Feedback Focussing on Evaluation — 12 Marker: Should nations rely on collective defence alliances, or is self-reliance a stronger strategy?

Model Answer (Exemplar)

Evaluation Score: 12/12

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").

📄 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.

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

1. Lack of Direct Comparison: Students often explained Malik's view in one paragraph and Farrell's in another, without directly comparing them. Effective evaluation requires weaving the arguments together, showing how one point challenges or outweighs another.
👉 Model: While Dr Farrell rightly highlights the risk of alliances dragging nations into unwanted conflicts, Professor Malik's argument that they act as a powerful deterrent is more convincing because preventing a war is always preferable to winning one.
2. Argument is Not Sustained: Many essays saved their judgment for the conclusion instead of building a consistent line of reasoning throughout. Students should use 'mini-judgments' after each point to link it back to their overall argument.
👉 Model: Professor Malik’s point on shared intelligence is particularly persuasive as it directly counters the self-reliant ideal, proving that no single nation can effectively tackle global threats like terrorism alone, thus reinforcing the superiority of the collective defence model.
3. Undeveloped Conclusions: Conclusions were often too brief, simply stating a preference for one writer without summarising *why*. A strong conclusion should briefly weigh the core arguments (e.g., security vs. sovereignty) and synthesise the main points of the essay to justify the final judgment.
👉 Model: In conclusion, although Farrell’s concerns about the loss of sovereignty are valid, Malik’s evidence on the deterrent effect of collective defence presents a more compelling case; the guarantee of mutual security in an unstable world ultimately outweighs the risks of diminished national autonomy.
4. Imprecise Academic Language: A significant number of responses were weakened by informal phrasing, spelling and grammar errors, and a failure to use subject-specific terminology. Using precise language like 'national sovereignty' or 'geopolitical stability' is essential for a high-level response.
👉 Model: Dr Farrell contends that surrendering military control to a collective alliance can fundamentally jeopardise a nation's sovereignty, forcing it to prioritise the geopolitical interests of the group over the democratic will of its own citizens.

Teacher Next Steps

1. Argument Tennis: Split the class into 'Team Malik' and 'Team Farrell'. The teacher serves a concept (e.g., "Economic Cost"). Team Malik makes a point. Team Farrell must immediately counter it using a comparative phrase ("While Malik argues..., Farrell would counter that..."). The rally continues. This drills the habit of direct, responsive comparison.
2. The Golden Thread: Give students a pre-written paragraph evaluating one of Malik's points. Their task is to add a single 'golden thread' sentence at the end that explicitly links the point back to an overall judgment (e.g., "This reinforces the view that collective security is the more pragmatic strategy because..."). Students share their sentences to compare the different ways to create a sustained argument.
3. Conclusion Deconstruction: Provide students with three model conclusions: one weak (a simple statement), one medium (a summary), and one strong (a weighted judgment). In pairs, students rank them and must justify their choices by highlighting the specific features that make the best one effective. This helps them build a success criteria for their own writing.
4. Vocabulary Upgrade: Put a simple, informal sentence on the board (e.g., "Farrell says it's bad for a country to lose its freedom."). In groups, students have 5 minutes to 'upgrade' the sentence using formal, subject-specific vocabulary from a provided word bank (sovereignty, autonomy, geopolitical, contend, assert, compromise). Each group writes their best version on a mini-whiteboard to share.

Candidate 16927

Word Count: ~236 words

Evaluation Score: 10/12

I agree with professor Sarah Malik (SM) as collective defence alliances are a stronger strategy due to an article within NATO that "an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all". This effectively acts as a "powerful deterrent" as since the ~~formation~~ formation in 1949 a NATO member hasn't been attacked. This is an outstanding point as this "deterrent" is very effective, less countries like the UK need to prioritize military spending and more on the standards of living. However, one reason why Dr Owen Farrel (OF) has a fair opinion is in addition to the clause agreement shown in SM's point this may lead to innocent countries "dragged into a conflict" as it "demands it" creating a dangerous loss of control. This point stands out as although you are protected, if a NATO member is attacked you have the legal obligation to send your military into action leading to huge loss of life even when the conflict wasn't directed towards you. Another reason why I agree with SM as a side benefit of NATO is promoting "political values" like "democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law". This is an amazing point as civilians in addition to saftey and comfort, they also gain political rights (voting in elections) and "individual liberty" which ~~further~~ further reinforces and reflects the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (made after WWII) of humanitarian rights and personal liberty.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a strong evaluation that clearly reaches Level 3. You establish a clear judgment from the start and sustain it by analysing arguments from both sources. You effectively explain the consequences of each argument (e.g., military spending vs. living standards) and use your own knowledge (UDHR) to develop points further. To improve, try to make your comparisons more direct by weighing one argument against the other in the same sentence.

Direct Comparison: "While Dr Farrell's concern about being dragged into conflict is valid, Professor Malik's argument about promoting shared values is ultimately more convincing because it suggests a long-term benefit of peace and human rights, which outweighs the potential risk."

Strengths

Clear & Sustained Judgement: You state which writer you find more convincing at the start and consistently support this view throughout your answer.
Developed Explanations: You don't just state the writers' points; you explain their real-world consequences (e.g., impact on government spending, link to the UDHR).
Effective Use of Evidence: You select precise quotes and evidence from both sources to support your analysis accurately.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of evaluating each point separately, try to directly compare them. For example, "Although Farrell argues X, Malik's point Y is more convincing because..." This creates a more integrated argument.
Formal Language: Avoid informal phrases like "outstanding point" or "amazing point". Use more analytical language such as "a compelling argument" or "a significant weakness".
Concluding Statement: Your answer ends a little abruptly. Add a final sentence that summarises your overall judgment and reinforces why you believe Malik is more convincing than Farrell.
Weighing the Arguments: Try to explicitly state *why* one argument is stronger than another. For example, is preventing a war through deterrence (Malik) more important than the risk of being dragged into one (Farrell)? Explain your reasoning.

Candidate 19672

Word Count: ~388 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

I agree more with Sarah Malik (SM) more than Owen Paroll (OP) as Nato provides higher protection at any means necessary depending on the extent of the war using different solutions compared to (OP) who scrutinises the nato and talks about the advantages ignoring the disadvantages and the financial/economic state of the country. One reason why I agree with (SM) is due to the headlines that an attack on one member in Nato is treated as an attack on all this allows countries part of the North Atlantic treaty organisation to feel safe because if a country was to attack he'd have more than 20 military forces against them. SM also states that however large a military no nation can provide the same level of scrutiny, I agree with this statement as Nato is made up of mostly highly influenced countries, economically and militarily for example the UK, not only is it part of Nato but the UN too and commonwealth. Sarah Malik continues to state that that was that whether to cooperate but how this is a really strong point as there are multiple ways to find peaceful solutions before resorting to go to the last resort which is war. One of the solutions is mitigation which is both countries talking to find a solution where they could both agree on one another which is 'freezing open battle accounts accounts'. There is a real life example between Russia and Ukraine where Ukraine wanted to join Nato but it didn't work out since Russia forced war. The UK forces multiple bank accounts to apply pressure to businesses could influence Russia to stop On the other hand Owen Paroll says that 'dependence of others is always a vulnerability' I disagree because he failed to mention the fact that smaller weaker member of countries join for protection from bigger countries surrounding them so they don't lose resources and territory Owen Paroll (OP) also states stated that 'nations often prioritise their own interests over their commitment' this is partially true as most countries can get threatened by the civilians since they use their taxpaying money for weapons when it can be used on something more beneficial for them such as healthcare however there are still other solutions that may not affect countries in Nato at all I earlier stated as freezing bank accounts it doesn't affect the small or bigger countries as harshly and these solutions can even be short-term. He also says that. In conclusion I agree with Sarah Malik as her views were factual whilst ignore the negatives whereas (OP) his points came through but he didn't consider the alternative solutions or countries welfare.

Quality of EvaluationClear. You have made a definite judgment and supported it by explaining points from both writers. You attempt to directly compare their arguments, for example by disagreeing with Farrell's point about vulnerability and explaining why smaller nations need protection. However, to reach the top level, your line of reasoning needs to be more sustained and your conclusion needs to better summarise the complex evaluation you made in your main paragraphs.

Sustained Conclusion: "In conclusion, while Dr Farrell raises valid concerns about national self-interest, Professor Malik's argument is more convincing. Her emphasis on the deterrent power of 'an attack on one is an attack on all' and the availability of non-military solutions like sanctions provides a more realistic view of modern collective security, which outweighs the potential vulnerabilities Farrell highlights."

Strengths

Clear Judgment: You state which writer you find more convincing at the start and end of your answer, which gives your writing a clear focus.
Direct Rebuttal: You effectively challenge Dr Farrell's arguments directly, for instance by explaining why 'dependence' can be a strength for smaller nations seeking protection.
Use of Evidence: You select relevant quotes and ideas from both sources to support your points, such as the 'attack on one is an attack on all' principle.

Targets

Develop Your Conclusion: Your conclusion is currently too simple. It should summarise the *reasons* for your judgment by briefly weighing up the main arguments you discussed from both sides.
Sustain Your Argument: Your points are good, but they are not always fully linked together. Try to build a 'chain of reasoning' where each point logically follows the last, creating a more powerful and sustained evaluation.
Accurate Naming: Ensure you use the correct names for the writers (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell). Using the wrong name can weaken the academic tone of your response.
Precision in Language: Some phrases like 'freezing open battle accounts accounts' are unclear. Aim for precise language to explain concepts like economic sanctions clearly.

Candidate 4150

Word Count: ~303 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

Professor Sarah Malik agrees that Countries Should have rely on collective reserve alliances and She argues this because she believes that alliances like NATO are the most effective tools ever created for keeping peace. This is a strong point mainly due to the fact that countries would think twice before attacking a NATO member because an attack on one member is seen as an attack on all members. Dr Owen disagrees on the other hand, Dr Owen disagrees and says that self reliance is a stronger strategy. Dr Owens argues this because a NATO member could be tied to an alliance like NATO can be dragged into a conflict that has nothing to do with them. This is a strong point because a Nation is supposed to be sovereign with no other countries having the ability or authority to force them into anything or influence their decisions. Although professor Sarah still continues to argue that collective reserve strategies is what Nation should rely on because she argues this because she believes it does not threaten or restrict a Nations sovereign allowing as she says it is soverignty exercised wisely in partnership with others who share your values and interests. This is a strong point because an alliance military alliance like NATO consists of many members of mostly the north of the world. So if they are all in the same area or region they must share the similar values. However Dr Owen still disagrees and argues that self-reliance is a stronger strategy for a Nation to rely on. This is because in as Dr Owen says this because in countries in military alliances like NATO, some members contribute far more than others in terms of spending and troops. This is a very strong point because countries like the US provide most of NATO's funding and military strength. This means that NATO could be a burden to them and that they would be better off independent. In conclusion I side with Sarah Malik. This is because military organisations such as NATO are one of the sole reasons that there are less wars in the world as without these alliances countries would fear less about starting conflict with each other.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 2 response. You have done an excellent job of explaining two distinct arguments from each writer and have used your own knowledge effectively to develop one of Dr Farrell's points. Your judgment is clear. To reach the top level, you need to move from explaining the points separately to directly comparing them against each other to show which is more convincing and why. Your conclusion should then summarise this comparison.

Sustained Evaluation: In conclusion, while Dr Farrell's concerns about unequal burdens and national sovereignty are valid, I find Professor Malik's argument for collective defence more convincing. The practical reality, as Malik suggests, is that the deterrent effect of an alliance like NATO has been instrumental in maintaining peace between major powers. This benefit of preventing large-scale conflict, in my view, outweighs the risk of being drawn into smaller conflicts or the financial burden highlighted by Farrell.

Strengths

Good Explanation of Sources: You have a strong grasp of the texts, accurately identifying and explaining two different arguments from both Professor Malik and Dr Farrell.
Clear Structure: Your answer is well-organised into paragraphs, systematically dealing with the arguments from both sides before reaching a conclusion.
Use of Own Knowledge: Your reference to the USA's significant contribution to NATO's funding and military strength is an excellent example of using your own knowledge to support a point from the source.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of just explaining one point and then the next, try to directly compare them. For example, "Malik's argument about deterrence is more compelling than Farrell's point about sovereignty because..." This shows you are weighing the arguments.
Develop Your Judgment: Your conclusion is clear but brief. To improve, explain *why* Malik's argument about preventing war is more important than Farrell's points about cost and sovereignty. Justify your choice by referring back to the points you've already made.
Sustained Argument: Try to build your evaluation throughout the essay. You can use mini-judgments like, "This point from Farrell is particularly persuasive because..." This helps create a sustained line of reasoning, rather than saving all your judgment for the end.
Refine Phrasing: Avoid repeating phrases like "argues this because" or "says this because". Use more varied and analytical language, such as "Malik substantiates this by pointing to...", "Farrell counters this by highlighting...", or "The evidence for this argument is...".

Candidate 4164

Word Count: ~297 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

I souly agree with Dr Farrel as they strongly argue that nations increase their freedoms when they are not tied to military alliances. Despite this Professor Malik raises a fair arguement of NATO acting as a deterrent, however lacks certain perspective. I strongly agree with Dr Farrel as they argue "membership of a collective defence organisation means surrendering a fundamental aspect of national sovereignty. This is a strong arguement as within NATO states, "a attack on one is an attack on all" therefore meaning regardless of whether a country wishes to participate or not, they must follow the direction in which the rest of NATO wishes to take. This therefore leads to a country involuntary sending troops from their army whilst spending unnessecairy tax money on another countries affair. Additionally Dr Farrel argues the union of NATO is a dangerous loss of control. I consider this to be a strong analysis as countries especially small countries - partake in a conflict makes them vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks are stemmed from nationalist who feel strongly about the wrong doing in their country. Not only does terrorist attacks weaken national security but they also leave the lives of innocent citizens at risk. Alternatively, professor malik argues the alliance of NATO acts as a strong deterrent to war. This is a quite arguement as the threat of such a large organisation will deter countries from turning to violence. In addition to this countries within NATO can not resolve to conflict as it would jeoprodize the integrity and value of the NATO. Despite this being a strong arguement, Malik fails to ensure in the circumstances if a war was to happen when partaked NATO involvement. The power of NATO could easily deconstruct a country easily, however this only applies imense pressure on Non-governmental organisations such as the UN. These organisations are fully funded by western countries such as the UK who also happen to be in NATO. This therefore causes unnessecairy spending from tax payers as well as costing the lives of yourrees.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a well-structured response that makes a clear judgement from the outset. You have effectively used arguments from both sources to support your reasoning and have included your own evaluative comments, particularly when you critique Professor Malik's perspective and develop Dr Farrell's points. To reach the top level, your reasoning needs to be a little more developed and sustained, especially in the final section where the link between NATO and the UN becomes slightly confused.

Clarifying Complex Links: "While Malik's point on deterrence is valid, she overlooks the consequences of NATO intervention. If a conflict does occur, the immense military power of the alliance can lead to state collapse. This creates humanitarian crises that fall to NGOs like the UN to manage, often funded by the same NATO members. This creates a cycle of taxpayer money being spent first on conflict and then on the subsequent clean-up, a costly consequence Malik fails to address."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start with a clear and decisive judgement, stating which writer you find more convincing. This immediately focuses your essay and provides a strong line of argument to follow.
Effective Source Use: You accurately select and explain key arguments from both Dr Farrell (loss of sovereignty) and Professor Malik (deterrence), showing good comprehension of the material.
Developing Arguments: You successfully develop the writers' points with your own ideas. For example, linking Farrell's argument about 'loss of control' to the specific, real-world risk of terrorist attacks is a strong piece of analysis.

Targets

Sustain the Comparison: Instead of dealing with each writer in separate blocks, try to directly compare their arguments throughout. For example: "While Malik sees NATO as a deterrent, Farrell would argue this very power forces smaller nations into conflicts against their will, a far greater risk than potential invasion." This creates a more sustained evaluation.
Clarify Complex Links: Your point about NATO action putting pressure on the UN is interesting but needs to be explained more clearly. Explain the 'cause and effect' step-by-step to make your reasoning watertight (e.g., NATO intervention → potential for state collapse → humanitarian crisis → pressure on UN → financial cost for member states).
Precision and Terminology: Proofread carefully to correct spelling and grammar (e.g., 'souly', 'arguement', 'unnessecairy', 'jeoprodize'). Using more precise subject-specific language, like 'national sovereignty' or 'humanitarian intervention', will also elevate your analysis.

Candidate 4173

Word Count: ~239 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

I agree more with Sarah Malik despite both sides make strong points. Sarah Malik focuses on how defence alliances like Nato help keep peace and protect the vulnerable, whilst Owen Farrell mainly focuses on how alliances like this violate fundamental aspects of national sovereignty such as the freedom to decide when and whether to go to war. Firstly, Sarah Malik mentions how these alliances are the most effective as "an attack on one member is an attack on all" This is a strong point as it emphasises that these alliances help protect the more vulnerable countries from becoming easy targets for bigger countries to exploit, which also gives them the freedom of feeling safe/secure. On the other hand, Owen Farrell mentions the fact that some countries may be "dragged into a conflict that has nothing to do with its own interest." This is a very strong point as it talks about how alliances like these go against the main aspects of national sovereignty which is the freedom to decide to go to war. However it is also a weak point as it does not mention the fact that if other countries were in a vulnerable position they would want the more stronger and powerful countries to help them and protect them. However, Sarah Malik talks about how alliances like Nato are one of the most "effective tools ever created for keeping peace". This is a weak point as it fails to mention that if more countries are getting involved in a minor conflict between two countries it could potentially lead to it becoming more global and perhaps end in a mini world war. Dr. Owen Farrell also mentions the fact that "some members contribute far more than others" this is a strong point as it could lead to potential conflict amongst members on the minimum amount of supplies a country apart of the alliance has to spend in order to stay-

Quality of EvaluationGood. You have made a clear judgment and supported it by explaining arguments from both writers. Your best moments are when you directly challenge a writer's point, such as questioning whether alliances truly keep the peace or risk escalating conflicts. This shows you are thinking critically about the sources. To reach the top level, you need to make sure every point is fully explained and that your line of reasoning is sustained throughout the entire answer, connecting each paragraph back to your main judgment.

Developing a point fully: Dr. Farrell's point that 'some members contribute far more than others' is strong because this inequality can create resentment and internal conflict within an alliance, undermining the very unity it is supposed to represent.

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your overall opinion clearly at the start, which gives your answer a strong focus.
Effective Use of Evidence: You select relevant points and quotes from both sources to support your arguments.
Challenging the Sources: Your best point was when you challenged Malik's argument about 'keeping the peace' by suggesting alliances could actually escalate conflicts. This is excellent critical thinking.

Targets

Develop Every Point: Your final point about unequal contributions was cut short. Ensure every point you make is fully explained to show the examiner you understand its importance.
Sustain Your Argument: Try to link your points back to your main judgment. For example, after evaluating a point, briefly state how it reinforces your view that Malik is more convincing overall. This creates a 'sustained line of reasoning'.
Use Comparative Language: Instead of just evaluating points in isolation, use more direct comparative words. For example, "While Farrell's point on sovereignty is valid, Malik's argument about protecting vulnerable states is more compelling because..."
Refine Counter-Arguments: When you critiqued Farrell (para 3), you used Malik's argument. Try to also use your own reasoning. For example, you could argue that sacrificing some sovereignty is a worthwhile price for guaranteed security, which is a state's primary duty.

Candidate 4226

Word Count: ~359 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

Initially, I agree with Dr. Owen Farrell the most. This is because Mr Farrell tells us about the how a conflict can be inflicted to a country that has nothing to do with its own current but simply because a treaties obligations demands it. This means countrys that are in hard often intervin in wars which don't conclude them. This can be seen as a dangerous loss of control. The country concerned put itself and people at risk if attacked by more people entirely uninvited. This goes against in many wars often kill innocent people of a nation and this would have be seen as a violation of human right law as everyone has a right to live and it had just been taken away because their country had signed a treaty to go to war. Dr Owen Farrell also says a point which I agree on that other members contribute more than others, these forms include providing troops, political commitment, military hosting investment and unreliable partnerships. All of these are reasons which make getting into an war more member unreliable partners. Some countries have more economic success than others making the smaller countries seem useless in some cases. when a crisis occurs, nations often prioritise their own interest over their alliance commitment. A country that over relies on collective defense is, in reality, relying on the goodwill of other governments. Governments also have their own public, public restrictions, their own priorities, and their own pressure to manage. Perhaps you can also agree with Professor Sarah Malik whom says yes nations should rely on collective defense alliances. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) is used to maintain peace between countries. If its seen pressure is if one of its members are attacked, they will treat it as an attack on them all. This is seen as a powerful deterent, deterent, stopping countries from having to launch any large or small attacks, they also need presence to work in the ranks. Nato promotes democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. This working and keeping peace between people and nations, also creates a foundation of trust. Concludingly, I agree with Owen Farrel whom say No. This is as it protects countries and the people inside of them, keeping peace between them, helps keep actions clean and tidy.

Quality of EvaluationClear. Your response provides a clear judgment and explains several relevant arguments from both writers. You have successfully identified key points from Dr. Farrell on the dangers of treaty obligations and from Professor Malik on the deterrent effect of alliances like NATO. To reach the top level, you need to directly compare these arguments against each other to show why one is more convincing. For example, how does Malik's idea of a deterrent contrast with Farrell's warning about being dragged into conflict?

Strengthening a Conclusion: "In conclusion, while Professor Malik’s argument about the deterrent power of NATO is strong, Dr. Farrell is more convincing. His warning that nations can be dragged into conflicts against their own interests, violating citizens' right to life, outweighs the potential for peace that Malik describes. The risk of losing national control seems a greater danger than the potential instability of self-reliance."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your overall judgement clearly at the beginning and end of your answer, which gives your writing a strong focus and structure.
Good Use of Evidence: You have selected a good range of specific arguments from both sources (e.g., treaty obligations, unequal contributions, NATO as a deterrent) to support your points.
Developing Arguments: You made a very good link between being drawn into a war and the violation of the human 'right to live'. This is excellent application of your own knowledge.

Targets

Develop Direct Comparison: Instead of explaining each writer's views in separate blocks, try to compare them directly. Use phrases like, "While Malik argues for deterrence, Farrell highlights the risk of..." to create a more evaluative tone.
Strengthen the Conclusion: Your conclusion should be a summary of your main argument. Avoid generic phrases like 'clean and tidy'. Instead, explain *why* you find one writer more convincing than the other, weighing up the specific arguments you have discussed.
Refine Language: Pay close attention to spelling and grammar (e.g., 'countrys' should be 'countries', 'intervin' should be 'intervene', 'deterent' should be 'deterrent'). Proofreading your work will make your strong arguments even clearer.
Use Specific Examples: To elevate your points, try to use a real-world example. For instance, could you think of a time when a country was drawn into a conflict due to an alliance, or a time when NATO's presence prevented a conflict?

Candidate 4234

Word Count: ~118 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I agree with Professor Sarah Malik the most as I believe countries share their own political views and it's more effective if they are shared so everyone can have a say. For example, NATO encourages different political views which creates a solid foundation of trust and unity between the member nations. Creating trust also creates peace between them which could result in less conflict and still having other nations defend your country with you, creating an image of strength and democracy. However, I somewhat agree with Owen Farrell as there has been a history of nations unequal burdens. For example, often when a crisis occurs, nations often prioritise their own interest simply because a treaty obligation demands it.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgment and explained arguments from both writers, which is a solid foundation for a good evaluation. You use a specific example (NATO) to effectively support Professor Malik's viewpoint. However, your evaluation is not yet sustained. To reach the top level, you need to directly compare the two arguments and explain *why* one is more convincing than the other, rather than just presenting them separately.

Sustained Comparison: For example, when a crisis occurs, nations may prioritise their own interests over their treaty obligations. While this is a valid concern, I find Malik's argument more convincing because the long-term security and trust built by alliances like NATO ultimately provide greater stability than a policy of self-reliance, which can lead to isolation.

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state which writer you find more convincing at the very start of your answer, which is great practice.
Use of Evidence: Your use of NATO as a specific, relevant example to support Professor Malik's argument is a high-level skill.
Two-Sided Argument: You have successfully explained points from both sources, showing you understand the complexity of the debate.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of just explaining both sides one after the other, directly compare them. Use phrases like "Malik's argument is stronger because..." or "While Farrell's point is valid, it overlooks...".
Develop the Counter-Argument: The explanation of Dr Farrell's view is brief. Try to explain it in more detail, perhaps with a clearer example of a nation prioritising its own interests.
Sustain Your Reasoning: To create a more coherent argument, add a concluding sentence that links back to your original judgment, reinforcing *why* Malik is more convincing despite Farrell's valid points.
Clarity of Expression: Your final sentence is slightly confusing. Re-read your work to ensure your meaning is precise. For example, do nations prioritise their interests *because of* a treaty or *in spite of* one?

Candidate 4246

Word Count: ~329 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

Firstly, NATO is a military alliance which was formed after the unfortunate events which took place in WW2. This alliance is made up of over 20 countries which all promise that an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all. Professor Sarah Mank (CSM) argues that collective defence alliances like NATO are one of the most effective tools ever created for keeping the peace. She argues that it acts as a powerful deterrent, which in some cases I agree with. This is because if a country was to invade you or start a war but you're in NATO they would not be able to also attack 20+ members which vow to protect each other which does in fact act as a powerful deterrent. An example of this may be when Donald Trump shared interests in taking Greenland to which Denmark said No and Donald Trump threatened to take it by force which caused a massive scandle and caused NATO to envoke the 'An attack on one is an attack on all', This led to some personel being sent to Greenland to defend it. Comparstavery, Dr. Owen Farrell argues that by being a member of a collective defence organisation it means to surrender a fundamental aspect of national sovereignty. This means that the freedom to decide when and whether to go to war. This point is validating due to the fact that in a hypothetical situation your country would have to go to war, unwillingly, if a neighbouring NATO country was at war. This aspect undermines the idea of national sovereignty hence why I agree with it. Dr. Owen Farrell also argues that being dependent on others, even allies, is always a vulnerability. This again is another credible point as being dependent on a country shows vulnerability and weakness as you are unable to defend yourself if you were attacked. Overall, though both people have both as equally validating points I agree more with Dr. Owen Farrell, due to the fact that NATO only offers security and leads other countries to be too dependent on it.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 2 response. You have a clear structure, explaining the arguments from both writers before reaching a justified conclusion. You show good understanding of the core concepts of deterrence and sovereignty. To reach the top level, you need to move from explaining the arguments separately to directly comparing them and ensure the evidence you use is factually accurate.

Strengthening your Judgement: Your final sentence could be more comparative. For example: "While Malik's argument for deterrence is strong, Farrell is more convincing. The loss of national sovereignty he describes is a guaranteed cost of membership, whereas the security Malik promises is only a potential benefit, making Farrell's critique of the alliance more compelling."

Strengths

Clear Explanation: You have clearly explained the main arguments from both Professor Malik (deterrence) and Dr Farrell (sovereignty and dependency), showing you understood the source material well.
Logical Structure: Your answer is well-structured. You logically move from Writer A to Writer B before presenting a final, clear judgment at the end.
Consistent Evaluation: You include small evaluative comments throughout your answer (e.g., "I agree with this," "This point is validating"), which shows the examiner you are thinking critically as you write.

Targets

Develop Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing each writer in a separate block, try to directly compare their points. For example, "While Malik sees the collective promise of defence as a strength, Farrell convincingly reframes this as a weakness, arguing it creates a dangerous dependency."
Ensure Factual Accuracy: Your example about Trump, Greenland, and NATO was factually incorrect. This weakened your argument. A better example would have been the only time Article 5 was invoked: after the 9/11 attacks on the USA. Always check your own knowledge.
Strengthen Final Judgement: Your conclusion states you agree with Farrell because NATO "only offers security". This is the main purpose of the alliance, so it's a weak reason. Focus on *why* Farrell's concerns (loss of sovereignty, dependency) outweigh the security benefits Malik describes.
Attention to Detail: You misidentified Professor Sarah Malik as 'Mank' and 'CSM'. Always use the names provided in the sources accurately to maintain a formal tone.

Candidate 4267

Word Count: ~313 words

Evaluation Score: 9/12

I agree with Sarah Mallie over Owen Farrel, Although Owen Farrel makes valuable points like some members contribute more than other countries which is true however those members like the USA and the UK have a major difference in their economy's to compared to countries like Slovakia or Lithuania, this means they have more budget to contribute to their protection, to add on most major countries like the USA, UK and some countries like Germany have historical events of attacks which increase their potential of attacking or being attacked again which should make those countries contribute more than countries who are un-promlomatic and have peace. Although countries should have their own soverenty inardent policies some small countries join NATO for protection of surrounding countries to as they they are vunrable, for example like Ukraine which has attempted to join the NATO and in result has been attacked by Russia, however if these countries allined with Ukraine wouldn't have been attacked to begin with, which shows how the NATO prevents attacks and keeps world peace - Owen Farrel also says how NATO violate the national soverenty of a country however to before joining the NATO countries knows the policy of NATO so it dosent violate violate a countries soverenty, and some countries in NATO can have conflict however they do not have to request NATO support like America which is now in a war with Iran however the NATO has not stepped in as the country hasnt been directly attacked only their military bases. which shows how countries do not need to be involved even if they are apart of NATO. I agree with Sarah Mallie more due to saying how NATO dosent only promote military support but also democracy, liberty, rule of law which is true, countries which fail to do so like Turkey. Although NATO dosent intervene in a countrys soverenty the can put sanctions on countries that fail to do so like Turkey which has been sanctions with denial of joining NATO due to their failure of expressing Human Rights to their civilians. which shows that NATO promotes the democracy and freedom of all people not only military-

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a well-developed evaluation that consistently argues a clear point of view. You effectively use Dr Farrell's arguments as a springboard to launch your own counter-arguments, showing strong analytical skills. You support your points with relevant real-world examples like Ukraine and the US/Iran situation. The direct comparison between the writers' views is sustained throughout, which is the key requirement for a top-level answer.

Clarity and Precision: Your point on Turkey was good but factually inaccurate. A more precise way to phrase it would be: "While NATO doesn't intervene in a member's sovereignty, it can apply political pressure. For example, while Turkey is a NATO member, its human rights record has created tensions and led other members to block things like arms sales, showing how NATO's shared values can influence member states."

Strengths

Sustained Argumentation: You maintain a clear line of reasoning throughout, consistently explaining why you find Professor Malik more convincing than Dr Farrell.
Direct Rebuttal: You are very effective at taking a point from Dr Farrell (e.g., on sovereignty or contributions) and immediately explaining why you disagree with it, using evidence or logic.
Use of Examples: You bring in your own knowledge (Ukraine, US/Iran, Turkey) to support your arguments, which adds depth to your evaluation.

Targets

Writer Attribution: You misspell both writers' names ("Sarah Mallie", "Owen Farrel"). Always double-check the source material for correct names and titles (Professor Sarah Malik, Dr Owen Farrell).
Factual Accuracy: Your example about Turkey being denied from joining NATO is incorrect as they are a long-standing member. Ensure your supporting examples are accurate to make your argument more credible.
Technical Terminology: Proofread your work to catch spelling errors of key terms like 'sovereignty' ('soverenty'), 'vulnerable' ('vunrable'), and 'diplomatic' ('un-promlomatic'). This will make your excellent points even clearer.
Structure and Signposting: To make your evaluation even clearer, use phrases like "In direct contrast to Farrell," or "Malik's view is more convincing because..." to signpost the comparison for the examiner.

Candidate 4268

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 9/12

Although Owen Farrell has provided a sustained argument, I agree with Sarah Malik more this is for a variety of reasons. Perhaps due to Nato having a great influence on countries going to ware. Firstly, one reason why I agree with writer Sarah malik (Sm) is because it can avoid any country from attacking an ally of the Nato forces, this is because article 5 of the nato treaty and (Sm) stated that 'attack of one member is an attack on all', this point is str- extremely reinforced as no country would like to go against multiple countries at once, however what this point has failed to mention is that if a nato member attacks another nato member this would cause problems as Nato is not allowed to intervene at all. Furthermore SM says that Nato promotes shared political values such as 'democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law' this point is reinforced as the fact that there are so many countries in Nato they can act as role models and the perhaps the symbol of peace, however a weakness in this point is that using violence as a method to maintaining democracy cannot be seen as just, this is because if you want to maintain democracy by causing bloodshed that cannot be deemed right However Owen Farrell (of) says otherwise, one reason is because 'some members contribute more in spending than others', this point is strong however what this point fails to mention is that some countries are richer than others therefore can use their expenses more than other, poorer countries. overall I believe that writer sm has provided a better sustained argument and thus I agree with Sarah malik more.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. You have produced a well-structured and consistently evaluative response, placing you in Level 3. You make a clear judgment from the start and support it by analysing arguments from both writers. Crucially, you don't just state what the writers say; you critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of their points throughout. To reach the very highest marks, focus on making more direct comparisons between the writers' arguments, weighing them against each other to prove why one is more convincing.

Direct Comparison: "While Dr Farrell's point about unequal spending is valid, it is less significant than Professor Malik's argument about collective security. The guarantee of mutual defence through Article 5 protects all members equally, regardless of their financial contribution, which is arguably the most fundamental benefit of NATO membership."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state which writer you find more convincing at the beginning and end, creating a clear and consistent line of argument throughout your answer.
Consistent Evaluation: For every point you introduce from the sources, you offer your own analysis. You effectively explain its strengths and then propose a relevant counter-argument or weakness.
Good Use of Evidence: You accurately identify key arguments from both writers, such as Article 5 and the debate over spending contributions, to support your reasoning effectively.

Targets

Develop Direct Comparison: Instead of evaluating each writer in separate paragraphs, try to directly compare their arguments. For example: "Malik's point about security is more convincing than Farrell's point on cost because..." This creates a more sophisticated and sustained evaluation.
Refine Counter-Arguments: Your counter-arguments are good, but could be more specific. When challenging Farrell on spending, you could explain *why* it's fair for richer countries to pay more (e.g., they have larger economies to protect and greater capacity).
Use Formal Language: Avoid informal phrasing ("says otherwise") and abbreviations like "(Sm)" and "(of)". Use formal academic language such as "In contrast, Dr Owen Farrell argues..." or "Professor Malik contends...".
Strengthen Opening Reasoning: Your initial reason for agreeing with Malik ("Nato having a great influence") was a little vague. Start with a more specific reason, such as "due to the overwhelming importance of collective security over concerns about unequal spending."

Candidate 4274

Word Count: ~251 words

Evaluation Score: 10/12

Despite the arguments that Owen Farrell (OW) makes about individualism and sovereignty, I mostly agree with Sarah Malik (SM) because they talk about the importance of trust and shared beliefs/policies in order to build and maintain peace. One reason why I agree with SM is because she says that due to their Article 5 of "an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all". This is true as I know that during the 1960s, in the Cuban Missile Crisis where the USSR had threatened war on president Kennedy, he was actually deterred from doing so. Perhaps the USSR's leader, Khrushchev, had been weary of the alliance in NATO which had deterred him from attacking the USA, maybe he was scared that NATO may back the USA. They also argue that NATO promotes "diplomatic cooperation" between member countries. This is an effective point as often countries start conflict when there are major disagreements over something; this is factual as during the 2001 terrorist threats and attacks, NATO was in agreement to take action against the Middle East. However, one may agree that OW's makes good points as he argues that "an alliance" comes at a "serious cost". Although he may be factual in some areas, such as monetary contributions or military provision, I believe that OW's fails to recognise that there is always a cost if something good comes out of it. For example, by spending a country's budget on the military, it will make other military adversaries less likely to oppose them which increases their security. This shows that there must always be a risk or sacrifice in order to gain something. Therefore his point is weak.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a strong, well-structured response that comfortably reaches Level 3. You establish a clear judgment from the start and sustain it throughout your answer with well-chosen evidence from the sources. Your use of specific own knowledge, such as the response to the 2001 attacks, is a key strength that elevates your analysis. Crucially, you engage directly with the counter-argument, explaining precisely why you find it unconvincing, which is a hallmark of high-level evaluation.

Strengthening Links with Evidence: "For example, Article 5 was formally invoked for the first and only time after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, leading to a united NATO response in Afghanistan. This directly demonstrates how the principle of collective defence translates into real-world action, strengthening Sarah Malik's argument about cooperation."

Strengths

Clear & Sustained Judgment: You state which writer you agree with in the first sentence and consistently argue in their favour, creating a strong and coherent line of reasoning.
Effective Use of Own Knowledge: You successfully bring in your own contextual knowledge (Cuban Missile Crisis, 2001 attacks) to support and add weight to the arguments from the source.
Direct Rebuttal: Your final paragraph directly addresses and dismisses the opposing view (Farrell's point on 'cost'), which is a sophisticated evaluation skill that shows you are weighing the arguments against each other.

Targets

Precision of Evidence: While your use of own knowledge is great, ensure it is always the most precise example. For instance, the 2001 invocation of Article 5 is a more direct example of collective defence than the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was more of a US-Soviet standoff.
Deeper Source Analysis: To make your rebuttal even stronger, you could engage with the *specific* costs Farrell might have mentioned (e.g., loss of independent foreign policy, financial burden) and then explain why these are acceptable trade-offs for peace.
Use of 'Signpost' Language: To make your argument even clearer, use phrases like "A more convincing point from Malik is...", "In contrast, Farrell's argument is less persuasive because...", or "This directly supports Malik's view that...".
Explain the 'Why': To add more depth, briefly explain *why* you believe collective security is more important than national sovereignty in the modern world. Is it because threats are more globalised? This adds another layer to your judgment.

Candidate 4284

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

Nations often prioritising their own needs could be seen as selfish to some but also somewhat responsible. I also believe putting your own interest first could also help with avoiding any conflict you have no interest in getting involved with. Going by your own values helps with avoiding any clashes with other nations. In conclusion, I still agree with Professor Sarah Malik as I still believe working with other nations, defending eachother and promoting eachothers political values, could make all of them feel included and avoiding any conflict between one and other.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You provide a clear final judgment and explain the arguments from both writers well. The first paragraph shows a solid understanding of the self-reliance viewpoint, and the conclusion summarises the collective defence argument. To reach the top level, you need to directly compare the two arguments. At the moment, you explain one, then the other, without weighing them against each other to show *why* Malik's view is stronger than Farrell's.

Comparative Evaluation: While Dr Farrell's argument for avoiding conflict by remaining separate is understandable, Professor Malik's view is more convincing. In a globalised world, issues like climate change and terrorism affect all nations, meaning that cooperation is not just a choice but a necessity for survival, making Farrell's self-reliance seem outdated and risky.

Strengths

Clear Judgement: Your conclusion is decisive and clearly states which writer you find more convincing. This is a crucial first step in any evaluation question.
Understanding Both Sides: You have successfully identified and explained the core arguments from both Professor Malik (collective defence) and Dr Farrell (self-reliance).
Logical Structure: Your answer is structured logically, presenting one viewpoint before moving to a conclusion that supports the opposing view.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of just explaining each view separately, directly compare them. Use phrases like "Malik's argument is stronger because...", "While Farrell suggests..., Malik's point about... is more realistic", or "On the other hand...".
Develop Your Reasoning: Explain *why* you agree with Malik. For example, why is making nations "feel included" a more important or effective way to avoid conflict than the isolation that Farrell suggests? Give a real or hypothetical example.
Use Source Names Throughout: Refer to 'Professor Malik' and 'Dr Farrell' in the main body of your answer, not just the conclusion. This constantly reminds the examiner that you are focused on evaluating the sources provided.
Sustain the Argument: Try to weave your evaluation throughout the response. For instance, after explaining Farrell's point, you could immediately offer a counter-argument from Malik's perspective before moving on.

Candidate 4328

Word Count: ~406 words

Evaluation Score: 10/12

I agree the most with Dr Owen Farell who believes that nations should rely on self-reliance as a stronger strategy compared to nations relying on collective defence alliances such as NATO introduced by Professor Sarah Malik. This is because Sarah Malik fails to look at the overall damage that organisations such as NATO could do but also to who it will harm. One reason why I agree with Dr Owen Farell is because I also believe that 'membership of a collective defence organisation means surrendering a fundamental aspect of national sovereignty'. This is because for a country to become a part of an organisation like NATO, they must need to make a lot of compromises and agree on decisions alongside other nations which undermines their sovereignty because it fails to show them acting alone. Furthermore Dr Owen Farell (Farrell) states 'a nation tied to an alliance can be dragged into a conflict that has nothing to do with it's own interests' which Professor Sarah Malik (Malik) fails to mention. Therefore it means that some nations have to get involved in matters that may simply not even affect them and so it may result in that nation having to spend money on military protection which impacts their economy depending on how big the scale of conflict is. As well as that, if another nation being dragged into a conflict may mean harm will be caused upon innocent civillians which breaches their human rights such as the right to life lives. On the other hand you may agree with Professor Sarah Malik that nations should rely on collective defence alliances because it's seen to guarantee a countries country's under protection. This is because like NATO (nations north atlantic treaty organisation) it ensures that there is built up trust between nations. NATO specifies by as stated has 'the core promise is straightforward: an attack on on one member is treated as an attack on all which means they will all intervene'. This is a positive promise made which is not acknowledged by Dr owen Farell as it establishes loyalty between countries. Organisations such as NATO are also seen to act as a threat to or as Sarah said a 'powerful deterrent' since other nations won't feel strong militarily strong enough to attack a member of NATO. So not only does NATO improve and make or break foreign relations but it also reduces the likelihood of mutually assured destruction occurring.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a strong, well-structured response that clearly achieves Level 3. You establish a clear judgment from the outset and sustain it by directly comparing the arguments of both writers throughout your answer. You use evidence effectively from both sources and develop your points with relevant concepts like sovereignty and human rights. To reach the very top marks, your next step is to add a concluding paragraph to summarise your argument and powerfully restate your final judgment.

Concluding an Argument: A strong conclusion for your essay could look like this: "In conclusion, while Professor Malik's argument for the security offered by a 'powerful deterrent' is compelling, Dr Farrell's warning about the loss of sovereignty and the risk of being dragged into external conflicts is ultimately more convincing. The potential cost to a nation's economy, autonomy, and civilian population outweighs the promised protection of an alliance."

Strengths

Clear and Sustained Judgment: You state which writer you find more convincing at the very start ("I agree the most with Dr Owen Farell...") and maintain this line of reasoning throughout your answer.
Direct Comparison: You consistently evaluate by directly comparing the two viewpoints, for example by highlighting what one writer "fails to mention" or "is not acknowledged by". This is a high-level skill that examiners look for.
Effective Use of Evidence: You select relevant quotes and ideas from both sources to support your points, showing you have understood the arguments in detail and can apply them to your evaluation.

Targets

Add a Conclusion: Your essay ends abruptly after discussing the second writer. A short concluding paragraph is needed to summarise your main points and powerfully restate your final judgment, leaving no doubt in the examiner's mind.
Develop Your Points Further: Your points about the economy and human rights are good. To improve, add more detail. For example, when you mention economic impact, you could specify this might mean "diverting funds from education or healthcare to military spending."
Refine Terminology: Be precise with your language. For example, instead of saying NATO can "make or break foreign relations," you could explain *how* it fosters diplomatic ties or creates geopolitical tension, which adds more academic weight to your point.
Proofread for Accuracy: Small errors like "Farell" instead of "Farrell", "it's" for "its", and "civillians" can distract the examiner. A quick proofread before you finish can easily eliminate these and make your work more polished.

Candidate 4349

Word Count: ~501 words

Evaluation Score: 10/12

~~Professor Sarah Malik (writer 1) argues strongly against self-reliance, with significant points around security levels and "diplomatic cooperation" in cooperation to collective defence alliances.~~ I believe that greater risks and setbacks, ranging from economic to social and environmental factors, derive from these military alliances which in turn create more difficulty for individual countries. Therefore, I agree more with Dr. Ben Farrell (Writer 2) who argues that how these risks are detrimental to a countries development and prosperity. If we first consider Writer 2's viewpoints, we learn that they believe that relying on collective defence alliances for security "comes at a serious cost" - such as the diminishment of natural sovereignty and freedom of choice. The primary argument in reality is that countries, regardless of their status of a democracy or not, lose international freedom from these treaties, such as NATO. This entirely overlooks the purpose of democracy, as people who may vote for a democratic leadership must eventually face dictatorship-like demands and conditions under certain areas of the world. Writer 1 however, counters this by suggesting that these collective defence alliances "can respond to modern threats, not just traditional warfare between states". Whilst this has some truth as per events of terrorist attacks in the early 21st century, such as 9/11, ~~it appears~~ this same truth seems to have lost credibility when considering recent, present-day military events. For instance, the USA, a member of NATO recently entered a hot war conflict with a non-member state, Iran. In turn, the USA requested using military bases in other member states, such as the UK and Spain, for more efficient dominance over the war. HOWEVER, despite the primary, driving force of NATO's Article 5, both the UK and Spain denied this request, showing disagreement between member states under ~~the~~ NATO's whilst Article 5 declares "an armed attack on one... shall be considered an attack on all". This shows the resentment of member states towards other countries at war for dragging them into a war they started initially. This latter makes me agree with writer 2 as writer 1's claims have been proven to lose credibility as per recent, present-day wars. /// The Writer 2 also argues other reasons against collective defence alliances, such as "unequal burdens" in terms of contribution to providing funds and troops. For instance, countries, such as the USA, must pay tens of millions more £ in fundings and a significant higher proportion of troops due to more prosperity and a larger population than other member states, such as Latvia. Whilst many could argue against this by saying it is fair due to countries with less prosperity being the result of a lower population, this is easily condemned as this can force many member states to unfair situations where a less-powerful member initiates a war, knowing their economic loss is significantly lower and prevented due to more-powerful allies supporting them without choice. Writer 1, however, believes this chaos "diplomatic cooperation" and "trust". Moreover, this argument misses out the fact that NATO has only had a few significant actions, with the first act being in 2001, over half a century since the creation of NATO in the 20th century. // Thus, I overall conclude that I agree more with writer 2 for emphasising the significant losses member states are forced into, economically, socially and also a setback on their independence and sovereignty, due to the potential support from member states in potential future wars. I whereas writer 1 only argues the great militarily but doesn't argue the unfairness behind NATO's principles e.g. Article 5.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a strong, well-structured response that firmly meets the Level 3 criteria. You establish a clear line of argument from the start and sustain it throughout with well-chosen evidence from both sources. Crucially, you use your own detailed knowledge to actively test and challenge the writers' claims, which is the hallmark of sophisticated evaluation. Your direct comparison of the two viewpoints is consistent and purposeful, leading to a convincing and well-supported conclusion.

Clarity of Expression: "This entirely overlooks the purpose of democracy, as people who may vote for a democratic leadership must eventually face dictatorship-like demands and conditions..." could be refined to: "This challenges the democratic principle of self-determination, as a government elected by its people could be forced by treaty obligations to act against the national interest or the popular will."

Strengths

Sustained Judgement: You state which writer you agree with in your introduction and maintain this focus throughout the essay, creating a very clear and coherent line of reasoning.
Effective Use of Sources: You skilfully select arguments and quotes from both Writer A and Writer B, placing them in direct comparison to analyse their strengths and weaknesses.
Application of Own Knowledge: Your use of specific examples, such as the disagreement over military bases and the history of NATO actions, to challenge the sources is a high-level skill that really elevates your evaluation.

Targets

Refine Expression for Impact: Some sentences are a little complex (e.g., "this same truth seems to have lost credibility"). Practice phrasing your points more directly to make your excellent analysis even more powerful.
Develop All Points Fully: Your point linking collective defence to a loss of democracy was a great idea. Ensure every argument you introduce is fully explained and clearly linked to your main judgment before you move on.
Use Precise Terminology: To push into the very top marks, integrate more specific Citizenship vocabulary. For example, when discussing loss of freedom, you could use terms like 'national sovereignty' or 'political autonomy' to demonstrate deeper conceptual understanding.
Acknowledge Nuance: You are very effective at critiquing Writer A. To add another layer of sophistication, you could briefly acknowledge the validity of their point (e.g., the theoretical benefit of "diplomatic cooperation") before explaining why the evidence suggests the drawbacks are more significant.

Candidate 68124

Word Count: ~279 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

I agree with Prof. Malik; I believe nations should rely on collective defence alliances, especially considering the current geopolitical situation of the world: countries are trading with each other more but an Emerging World order (Iran-Russia-China) seeks to dismantle the western world order. The current War in Iran also carries the risk of a larger war breaking out. I can therefore say it is wise to rely on collective defense rather than self-reliance. One reason I agree with Prof. Malik is because she mentions how NATO responded to the 9/11 attacks swiftly which shows, she argues, shows that alliances can respond to modern threats. This is a good point because 9/11 was not a conventional attack done by a nation, but rather an attack. The fact that NATO responded to protect reinstate Afghan democracy shows that alliances are just as good at responding to threats, if not better, in a time of great interconnection. One reason why Dr. Farrell isn't entirely wrong, however, is because our membership to NATO could be used to protect or even assist imperialist agenda. One such examples include the 2003 War in Iraq and the current War in Iran: Both seem like wars of civilian liberation by the US but upon scrutiny, are revealed to be wars that target anti-American positions as regional powers. Dr Farrell is not wrong in his idea that membership of collective defence organisations means relinquishing part of national sovereignty in our freedom to choose wars to get involved in. His point is strong because the UK deployed ground troops in Iraq during that war and is currently allowing use of UK military infrastructure in the Israeli-American War in Iran.

Quality of EvaluationPromising. This is a promising evaluation that establishes a clear judgment from the outset and engages with arguments from both writers. You effectively explain Professor Malik's point on modern threats and begin to weigh it against Dr. Farrell's concerns about sovereignty. However, your evaluation is held back by significant factual inaccuracies in your own knowledge, particularly regarding a "War in Iran". This weakens the evidence you use to support Dr. Farrell's argument and prevents your reasoning from being fully sustained, placing you in Level 2.

Using Accurate Supporting Evidence: His point is strong because the UK's involvement in the 2003 Iraq War, a decision that was highly controversial and led to massive public protest, shows how alliance commitments can draw a country into conflicts that don't have unanimous domestic support, effectively limiting national sovereignty.

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start with a clear and decisive judgement ("I agree with Prof. Malik"), which provides a strong focus for your entire answer.
Explanation of Sources: You accurately identify and explain the core arguments from both Professor Malik (NATO/9/11) and Dr. Farrell (sovereignty and imperialist agendas).
Evaluative Language: You use good evaluative phrases like "isn't entirely wrong" and "his point is strong," which shows you are actively weighing the arguments rather than just describing them.

Targets

Factual Accuracy: Your argument was significantly weakened by incorrect information (e.g., the "current War in Iran"). Always double-check the specific details of your own knowledge examples to ensure they are accurate and relevant.
Direct Comparison: To reach Level 3, directly compare the two arguments. For example, argue *why* Malik's point about security from modern threats outweighs Farrell's point about sovereignty. Use phrases like "While Farrell's point is valid, Malik's argument is more convincing because..."
Develop Your Evidence: Instead of just listing an example like the Iraq War, briefly explain *how* it proves Farrell's point. For instance, mention the controversy, the protests, or the lack of a second UN resolution to show the loss of sovereign choice.
Sustained Argument: Ensure your conclusion (which was missing) links back to your introduction and summarises *why* you found one writer more convincing than the other, based on the evidence you've discussed.

Candidate 72198

Word Count: ~385 words

Evaluation Score: 10/12

Despite the fact that Dr Owen Farrel (OF) - who says no - makes powerful and reasonable arguments as to why nations should rely on themselves due to factors such as sovereignty and self balance, I mostly agree with Professor Sarah Malik (SM) (who says yes) as they make more considerable arguments towards advantages of relying on collective defence alliances such as safety and guaranteed security. One reason why I could agree with SM is because they believe that being in a collective defence alliance acts as a "powerful deterrent" and causes any potential aggressors to "think twice" before threatening a member state. This is a powerful point as it takes into consideration of how a collective unity of countries is much more reassuring than a single country as any attacking country wouldn't want to initiate conflict when they realise the total military power due to the collective alliance. From my own knowledge I know that NATO is made up of 28 different countries which all follow the article 5 statement which explains how an armed attack on one shall be considered an attack on all. This therefore guarantees the safety of countries within such military alliances as it guarantees that they will always have support from countries rather than remain independent and rely on their own military which may not have lots of power. On the other hand I could also agree with OF who argues that relying on collective defence alliances means "surrendering a fundamental aspect of national sovereignty" and that a nation tied to an alliance can be "dragged into a conflict". This is a strong argument as it takes into consideration of how countries may loose their choice on whether or not they want to be part of a war. However, later on OF then goes on to say how "dependence on others" is "always a vulnerability". I think this is a weak point as OF fails to realise that dependence on others may sometimes guarantee safety and security as you are being provided with an extra supporting ~~countries' military~~. Therefore although OF has some flaws within their argument, I could somewhat agree with their strong points made regarding freedom. In conclusion although OF provides an alternative perspective on the disadvantages of relying on collective defence alliances such as lack of freedom of choices and decisions, I would agree more with SM who highlights more powerful advantages of defence alliances as they simply ~~outweighs~~ overpower the disadvantages through their arguments such as guaranteed safety and deterrence of conflict between countries if they realise the consequences of being a potential aggressor.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a high-level evaluation that reaches a clear, well-supported judgment. You effectively use evidence from both sources and support your analysis with precise own knowledge about NATO's Article 5. Your strongest skill is directly challenging one of Dr Farrell's points, labelling it a 'weak point' and explaining exactly why, which demonstrates sophisticated critical thinking. To reach the very top marks, focus on embedding direct comparison throughout your paragraphs and refining your concluding sentence for maximum impact.

Comparative Judgement: Ultimately, I find Professor Malik's arguments more persuasive. While Dr Farrell's concerns about sovereignty are valid, they are outweighed by the practical security and powerful deterrence that collective defence, as argued by Malik, provides in an uncertain world.

Strengths

Clear & Consistent Judgement: You establish a clear viewpoint in your introduction ("I mostly agree with Professor Sarah Malik") and maintain it throughout, leading to a very coherent and persuasive argument.
Excellent Use of Own Knowledge: Your specific reference to NATO and Article 5 is a perfect example of how to use your own knowledge to analyse and add weight to a source's argument. This elevates your response beyond simple source analysis.
Direct Challenge to the Source: A real strength is your confidence in directly challenging Dr Farrell's argument about 'vulnerability', calling it a 'weak point' and justifying your reasoning. This is a top-level evaluation skill.

Targets

Embed Comparison: While you compare the writers well, try to embed this comparison *within* your paragraphs. For example, when discussing Malik's point on deterrence, you could briefly mention how this directly counters Farrell's idea of self-reliance being safer.
Refine Concluding Statements: Your conclusion is good but the final sentence is a little long. Aim for a final sentence that summarises your overall judgement concisely by weighing the 'big ideas' (e.g., security vs. sovereignty) against each other one last time.
Use of Writer's Surnames: You use initials (SM, OF) which is fine for planning, but in the exam, always use the writers' surnames (Malik, Farrell) after their first mention to maintain a formal academic tone.
Avoid Tentative Phrasing: Phrases like 'I could somewhat agree' can slightly weaken your argument. Be decisive. Instead, try 'While Farrell makes a valid point regarding freedom, his overall argument is less convincing because...'

Candidate 76928

Word Count: ~276 words

Evaluation Score: 10/12

Despite Dr Owen Farrel (OF) making a strong point, I still agree more with Sarah Malik (SM). This because SM make strong arguments on the benefits of defence alliances like NATO as she says they act as 'a powerful deterrent' as an 'attack on one member is treated as an attack on all' which is useful as if Ukraine wouldn't have been attack if it was a member of NATO before Russia attacked as the threat of NATO would have deterred it from attacking. This makes SM's point strong as these defensive alliances are too powerful for other countries to go against so they are unlikely to attack members of these alliances. This especially useful for smaller countries as their small army would not pose as a threat to other stronger countries, however behind an alliance of many countries they can feel protected. However OF disagrees and says these alliances are burdens, especially to stronger countries as they usually contribute far more than others which would be negative as they would be using their citizen's taxes to fund other countries instead of their own. However a weakness to that argument is that short term they may cost more but in the long term they could deter countries from fighting and starting war not only saving far more money by not having to go to war but also saving many innocent lives. Another reason I agree with SM more is because she makes a strong point by saying these alliances can promote 'shared political values', like 'democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law'. This is beneficial as it allows members to persuade other members to adopt better values that connect them ideologically and build better trust in the alliance. Due to conflicting ideologies frequently causing lack of trust like between the USA and USSR in the cold war, having similar ideologies will build trust.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a strong, well-structured evaluation that clearly meets the Level 3 criteria. You establish a clear judgment from the outset and sustain it with well-chosen evidence from both sources. Your use of own knowledge, particularly the examples of Ukraine and the Cold War, is superb and elevates your analysis. The direct rebuttal of Dr Farrell's argument is a high-level skill, demonstrating that you are weighing the arguments against each other rather than just describing them.

Sustaining the Comparison: Your final paragraph is good, but could be even stronger by directly comparing it to Farrell. For example: "Malik's point about 'shared political values' is particularly convincing when contrasted with Farrell's focus on purely economic burdens. While Farrell sees alliances as a drain on resources, Malik shows they build ideological trust, which provides a different kind of security that Farrell's argument overlooks."

Strengths

Clear & Consistent Judgment: You state which writer you find more convincing at the start and support this judgment with well-reasoned points throughout your answer.
Excellent Use of Own Knowledge: Your examples of the situation in Ukraine and the Cold War are perfectly chosen to support and develop the arguments from the sources, showing great analytical skill.
Direct Rebuttal: You effectively challenge Dr Farrell's argument about financial burdens by considering the long-term costs of war. This direct comparison is a key evaluation skill.

Targets

Sustain the Comparison: In your second paragraph, you focus only on Malik. To reach the very top marks, try to weave in Farrell's perspective to create a more direct and continuous comparison throughout the entire answer.
Use Writer's Names Consistently: You use initials (SM, OF), which is fine for planning. In an exam, it is better practice to use their surnames (Malik, Farrell) to maintain a formal academic tone.
Refine Sentence Structure: Some of your sentences are quite long and contain multiple clauses. Practice breaking them down into shorter, clearer sentences to make your points with even more impact.
Acknowledge Nuance: To show the most sophisticated evaluation, you can briefly acknowledge the validity of the opposing view before you counter it. For example, "While Farrell raises a valid concern about unequal financial burdens, this view is ultimately short-sighted because..."

Candidate 89670

Word Count: ~476 words

Evaluation Score: 11/12

Whether or not Nations should rely on collective defence alliances or stick to self reliance is a debate that has been around since NATOs establishment in the late 1940s. On one hand, defence alliances can uphold peace by not only supporting members but also by others acting as a deterrence. While on the other hand, many say its extremely unfair to countries economies and democracy long term. Here however, I agree more with Sara Malik and will discuss why its good for nations to rely on collective alliances to an extent. Firstly, like I have mentioned earlier, Malik notes how organisations like NATO protect peace through its rule that "an attack on one is an attack on all" as it acts a deterrence. For countries that may have attacked members of NATO are far less likely to do so due to the extreme power of multiple militaries held which demonstrates my other point. Defence alliances combine the powers of multiple leading countries without needing to form a large empire. All of this is also evident in Russia's relationship to war with neighbouring countries whereas Ukraine while wasn't a member was invaded showing how the alliances provide massive help from other Super-powers. However, Owen Farrell does also point out an "unequal Burden" as some countries may pay more than others in terms of example, evident in how the USA, UK, France and Canada are NATOs biggest contributors... ...While yes, this is certainly true, its important to note how many countries economies may have severe differences due to reasons outside their control. For example, Many Eastern European countries are going to be poorer than Superpowers such as the US or UK due to how had centuries to build up, due to how recently the USSR collapsed in 1991 meaning it the richer countries responsibility to exploited minimum this treaty by assisting these countries. For Moreover Additionally, OF Sparts how membership of collective defence organisations means "surrendering a fundamental aspect of national sovereignty" and that "true security comes from "building your own capabilities". While this is certainly true short term, ultimately by only relying on yourself it risks a countries democracy long term as in the unfortunate case some another country attacked, there would be little to no support other than economic sanctions. Showing how defence alliances can actually maintain sovereignty for most. Additionally, Malik also points out how the 2001 terrorist attacks also invoked the collective defence clause for the first time showing how alliances also do help to respond to modern threats and are not just limited to 'hot' wars. Finally, Farrell says that dependence creates "vulnerability" which like I have insinuated before, is blatantly untrue as in fact unless you are a global superpower, lacking alliances is likely going as result in the opposite and in fact can cause inner/civil conflict due to instability evident in places such as Yemen or Afghanistan. Ultimately, its clear the debate about military defence alliances and their usefulness is going to be talked for many years to come is not just politically but also generally as long as there are economical, political and even social/peace reasons. however with I still primarily agree with Malik and that long term military alliances are beneficial to all.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a confident and well-supported Level 3 response. You establish a clear judgement from the start and maintain it throughout, creating a sustained line of reasoning. Your key strength is your ability to directly compare and rebut the arguments from the source you disagree with (Farrell), using evidence from Malik and your own impressive contextual knowledge. This 'point-counterpoint-rebuttal' approach is a very high-level skill.

Clarity of Expression: Your sentence about post-Soviet economies was powerful but slightly confusing. A clearer version could be: "For example, many Eastern European countries have weaker economies than superpowers like the US or UK. This is partly because they have had less time to develop since the collapse of the USSR in 1991, whereas Western nations have had centuries. Therefore, it could be seen as the responsibility of these richer countries to contribute more to the alliance to support newer members."

Strengths

Sustained Argumentation: You maintain a clear and consistent argument throughout the essay, always linking back to your main judgment that Malik is more convincing.
Direct Rebuttal: You excel at taking a point from Farrell (e.g., 'unequal burden', 'loss of sovereignty'), explaining it, and then systematically explaining why you disagree with it, using counter-evidence.
Effective Use of Evidence: You skillfully weave in specific examples like the Russia-Ukraine war, the 9/11 attacks, and the economic situations of post-Soviet states to make your arguments more powerful and convincing.

Targets

Clarity of Expression: Some sentences are long and grammatically complex, which can slightly obscure your excellent points (e.g., the sentence about the USSR). Try to break down long ideas into shorter, clearer sentences to improve readability.
Explicit Comparison Language: While you do compare the writers, you could make it even more obvious. Use phrases like "In direct contrast to Malik's view...", "While Farrell argues for X, Malik provides a more convincing counter-argument that...", or "This directly challenges Farrell's assertion that...".
Refining Use of Examples: Your examples are good, but ensure they are precisely linked to your point. When mentioning Yemen/Afghanistan, briefly explain *how* their instability relates to a lack of external collective defence, as other factors (like civil war) are also at play.
Proofreading: Small errors like "OF Sparts" (instead of 'Owen Farrell states') or "exploited minimum this treaty" can be caught with a quick proofread and will give your work a more polished and professional feel.

Candidate 91768

Word Count: ~306 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

I agree with Sarah Malik (SM) who believes that nations should rely on collective defense alliances due to collective defences like NATO being the most effective tool ever created for keeping the peace. whereas Dr Owen Farrell (OF) believes that nations should not rely on collective defence alliances due to problems like unequal burdens. I agree more with SM because she believes that nations should rely on collective defense alliances. This is because of collective defenses act as a powerful detterant as an attack on one country would be treated as an attack on all forcing countries to try and solve their issues in ways that doesn't involve war and conflict. Also the alliances can respond in many other situations that doesn't just involve traditional warfare. For example, the alliances responded to modern attacks such as 9/11 which was the first time the collective defense clause was invoked. Also collective defenses such as NATO also promote political values like democracy, rule of law and individual liberty. This creates a foundation of trust between member nations which promotes cooperation to further prevent conflicts from escalating. I disagree with OF because he believes that nations shouldn't rely on collective defense alliances. This is because of unequal burdens, such as some members contributing more than others in terms of spending. For example, the UK might contribute more than Spain because the UK is a much more financially stable than Spain is allowing them to spend more on troops and political commitment. This would be unfair to the countries that are spending the most because the troops aren't just for themselves but also for other member nations also. Also OF believes that membership of a collective defense organisation means surrendering a fundamental aspect of national sovereignty and political interests. This is somewhat incorrect because it is always optional and most likely if your political interests aren't democracy, rule of law etc. you would be denied the ability to join the alliance so you would only be changing your political interests for the likes of NATO and your overall political interests would clash with the other member nations.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 2 response that shows some skills required for Level 3. You make a clear and consistent judgment, supporting it with relevant points from both sources. The strongest part of your answer is the direct rebuttal of Dr Farrell's point on sovereignty, where you challenge his view effectively. To improve, this evaluative and comparative approach needs to be more sustained throughout the essay, rather than just explaining one source and then the other.

Clarity & Evaluation: "Furthermore, Farrell's claim that membership means surrendering sovereignty is weak. Nations voluntarily apply to join these alliances, fully aware of the commitment. In fact, these alliances often require shared values like democracy, meaning a nation's core political interests would need to align with the group's *before* joining, not be surrendered upon entry."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You consistently state which writer you find more convincing and maintain this position throughout your answer.
Effective Use of Sources: You have selected key arguments from both Professor Malik (deterrence, 9/11, shared values) and Dr Farrell (unequal burdens, sovereignty) to build your case.
Direct Rebuttal: Your challenge to Farrell's point about sovereignty ("This is somewhat incorrect because...") is an excellent example of high-level evaluation where you directly engage with and critique a writer's argument.

Targets

Sustain the Comparison: Instead of discussing each writer in separate paragraphs, try to compare their arguments directly. For example: "While Farrell highlights the risk of unequal burdens, Malik's point about collective deterrence is more significant because..."
Develop Your Explanations: When you use an example like 9/11, explain *why* it makes Malik's argument stronger. For instance, explain that it shows alliances can adapt to new threats, making them more valuable than Farrell suggests.
Use More Evaluative Language: Integrate phrases like "a more compelling argument," "Farrell overlooks the fact that," or "Malik provides a stronger case because..." to make your evaluation even clearer to the examiner.
Refine Sentence Structure: Some of your sentences are quite long and complex. Try reading your work aloud to catch any phrasing that is slightly unclear or could be simplified for greater impact.

Extended Writing Feedback

Teacher Access

Dashboard Unlocked

🧑‍🎓 Student Quick Access

📊 Data Export

⚠️ Safeguarding Alerts

Model Answer (Exemplar)

📄 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

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

Teacher Next Steps

Candidate 16927

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 19672

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4150

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4164

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4173

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4226

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4234

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4246

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4267

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4268

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4274

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4284

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4328

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4349

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 68124

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 72198

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 76928

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 89670

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 91768

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback