time. This allows the UK to be more stable & flexible in its decision making. However, Reed doesn't consider the fact that an unwritten constitution makes it more difficult to understand your rights as the constitution is everchanging & there is no single document to specify. This is a reason why Dr Julian Croft disagrees with the usefullness of UK's unwritten constitution. Croft makes a good point in saying that the unwritten constitution lacks clarity, leading to most citizens not understanding their key rights as it is inaccessible to the public, creating uncertaincy about the true limits of the Governments power among other things.

Evelyn Reed makes a good point in saying that the unwritten consitution promotes the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, the fact that parliament is independant & can act as they please. This ensures that supreme legal authority rests with the elected house of commons, promoting a far more democratic arrangement. However what Reed doesn't consider is that this principle of parliamentary sovereignty can backfire, creating the risk of an elective democracy where a government with a large democracy can

Quality of Evaluation Excellent. This is a very strong start to your evaluation. You consistently use the arguments from both writers to challenge each other, which is a high-level skill. You also bring in your own relevant knowledge, like the COVID-19 lockdown and US gun laws, to support your points. The reason this isn't in the top band is because the answer is incomplete and sometimes the analysis could be pushed a little further to explain *why* one argument is stronger than the other.

Completing the Argument: Here's how you could have finished your second paragraph: "...creating the risk of an 'elective dictatorship'. A government with a large majority could pass laws that undermine our rights, as Croft argues. This is a more convincing argument than Reed's because while parliamentary sovereignty is democratic in theory, the lack of a higher constitutional law to protect citizens makes it potentially dangerous in practice."

Strengths

Direct Comparison: You do a great job of directly comparing the two writers. Phrases like 'However, Reed doesn't consider...' show you are evaluating, not just describing.
Use of Own Knowledge: Bringing in examples like the COVID-19 lockdown and US gun laws is a fantastic way to support the arguments and show your own understanding.
Clear Structure: Your paragraphs are well-structured. You take a point from one writer, explain it, and then immediately challenge it with a point from the other. This is a very effective technique.

Targets

Develop Your Judgment: After comparing two arguments, try to state which one you find more convincing and *why*. For example, is flexibility more important than clarity? Explain your reasoning.
Complete Your Argument: Your second paragraph starts really well but cuts off. Make sure you fully explain your point and link it back to the question to secure all the marks for that argument.
Use Precise Terminology: Be careful to use the exact terms from the source, such as 'elective dictatorship' rather than 'elective democracy'. This shows a close reading of the evidence.
Plan for a Conclusion: Although you didn't get to a conclusion here, remember that a top-level answer will end with a final, overall judgment that summarises which writer you agree with most and why.

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 0274

Candidate 12906

Candidate 207011

Candidate 20791

Candidate 21687

Candidate 21769

Candidate 21770

Candidate 290217

Candidate 29187

Candidate 4253

Candidate 4280

Candidate 4356

Candidate 4386

Candidate 4393

Candidate 4424

Candidate 4434

Candidate 4510

Candidate 4511

Candidate 4528

Candidate 4540

Candidate 4552

Candidate 4571

Candidate 4581

Candidate 60179

Candidate 62978

Candidate 67029

Candidate 68791

Candidate 78910

Candidate 86291

Candidate 90217

Candidate 987726

Candidate 98776