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

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

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

Teacher Next Steps

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

📊 Skill Assessment Overview (QLA)

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

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

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

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

Student-by-Student Breakdown

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

Suggested Intervention Groups

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

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

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

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

📄 Source Passages

These are the two passages you were given in the exam. The key arguments are highlighted so you can see the full range of points available to you. After the passages, there is a list of own knowledge ideas that could have strengthened your answer.

Simon Bridges — Low Taxes Should Be the Priority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

💡 Own Knowledge You Could Have Used

These are things from outside the source that would have pushed your answer into the top marks. You didn't need to know all of these — even one or two would have made a difference.

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

Model Answer (Exemplar)

Evaluation Score: 10/10

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

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

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

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

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

Strengths

Clear, sustained line of reasoning with a firm overall judgement.
Integrated quotes from both writers throughout.
Nuanced concession to the opposing side before rejecting it.
Own knowledge used five+ times to add depth beyond the source material.

Targets

Maintain this high standard by incorporating even more precise economic vocabulary (e.g., "progressive taxation", "fiscal responsibility", "multiplier effect").

Candidate 16927

Word Count: ~180 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 8/12

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 [illegible] 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 safety and comfort, they also gain political rights (voting in elections) and "individual liberty" which [illegible] further reinforces and reflects the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (made after WWII) of humanitarian rights and personal liberty.

Quality of Evaluation Good. You have produced a very strong Level 2 response with some moments of Level 3 quality. You make a clear judgment and support it well by explaining arguments from both sources. Your use of own knowledge (like the history of NATO and the UDHR) is particularly impressive. To reach the top level, your evaluation needs to be more *sustained*. This means consistently and directly comparing the writers' arguments against each other throughout your answer, rather than just explaining them side-by-side.

Developing Direct Comparison: Here's how you could have directly compared the arguments in your second paragraph: "While Professor Malik's point about promoting shared 'political values' is a positive benefit, Dr Farrell would likely argue this is less important than the risk of being 'dragged into a conflict'. For Farrell, the potential loss of life and control over foreign policy is a far more serious and immediate concern than the long-term promotion of democracy, making his argument about the dangers of alliances more convincing in a crisis."

Strengths

Excellent Use of Own Knowledge: You brilliantly bring in your own knowledge, like mentioning the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the fact a NATO member hasn't been attacked since 1949. This really strengthens your arguments.
Clear Explanation of Arguments: You do a great job of explaining the key ideas from both sources. For instance, you clearly explain the danger of being 'dragged into a conflict' by referencing the 'legal obligation to send your military'.
Weighing Up Evidence: In your first paragraph, you effectively weigh up the pros and cons, acknowledging that while NATO protects you, it also creates a 'legal obligation' to fight. This is a key evaluation skill.

Targets

Develop Your Points Further: Your answer is good but quite short at 180 words. Aim to write around 400-450 words. This will give you the space to develop each of your points in more detail and make your evaluation more sustained.
Use More Direct Comparison: To reach the top marks, try to directly compare the writers' arguments more often. For example, after explaining Malik's point on 'shared values', you could have contrasted it with Farrell's argument that national interests always come first in a crisis.
Add a Concluding Paragraph: A strong conclusion is essential for a top-level answer. At the end, you should briefly summarise the main arguments and then state your final, overall judgment, explaining exactly why one writer is more convincing than the other.
Signpost Your Evaluation: Use evaluative phrases to make your judgment clear. Instead of 'This is an amazing point', try phrases like 'Malik presents a more compelling argument because...' or 'Farrell's concern about sovereignty is more significant than Malik's point on deterrence because...'.

Candidate 19672

Word Count: ~399 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/12

I agree more with Sarah Malik (SM) more than Owen Paroll (OP) as Nato ensures 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 like 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 what Ukraine wanted to join Nato but it didn't work out since russia started war. The UK froze russian 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 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 commitments' 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 Evaluation Good. You have made a clear and consistent judgement, selecting relevant arguments from both sources to support your view. Your use of the Russia/Ukraine example to bring in your own knowledge was a real strength. To reach the highest level, your next step is to make your evaluation more direct by constantly comparing the two writers' arguments against each other, rather than discussing them one after the other.

Developing Direct Comparison: Instead of your point about healthcare, you could directly compare the writers' views on reliability like this: "Farrell's point that nations prioritise their own interests seems convincing, as governments do face pressure to spend money on services like healthcare instead of defence. However, Malik's argument about shared values is stronger because it explains *why* nations stick together. The shared belief in democracy creates a level of trust that makes it more likely for a country to honour its NATO commitments, even when it's difficult, which makes Farrell's view seem too pessimistic."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start and end your answer with a clear decision on who you find more convincing. This gives your writing a strong focus and directly answers the question.
Using Own Knowledge: Your use of the real-world example of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and UK sanctions to support Malik's point was excellent. This shows you can apply the concepts to current events.
Challenging the Source: You did a great job of directly challenging Dr Farrell's argument about 'dependence', providing a thoughtful counter-argument about why smaller nations join alliances.

Targets

Develop Direct Comparisons: Instead of discussing each writer in a separate block, try to compare their arguments head-to-head. For example: "While Farrell claims alliances are unreliable, Malik's point about shared values provides a more convincing reason why they hold together."
Explain Links Clearly: When you make a point (e.g., about taxpayer money), always explain precisely how it supports your argument against Farrell or for Malik. Make the connection crystal clear for the examiner.
Check for Clarity: Some phrases like "freezing open battle accounts" were a little unclear, and one sentence was left unfinished. Reread your work to catch these small errors and ensure your excellent points are communicated perfectly.
Strengthen Your Conclusion: Your conclusion is good because it restates your view. To make it even better, briefly summarise the single most important reason *why* you chose Malik. For example, "...because her argument for collective security is more realistic in a modern, interconnected world."

Candidate 4150

Word Count: ~283 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/12

Professor Sarah Malik agrees that countries should have rely on collective defence 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 defence 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 sovereignty 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 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 far 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 Evaluation Good. This is a solid Level 2 response. You have a clear structure, explaining points from both writers and making a final judgment. You show good understanding of the sources, and your use of the USA as an example to support Dr Farrell's point about unequal burdens is a real highlight. To reach the top level, the next step is to move from explaining the arguments separately to directly comparing them. You need to weigh one writer's point against the other's to show why you find one more convincing.

How to directly compare arguments: Instead of just explaining Malik's point on 'shared values', you could weigh it against Farrell's concerns: "While Professor Malik's idea of 'shared values' is positive, Dr Farrell's argument about being dragged into conflicts is more convincing. Shared values might not be enough to stop a country from acting in its own self-interest, especially if a conflict is far away and doesn't directly threaten them. This makes Farrell's warning about unreliable partners a more realistic concern."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You've structured your answer very clearly, moving between Professor Malik's and Dr Farrell's arguments paragraph by paragraph. This makes your reasoning easy to follow.
Good Use of Evidence: You accurately select and explain key arguments from both sources, such as the 'attack on one is an attack on all' principle and the problem of unequal burden-sharing.
Supporting with Own Knowledge: Your point about the USA providing most of NATO's funding is an excellent example of using your own knowledge to support an argument from the source. This is a high-level skill.

Targets

Directly Compare Arguments: Instead of just explaining each point one after the other, try to make them 'talk' to each other. For example, say, "Although Malik argues X, Farrell's point about Y is more powerful because..." This direct comparison is the key to reaching Level 3.
Develop Your Conclusion: Your conclusion states who you agree with, but it just repeats a point from the start. A top-level conclusion should briefly summarise the main clash (e.g., security vs. freedom) and explain *why* you found one side more persuasive, based on the points you've already discussed.
Expand on Evaluation: Move beyond saying "This is a strong point". Explain *why* it's strong. For example, is it strong because it's more realistic? Is it backed up by real-world evidence? Is the opposing argument weaker in comparison?
Avoid Repetition: You sometimes repeat phrases like "Dr Owen disagrees" or "she argues this because". Try to vary your language to make your writing more concise. For example, "Dr Farrell counters this by highlighting..." or "Malik reinforces her view by stating...".

Candidate 4164

Word Count: ~307 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/12

I souly agree with Dr Farrel as they strongly argue that nations increase their freedom 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 that regardless of wether 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 - for example 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 juste arguement as the threat of such a large organisation will deter countries from running to conflict. In addition to this countries within NATO can not resolve to conflict as it would jeoprodize the meaning and value of the NATO. Despite this being a strong arguement, Malik fails to enasure in the circumstances if a war was to happen when narrated NATO involvement. The power of NATO could easily deconstruct a country, therefore this only applies imense pressure on Non-governmental organisations such as so UN. These organisations are fully funded by western countries such as the UK who also happen to be in NATO. This therefor causes unnessecairy spending from tax payers as well as costing the live of your [illegible].

Quality of Evaluation Good. You have made a clear judgment and used evidence from both sources to support your view. You explain the arguments well and attempt to challenge the view you disagree with, which is a key skill. To reach the top level, your evaluation needs to be more sustained and directly compare the writers' arguments against each other, rather than discussing them separately. Some of your own knowledge points were also a little confused and distracted from your main argument.

Improving Your Evaluation: Here’s how you could have directly compared the two arguments more effectively:
"While Professor Malik makes a strong case that NATO acts as a deterrent, Dr Farrell's argument about the loss of sovereignty is more convincing. Malik's idea of a 'powerful deterrent' seems strong on the surface, but Farrell highlights the real cost: being dragged into conflicts against your nation's will. This risk of losing control over your own military seems a much more immediate and dangerous threat than the potential, but not guaranteed, benefit of deterrence that Malik describes."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the very start ("I souly agree with Dr Farrel"). This gives your answer a strong, confident focus from the beginning.
Good Use of Sources: You effectively use quotes and ideas from both Dr Farrell and Professor Malik to build your arguments, such as referencing Farrell's point on 'surrendering... sovereignty' and Malik's on deterrence.

Targets

Directly Compare Arguments: Instead of discussing one writer and then the other, try to weigh their points against each other. Use phrases like, "Malik's point is less convincing than Farrell's because..." to show you are directly evaluating them.
Keep 'Own Knowledge' Relevant: Your idea about terrorist attacks was interesting, but the link wasn't fully explained. Make sure any extra information you add directly supports your main argument about the sources. Avoid getting sidetracked by less relevant points, like the funding of the UN.
Explain Your Reasoning Fully: You mention that being in an alliance leads to 'unnessecairy tax money'. This is a good point! To improve, explain it further. For example, "...unnecessary tax money being spent on a conflict that doesn't directly threaten national security, which could be better used on domestic issues like the NHS."
Develop Your Word Count: Aiming for around 400-450 words will give you the space to develop your evaluation in more detail. This extra space allows you to fully explain *why* one argument is stronger than the other, which is crucial for top marks.

Candidate 4173

Word Count: ~344 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 9/12

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 Evaluation Excellent. This is a Level 3 response because you don't just describe the arguments, you consistently judge them. You weigh the points against each other, identifying them as 'strong' or 'weak' and explaining why. Your best moment was challenging Sarah Malik's point about 'keeping the peace' by bringing in the counter-argument that alliances can escalate conflicts. This shows you are thinking critically about the sources.

Developing a point: Your final point is good but unfinished. Here's how you could have developed it to make a direct comparison:
"Dr. Farrell's point that 'some members contribute far more than others' is strong because it directly challenges Professor Malik's idea of 'shared values'. It forces us to question whether these values are strong enough to survive disagreements over money and resources, making the alliance potentially unreliable in a real crisis."

Strengths

Sustained Evaluation: You consistently evaluate the points you make, using phrases like "this is a strong point" and "this is a weak point" and then explaining your reasoning. This is a key skill for top marks.
Direct Comparison: You directly challenge one writer's argument using the ideas of the other (e.g., questioning Farrell's sovereignty point from the perspective of a vulnerable nation). This is a hallmark of a Level 3 answer.
Clear Structure: Your answer is easy to follow. You start with a clear judgement and then dedicate paragraphs to analysing and evaluating the arguments from both sides.

Targets

Write a Conclusion: Your answer ends very abruptly because the last sentence is incomplete. To secure top marks, always plan for a short concluding paragraph to summarise your key arguments and confirm your overall judgement.
Develop Your Points Fully: Your ideas are excellent, but you could add more detail. For example, when you mention the risk of a 'mini world war', you could briefly link this to a historical example like the alliance system before WWI to make your point even more powerful.
Check Your Work: The incomplete final sentence shows the importance of leaving a minute to read through your response. This would have allowed you to finish your thought and make your argument even stronger.

Candidate 4226

Word Count: ~333 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/12

Initially, I agree with Dr. own Farrell the most. This is because Mr Farrel 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 for it control. The country concerned put itself and people at risk if attacked by more people country. This goes against would 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 that other members contribute more than others, these forms include providing troops, political commitment, hosting investment and unreliable partnerships. All of these are reasons which make getting into a war unreliable partners. Some countries have more economic process than others so 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 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 system promise is if one of there members are attacked, they will treat it as an attack on them all. This is seen as a powerful cheif deterrent, stopping countries from having to launch any type of small attacks, they also need presence to work in the long 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 nations clean and tidy.

Quality of Evaluation Good. You have made a clear judgment and successfully explained arguments from both sources to support your view. You show a solid understanding of Dr. Farrell's points in particular. To reach the top marks, you need to move from explaining the two arguments separately to directly comparing them. The key is to explain *why* you find one writer's point more convincing than the other's.

Improving your conclusion: Your final sentence was a bit confused. Here is how you could have compared the arguments to create a stronger conclusion:
"In conclusion, while Professor Malik's argument that alliances deter aggression is powerful, I find Dr. Farrell's view more convincing. His point that nations can be dragged into wars against their own interests highlights a more significant risk to a country's safety. The danger of losing control over when to go to war seems more immediate and severe than the potential benefits of deterrence, which, as Farrell notes, rely on the unpredictable goodwill of other governments."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your overall opinion clearly at the start and end of your answer ("Initially, I agree with Dr. own Farrell..."). This gives your writing a clear focus.
Good Use of Source B: You have a solid understanding of Dr. Farrell's arguments. You explained his points about being dragged into conflicts and the problem of unequal contributions in your own words.
Balanced Structure: You made sure to include arguments from Professor Malik as well, showing the examiner you have considered both sides of the debate before making your final decision.

Targets

Directly Compare Arguments: Instead of just explaining each writer's view one after the other, try to compare them head-to-head. For example: "Although Malik argues that shared values create trust, Farrell's point that nations prioritise their own interests in a crisis makes this trust seem unreliable."
Develop Your Own Points: Your idea to link the argument to human rights was excellent. To make it stronger, explain the connection fully. For example: "This loss of control directly threatens the human right to life, as citizens could be sent to die in a war that their own government would not have chosen."
Strengthen Your Conclusion: Your final sentence was weak and confused. A conclusion should briefly summarise your main reason for agreeing with one writer over the other. Avoid vague phrases like "clean and tidy" and focus on the core arguments like security, control, or reliability.
Check for Clarity: Read your work aloud to catch awkward phrases like "wars which don't conclude them" or "more people country". Clearer sentences will make your excellent points even more convincing.

Candidate 4234

Word Count: ~131 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/12

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 also 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 Evaluation Developing. You have made a good start here. You clearly state which writer you find more convincing and you have successfully selected arguments from both sources to support your view. This is a solid Level 2 response. To improve, you need to develop your points further and directly compare the two arguments to show why one is stronger than the other. The very short word count has limited your ability to do this.

Developing Your Evaluation: Let's look at your final point. Instead of just stating Farrell's view, try comparing it directly to Malik's: "However, I agree with Farrell that alliances can be unreliable due to 'unequal burdens'. While Malik argues that shared values create trust, Farrell's point is more convincing because history shows that when a major crisis hits, national self-interest often proves stronger than any treaty, making the alliance less dependable than Malik suggests." See how this weighs one argument against the other?

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have a clear and logical structure. You state your judgment, explain the argument you agree with, and then consider the opposing view.
Using Evidence: You effectively used the example of NATO from Professor Malik's text to support your points about trust and unity.
Making a Judgement: You begin with a clear judgement ("I agree with Professor Sarah Malik the most") which immediately focuses your answer.

Targets

Develop Your Points: Your points are good but brief. Aim to write more for each point you make. For example, when you mention 'trust and unity', explain *why* that is more important for security than Farrell's concerns about losing independence.
Directly Compare Arguments: Instead of just explaining each writer's view separately, compare them head-to-head. Use phrases like "Malik's argument is stronger than Farrell's because..." or "While Farrell makes a valid point about..., Malik's idea of... is more realistic."
Accurate Representation: Be careful to represent the source arguments precisely. Your final point slightly misinterprets Farrell's idea about self-interest and treaty obligations. Reread the source carefully to ensure you've got the exact meaning.
Write a Conclusion: Your answer ends quite suddenly. A good evaluation needs a concluding sentence to summarise your final judgment and briefly state the main reason for it.

Candidate 4246

Word Count: ~309 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/12

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. Comparatively, 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 Evaluation Good. This is a solid Level 2 response. You have a clear structure, you explain the key arguments from both Professor Malik and Dr. Farrell, and you make a clear, reasoned judgement at the end. You also show good skills by trying to use your own knowledge to support your points. To reach the top level, the next step is to move from explaining each side separately to directly comparing their arguments against each other.

Developing your conclusion: Instead of just stating your agreement with Farrell, try weighing his points directly against Malik's. For example: "While Professor Malik's argument about the power of a deterrent is strong, I find Dr. Farrell's point about the loss of sovereignty more convincing. The security Malik promises comes at the cost of being dragged into conflicts that are not in your nation's interest. This risk of losing control over your own foreign policy, which Farrell calls a 'dangerous loss of control', seems a much greater threat than the one Malik's alliance is designed to prevent."

Strengths

Clear Explanations: You did a great job of explaining the arguments in your own words. For example, you clearly laid out *why* NATO acts as a deterrent and what 'surrendering sovereignty' really means. This shows you fully understand the sources.
Consistent Judgement: You make your opinion clear throughout the answer (e.g. "I agree with this") and build towards a final, well-supported conclusion. This creates a consistent line of reasoning.
Use of Own Knowledge: It was excellent that you tried to bring in a real-world example with the Greenland/Trump situation. Even though the details weren't quite right, the thinking behind it is a high-level skill.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of explaining Malik's view and then Farrell's view, try to make them 'argue' with each other. For example: "Malik sees the alliance as 'sovereignty exercised wisely', but Farrell would argue this is naive because it relies on the 'goodwill of other governments', which can easily change."
Use More of the Source: You focused on the main arguments, which is good. To add more depth, try to include some of the other points. You could have discussed Malik's idea of 'shared values' or Farrell's point about 'unequal burdens' in the alliance.
Check Your Examples: Using your own knowledge is great, but double-check the facts. A more accurate example for Malik's point would be NATO invoking Article 5 for the first time after the 9/11 attacks on the USA, which is mentioned in the source material.

Candidate 4267

Word Count: ~311 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 8/12

I agree with Sarah Malik 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 econmy'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-problomatic 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 violace the national soverenty of a country however you are before uding the NATO countries knows the policy of NATO so it dosent violent violat any a countries soverenty, and some countries in NATO can have conflict however they do not have to request NATO support like Amerca 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 Malik more due to saying how NATO dosent only promote military support but also democracy, liberety, 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 civillians. which shows that NATO promotes the democracy and freedom of all people not only millitary-

Quality of Evaluation Good. This is a strong response that makes a clear judgment and supports it well. You have effectively used arguments from both sources and, crucially, brought in your own detailed knowledge (like the examples of Ukraine and the US/Iran conflict) to challenge the viewpoints. This shows you are thinking critically about the debate. To reach the top level, focus on making the comparison between the two writers even more direct and explicit throughout your answer.

Developing a point with direct comparison: Here’s how you could have refined your point about Turkey: "Malik argues that NATO promotes shared values like democracy. However, Farrell might counter this by pointing to a member like Turkey, whose human rights record is often criticised by other members. This suggests that national sovereignty and internal politics often override the 'shared values' Malik talks about, making Farrell's argument about the limits of an alliance's influence more convincing in this case."

Strengths

Excellent Use of Own Knowledge: Your examples were the strongest part of your answer. Using the US/Iran situation to argue that countries are not necessarily "dragged into" conflicts was a sophisticated and very effective way to counter Dr. Farrell's point.
Clear Structure and Judgement: You stated who you agreed with at the beginning and then built a logical case. This made your argument easy to follow and showed you had a clear plan for your answer.
Engaging with Counter-Arguments: You didn't just state your own view. You repeatedly took points from Dr. Farrell (e.g., on burden-sharing and sovereignty) and then explained why you found them unconvincing. This is the foundation of good evaluation.

Targets

Directly Compare Writers: To get top marks, you need to explicitly weigh one writer's argument against the other's. Try using phrases like: "Farrell's point about sovereignty is less convincing than Malik's argument about shared security because..." This makes your evaluation more direct.
Check Factual Accuracy: Your idea to use Turkey as an example was good, but the details were a little confused (Turkey is a long-standing member of NATO). Always double-check key facts, as accuracy makes your argument much more powerful.
Develop Both Sides Evenly: Try to find a strength in the argument you disagree with. For example, you could have said, "Farrell makes a valid point about unequal burdens, which can cause tension..." before going on to explain why you still think Malik's overall case is stronger. This shows a more balanced evaluation.
Expand Your Points: Your word count is a little low. You have great ideas, so don't be afraid to add another sentence to each point to explain its importance. For instance, after mentioning the US/Iran example, you could add: "This undermines Farrell's central claim that membership means a 'dangerous loss of control'."

Candidate 4268

Word Count: ~286 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 9/12

Although ~~writer B~~ Owen Farrell has provided a sustained argument, I agree with ~~writer A~~ 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 'attack of one member is an attack on all', this point is extremely reinforced as no member 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 Evaluation Excellent. You have produced a very strong piece of evaluation. You make a clear judgement and support it well with evidence from both sources. The best parts of your answer are where you challenge the sources with your own ideas, for example, when you consider what would happen if two NATO members attacked each other, or when you question if using violence to protect democracy is right. This critical thinking is exactly what examiners look for at the top level. To improve further, try to make your points directly compare the two writers.

Directly Comparing Arguments: Here's how you could have strengthened your evaluation of Farrell's point: "While Farrell makes a strong point that some members contribute more than others, this doesn't automatically make the alliance unreliable. As Malik argues, the shared commitment to collective defence is the most important factor, creating a deterrent that is more powerful than any single nation's military budget. Therefore, Malik's argument about shared strength is more convincing than Farrell's concern about unequal spending, because the overall security benefit outweighs the financial imbalance."

Strengths

Critical Thinking: You don't just accept what the sources say. Your points about a NATO member attacking another, and questioning the use of violence for democracy, are excellent examples of high-level evaluation.
Clear Judgement: From the very first sentence, you state which writer you find more convincing. You then stick to this judgement throughout your answer, which creates a clear line of reasoning.
Using Evidence: You effectively select key quotes and ideas from both writers, like Article 5 and the point about unequal spending, to build your arguments.

Targets

Directly Compare Arguments: Instead of dealing with each writer separately, try to put their ideas head-to-head. For example, you could say "Malik's argument about deterrence is stronger than Farrell's argument about losing independence because..." This shows sustained evaluation.
Develop Your Evaluation of Farrell: Your counter-argument to Farrell's point on spending was a bit weak. You explained *why* spending is unequal, but not why this makes his argument unconvincing. Try to challenge the core of his point: does unequal spending *really* make an alliance unreliable?
Expand Your Answer: You wrote 286 words, but aiming for around 400-450 would give you more space to develop your points in greater detail. An extra paragraph directly comparing the writers' views on 'sovereignty' would have pushed this answer even higher.

Candidate 4274

Word Count: ~250 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/12

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 fails to recognise that there is always a cost if something good comes out of it. For example, by spending a [crossed out] 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 Evaluation Good. This is a solid Level 2 response. You make a clear judgment and support it with relevant points from both sources. You have also started to use your own knowledge (the Cuban Missile Crisis) and have directly challenged one of Dr. Farrell's arguments, explaining why you think it is weak. To reach the top level, you need to make these comparisons between the two writers more sustained throughout your answer, rather than just in the final paragraph.

Developing Evaluation: Let's look at your final sentence. Instead of just saying his point is "weak", try to weigh it directly against Malik's argument. For example:
"Therefore, while Farrell is right to point out the costs, his argument is weakened because he overlooks the point Malik makes: that these costs are a wise investment for the much greater security and stability that a powerful alliance provides."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You begin with a clear judgment and then structure your paragraphs logically, dealing with one writer and then the other. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Use of Own Knowledge: Bringing in the Cuban Missile Crisis to discuss deterrence is a great example of using your own knowledge to test the arguments in the sources. This is a high-level skill.
Direct Counter-Argument: In your final paragraph, you don't just dismiss Dr. Farrell. You acknowledge his point about 'cost' and then explain exactly why you disagree with it. This is the beginning of strong evaluation.

Targets

Develop Your Points Further: Your word count is quite low. Try to expand on your ideas. For example, when you mention the 2001 attacks, you could explain *how* that collective action demonstrated the value of the alliance in a modern context.
Sustain the Comparison: Try to compare the two writers more frequently. For example, when discussing Malik's point on deterrence, you could say: "This powerful deterrent directly challenges Farrell's view that alliances create weakness..." This creates a 'dialogue' between the two sources.
Refine Use of Evidence: Your use of the Cuban Missile Crisis is good, but a more direct example for NATO's role would be its function during the Cold War in preventing a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Always try to pick the most relevant evidence to make your point as strong as possible.

Candidate 4284

Word Count: ~109 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 3/12

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 Evaluation Basic. Your response makes a simple judgment and identifies a relevant point from each writer. However, it doesn't explain these points in detail or compare them directly. The first paragraph supports Dr. Farrell, but your conclusion supports Professor Malik without explaining why you changed your mind or why her argument is stronger. To improve, you need to build a single, consistent argument.

Building a Comparative Argument: Here's how you could have linked the two ideas: "Although Dr. Farrell makes a good point that self-reliance can stop a nation being dragged into unwanted wars, I find Professor Malik's argument more convincing. She argues that shared values and cooperation actually prevent those conflicts from happening in the first place, which is a better long-term solution than simply trying to avoid them."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your final decision clearly in the conclusion ('I still agree with Professor Sarah Malik'), which is a good start to any evaluation.
Using Both Sources: You have correctly identified a key idea from both Dr. Farrell (avoiding conflict) and Professor Malik (working together), showing you have read and understood both sides.

Targets

Explain, Don't Just State: Instead of just mentioning an idea like 'avoiding conflict', explain *why* Dr. Farrell thinks this is important (e.g., it protects national sovereignty). Use phrases like 'Dr. Farrell argues that...' to show you're using the source.
Directly Compare Arguments: Try to weigh the arguments against each other. For example, you could say, "Malik's idea of shared security is more powerful than Farrell's point about being dragged into conflict because..." This 'weighing up' is the key to high-level evaluation.
Build a Consistent Argument: Your first paragraph supports Dr. Farrell, but your conclusion supports Professor Malik. You need to connect these ideas. Explain *why* you find Malik's view more persuasive *despite* the good points Farrell makes. This creates a single, logical argument.
Develop Your Points (PEEL): Aim to write more to develop your ideas. Use the PEEL structure (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) for each paragraph to make sure you fully explain your reasoning and link it back to the question.

Candidate 4328

Word Count: ~371 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/12

I agree the most with Dr Owen Farrell who believes that nations should rely on self-relance a is a stronger strategy compared to nations relying on collective defencive 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 Farrell is because I also believe that 'membership of a collective defence organisation means surrendering a fundamental aspect of national soverignty'. 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 soverignty because it fails to show them acting alone. Furthermore Dr Owen Farrell (Farrell) states 'a nation tied to an alliance can be dragged into a conflict that has nothing to do with it's own interects' 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 militry protections which impacts their economy depending on how big the scale of conflict is. As well as that, if another nation being dragged into 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 guarentee a countries country's is 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 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 Farrell 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 Evaluation Good. This is a solid Level 2 response. You make a clear judgment and support it by explaining relevant arguments from both writers. You use quotes effectively and develop some points with your own reasoning, especially when discussing the consequences of being dragged into a conflict. To reach the top level, you need to move from explaining the arguments separately to directly weighing them against each other to create a more sustained line of reasoning.

Developing Evaluation: Instead of just saying one writer doesn't mention something, try weighing the points directly. For example, you could rewrite this section:
"While Professor Malik's argument for a 'powerful deterrent' is persuasive, Dr Farrell's point about being dragged into irrelevant conflicts is more convincing. The potential for economic damage and harm to a nation's own civilians seems a much greater and more immediate risk than the theoretical protection an alliance might offer. This loss of control over a country's own destiny makes self-reliance the stronger strategy."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You've structured your answer very well, stating your view, arguing for it, and then considering the counter-argument. This makes your reasoning easy for the examiner to follow.
Developing Arguments: You do a great job of taking a point from the source and adding your own ideas. For example, linking Farrell's argument to economic costs and human rights shows strong analytical skills.
Good Use of Evidence: You effectively select and use direct quotes from both sources to back up what you are saying, which is a key requirement for this question.

Targets

Weigh Up the Arguments: Instead of just explaining each side, directly compare them. Ask yourself: which argument is more significant? Why is Malik's point about deterrence less important than Farrell's point about sovereignty? Explaining this is the key to sustained evaluation.
Create a 'Golden Thread': Try to ensure your main argument (that Farrell is more convincing) runs all the way through. When you discuss Malik's points, link back to why you still find Farrell's view stronger despite them.
Precise Terminology: Be careful with technical terms. Your use of 'mutually assured destruction' shows you are thinking about big ideas, but it has a very specific meaning. Using the source's own language, like 'powerful deterrent', is often a safer and more accurate approach.
Proofread for Accuracy: Take 60 seconds at the end to read through your work. Correcting small spelling mistakes (e.g., 'sovereignty', 'civilians', 'self-reliance') will make your excellent points appear even more professional and clear.

Candidate 4349

Word Count: ~272 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 8/12

2 This further makes me agree with writer 2 as writer 1's claims have been proven to lose credibility as per recent, present-day wars. // Writer 2 also argues other reasons against collective defence alliances, such as "unequal burdens" in terms of contributions to providing funds and troops. For instance, countries, such as the UK, must pay tens of millions more in £ 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 [illegible] condemned as this can force many member states in 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 "diplomacy 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, for the "potential support from member states in potential future wars". Whereas writer 1 only argues the benefits militarily but doesn't argue the unfairness behind NATO's principles e.g Article 5.

Quality of Evaluation Good. This is a strong Level 2 response that shows clear signs of reaching for Level 3. You make a confident judgment and support it well by developing arguments from the source with your own knowledge. You also attempt direct comparison between the writers. To improve, focus on making these comparisons more sustained throughout your answer and ensure you engage with the full range of arguments from both sides.

Making Direct Comparisons: Instead of just stating Writer 1's point, try to show how it's weakened by Writer 2's argument. For example: "While Professor Malik argues that alliances are built on 'trust' and 'diplomatic cooperation', Dr. Farrell's point about 'unequal burdens' directly challenges this. It's difficult to maintain genuine trust when some nations feel they are contributing unfairly, which could lead to resentment rather than cooperation in a crisis."

Strengths

Developing Arguments with Evidence: Your use of the UK vs. Latvia example to explain the "unequal burdens" argument was excellent. It took an idea from the source and made it much more concrete and convincing.
Using Own Knowledge: Bringing in the fact about NATO's first use of Article 5 in 2001 was a great piece of specific knowledge that you used effectively to question the alliance's track record and support your argument.
Structured Reasoning: You structured your main point very well by presenting an argument, considering a counter-argument, and then providing a rebuttal. This shows high-level thinking.

Targets

Sustain the Comparison: Try to create more of a "dialogue" between the two writers. For every point one writer makes, think about how the other would respond. This will help you to directly compare their views throughout your answer, rather than dealing with them separately.
Engage with All Key Arguments: Your answer focuses heavily on Dr. Farrell's "unequal burdens" point. Try to also evaluate Professor Malik's other key arguments, such as the power of deterrence or that cooperation is "sovereignty exercised wisely." Do you find these convincing? Why or why not?
Expand Your Points: The word count is a little low for a top-level response. You could have expanded on your first point about "present-day wars" – which wars do you mean, and how exactly do they prove Professor Malik's claims have lost credibility? Adding this detail would strengthen your evaluation.
Avoid Oversimplification: Be careful not to misrepresent a writer's view. Saying Malik believes the "chaos" is "diplomacy" is a slight distortion. A more accurate approach is to say that Malik's positive view of cooperation is challenged by the potential for chaos that Farrell highlights.

Candidate 68124

Word Count: ~254 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

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 Ukraine 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 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 commitment to collective defence 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 invasions are meant to dethrone them from their 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 US 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 Evaluation Promising. This is a good response that makes a clear judgment and supports it by explaining arguments from both writers. You also bring in your own knowledge about Ukraine and Iraq, which is a key skill for evaluation. However, to reach the top level, you need to directly compare the arguments against each other more explicitly and ensure your own knowledge is factually accurate. This is currently a solid Level 2 answer.

Directly Comparing Arguments: Here's how you could have strengthened your final paragraph:
"Dr. Farrell's point about losing sovereignty is strong. For example, the UK's involvement in the 2003 Iraq War was highly controversial and seen by many as following the US into a conflict not directly related to Britain's national interest. This directly challenges Professor Malik's idea that cooperation is always 'sovereignty exercised wisely', as it shows how treaty obligations can sometimes lead to damaging outcomes that a self-reliant nation might have avoided."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start with a very clear judgement ('I agree with Prof. Malik') and maintain this position, which gives your answer a strong focus.
Using Own Knowledge: You effectively use your own knowledge of current events, like the war in Ukraine and the 'Emerging World Order', to make your argument feel relevant and well-supported.
Engaging with Both Sides: It's great that you don't just dismiss Dr. Farrell. You acknowledge his points about sovereignty are valid ("isn't entirely wrong"), showing balanced thinking.

Targets

Direct Comparison: To improve, try to directly compare the writers' arguments. For example, say "Malik's point about shared values is strong, but Farrell's warning about being dragged into unwanted wars is more convincing because...". This 'weighing up' is key to top-level evaluation.
Factual Accuracy: Be careful with the facts you use. For instance, there isn't a current 'War in Iran' involving the US. Using precise and accurate examples (like the 2003 Iraq War or the 2011 intervention in Libya) will make your points much stronger.
Develop Your Points: Some of your points could be explained further. When you mention NATO's response to 9/11, explain *why* this proves alliances are adaptable. Does it prove they can handle non-state threats like terrorism just as well as traditional warfare?
Word Count: Your analysis is good, but at ~250 words, you don't have space to develop it fully. Aim for around 400-450 words to allow for more detailed explanation and comparison of the arguments.

Candidate 72198

Word Count: ~428 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

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. 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 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 Evaluation Excellent. This is a strong Level 3 response. You establish a clear line of argument from the very beginning and sustain it throughout your answer. Your use of own knowledge about NATO to support Professor Malik's point is superb, and you move beyond simple explanation to direct evaluation when you challenge Dr Farrell's argument as "weak". This direct comparison and judgement is exactly what is needed to access the top marks.

Developing Direct Comparison: To make your evaluation even stronger, you could explicitly link your critique of Farrell back to Malik's argument. For example, when you call his point 'weak', you could write:

"However, I find Farrell's claim that 'dependence on others is always a vulnerability' to be his weakest point. He fails to acknowledge what Malik makes clear: that in an interconnected world, this 'dependence' is actually a source of collective strength. The powerful deterrent effect of an alliance like NATO far outweighs the potential vulnerability that Farrell describes."

Strengths

Clear & Consistent Judgement: You state who you agree with in the first paragraph and stick to it, using the evidence to prove your point. This creates a very coherent and easy-to-follow argument.
Effective Use of Own Knowledge: Your reference to NATO and Article 5 was perfectly chosen. It provided powerful, real-world evidence to support Professor Malik's more theoretical point about deterrence.
Directly Evaluative Language: You confidently judged one of Dr Farrell's points as "weak". This willingness to critique the sources, rather than just describe them, is a key skill for achieving high marks.

Targets

Develop More Direct Comparisons: You did this brilliantly once when you called Farrell's point 'weak'. Try to do this more often. For example, you could have contrasted Farrell's point about losing sovereignty with Malik's idea that it is "sovereignty exercised wisely".
Engage with a Wider Range of Arguments: You focused on a few key arguments from each writer. To push for full marks, try to bring in other points, such as Farrell's argument about unequal burden-sharing or Malik's point about shared democratic values.
Use More Varied Evaluative Language: You used "strong" and "weak" effectively. Try expanding your vocabulary with phrases like "Malik presents a more compelling case because...", "Farrell's argument is less persuasive when you consider...", or "This point carries more weight than...".

Candidate 76928

Word Count: ~258 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

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 being 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, have similar ideologies will build trust.

Quality of Evaluation Excellent. This is a very strong response that fits securely in Level 3. You establish a clear judgment from the start and sustain it with well-chosen evidence from both sources. Crucially, you don't just describe the arguments; you actively weigh them against each other, such as when you challenge Dr Farrell's point on cost by raising the long-term benefits. This direct comparison, combined with your effective use of own knowledge, is exactly what examiners look for in top-level answers.

Deepening your analysis: Your point about shared values is good. To make it even stronger, you could explain the direct security benefit. For example: "Malik's point on 'shared political values' is highly convincing. When member states operate on similar principles like democracy and the rule of law, it creates a predictable and stable environment, reducing the risk of miscalculation between allies that could otherwise lead to conflict."

Strengths

Direct Rebuttal: Your phrase "However a weakness to that argument is..." is fantastic. It shows you are directly engaging with and challenging the opposing view, which is a sophisticated evaluation skill.
Effective Use of Own Knowledge: You brilliantly used the examples of Ukraine and the Cold War. This shows you can connect the concepts in the sources to real-world events, which makes your argument much more convincing.
Clear Line of Reasoning: Your answer is easy to follow. You state your view, support it with a point from Malik, counter it with a point from Farrell, and then explain why Malik's point is stronger. This is a very effective structure.

Targets

Engage with the Strongest Counter-Argument: You did well tackling the 'burden-sharing' argument. To improve further, try to challenge Dr Farrell's strongest point: the loss of sovereignty and being dragged into unwanted wars. Showing you can defeat the best argument from the other side is very impressive.
Develop All Points Fully: Your first paragraph is more detailed than your second. Try to give each of your points the same level of deep analysis, comparison, and support from your own knowledge.
Use More Evaluative Language: To signpost your judgment even more clearly, try using phrases like "Malik presents a more compelling case because...", "Farrell's argument is significantly weakened by...", or "The long-term benefit of deterrence far outweighs the short-term financial cost...".
Aim for a Higher Word Count: While the quality of your writing is high, at 258 words you don't have the space to develop your evaluation fully. Aiming for around 400 words would allow you to explore more arguments in the depth needed for the very top marks (11-12).

Candidate 89570

Word Count: ~234 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/12

Whether or not Nations should rely on collective defence alliances or stick to self reliance is a debut 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 acting as a deterrence. While on the other hand, many say its extremely unfair to countries economics and democracis long term. 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 hold which demonstrates my other point. Defence alliances combine the powers of multiple countries without needing to form a large empire. All of this is also evident in Russia's reluctance to war with neighbouring countries whereas Ukraine which wasn't a member was invaded showing how the alliances provide massive help from other superpowers. However, Owen Farrell does also point out an "Unequal Burden" as some countries may pay more than others in troops. For example, evident in how the USA, UK, France and Canada are NATOs biggest contributers.

Quality of Evaluation Good. This is a solid Level 2 response. You make a clear judgment and effectively use arguments from both sources to support your points. Your use of real-world examples, particularly regarding Ukraine and NATO contributors, is a real strength. To reach the top marks, you need to move from explaining both sides to directly comparing them and explaining *why* one argument is more convincing than the other.

Developing Comparison: Here’s how you could have directly compared the two arguments at the end of your answer:
"...the USA, UK, France and Canada are NATO's biggest contributors. While Dr. Farrell's point about this 'Unequal Burden' is valid, it seems a less significant risk when compared to the powerful deterrence Professor Malik describes. The security provided by the alliance, which can prevent devastating invasions like the one seen in Ukraine, arguably outweighs the issue of some members paying more than others."

Strengths

Excellent Use of Own Knowledge: Your example of Russia's invasion of non-NATO member Ukraine was a powerful and relevant way to support Professor Malik's argument about deterrence. This is exactly what examiners look for.
Clear Judgement: You state your view clearly in the first paragraph ("I agree more with Sara Malik"). This provides a strong focus for your answer and shows you have understood the question.

Targets

Directly Compare Arguments: Instead of just presenting one writer's point and then the other's, explicitly weigh them against each other. Use phrases like "Malik's argument is more persuasive because..." or "While Farrell makes a good point, it is less critical than...".
Expand Your Range of Points: You focused on one main idea from each writer. To develop your answer, try to include more of their arguments, such as Malik's point on shared values or Farrell's concern about being dragged into unwanted wars.
Develop Your Conclusion: Your answer ends quite suddenly. A concluding paragraph is the perfect place to summarise your points and reinforce your overall judgement by explaining why you ultimately find Malik more convincing than Farrell.
Increase Your Word Count: At 234 words, you don't have enough space to develop a sustained evaluation. Aiming for 400-450 words will allow you to explore the arguments in more depth and build a more detailed comparison.

Candidate 89670

Word Count: ~344 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/12

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 - also 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. Furthermore Additionally, OF states how membership of collective defence organisations means "surrendering a fundamental aspect of national sovereignty" and 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 about how the 2001 terrorist attacks also invoked the collective defence clause for the first time showing how alliances can do help to respond to modern threats and are not just limited to 'hot' wars. Finally, Farrell says that dependence creates "vulnerability" which I have indicated before, is blatantly untrue as in fact unless you are a global superpower, lacking alliances is likely going to 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/people reasons. however, while I still primarily agree with Malik and that long term military alliances are beneficial to all.

Quality of Evaluation Good. You have produced a solid piece of evaluation here. Your greatest strength is your ability to directly challenge Dr Farrell's arguments, explaining clearly why you disagree with them and using your own knowledge to support your points. You make a clear final judgment, which is essential. However, your answer was held back by a confusing opening paragraph that wasn't linked to the sources, and some of your points could have been explained in more detail to show a deeper understanding. This is a strong Level 2 response.

Improving your introduction: Your first paragraph was not well connected to the debate. A better start would be to directly tackle one of the writer's main ideas. For example:

"Dr Farrell argues that alliances are unreliable because some members contribute more than others. While it's true that countries like the USA spend more on defence, this doesn't make the alliance weak. In fact, it allows smaller nations like Estonia to benefit from the security provided by larger members, creating a stable and united front that they could never achieve alone. This shared security is more valuable than Farrell's idea of every nation struggling to fund its own superpower-level military."

Strengths

Directly Challenging Arguments: You do a great job of taking Dr Farrell's points (like on sovereignty and vulnerability) and explaining exactly why you think he is wrong. This shows you are really thinking about the debate.
Using Own Knowledge: Bringing in your own examples, such as the situations in Yemen and Afghanistan, to counter Farrell's point about 'vulnerability' was an effective way to support your evaluation.
Clear Judgment: You end your answer with a clear and decisive conclusion, stating that you agree with Professor Malik. This gives your writing a strong sense of purpose.

Targets

Focus on the Sources from the Start: Your first paragraph discussed economic differences without linking them to the arguments made by Malik or Farrell. Always start your answer by directly engaging with a point from one of the sources.
Develop Your Evidence: When you mention Malik's point about the 2001 terror attacks, you state it correctly but don't explain *why* it makes her argument convincing. Try adding a sentence like: "This shows that alliances are not outdated and can adapt, making them more useful in the modern world than Farrell suggests."
Use Comparative Language: To reach the top level, you need to directly compare the writers. Use phrases like: "Malik's argument about shared deterrence is more convincing than Farrell's point about sovereignty because..." This forces you to weigh them against each other.
Check for Clarity: Some of your sentences are long and a little confusing (e.g., "...it the richer countries responsibility to exploited minimum this treaty..."). Read your work aloud to check it makes sense. Shorter, clearer sentences are often more powerful.

Candidate 91768

Word Count: ~342 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 9/12

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 Evaluation Excellent. This is a strong response that reaches Level 3. You make a clear, consistent judgement and support it well with evidence from both sources. Crucially, you move beyond just explaining the arguments and start to directly challenge and compare them, especially when you argue against Dr. Farrell's point on sovereignty. This skill of making the two sources 'talk to each other' is exactly what examiners look for at the top level.

Developing Direct Comparison: Here's how you could have made the comparison on 'unequal burdens' even stronger:

"Dr. Farrell makes a valid point about unequal burdens, arguing it's unfair for some nations to contribute more than others. However, this argument is less convincing when weighed against Professor Malik's point about deterrence. While financial inequality within an alliance is a problem, it is a much smaller risk than a full-scale military attack on a nation standing alone. Therefore, the collective security that protects all members seems to be a far more important factor than the issue of who pays more."

Strengths

Clear & Consistent Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the very beginning ("I agree with Sarah Malik") and maintain this focus throughout your answer, which creates a very persuasive and easy-to-follow argument.
Effective Counter-Argument: Your point that joining an alliance is "optional" and requires shared values is a brilliant way to challenge Dr. Farrell's argument about losing sovereignty. This shows you are thinking critically about the sources.
Good Use of Source Detail: You accurately select and explain key ideas from both writers, such as the "powerful deterrent" and the 9/11 example from Malik, and "unequal burdens" from Farrell.

Targets

Develop Your Own Knowledge: Your UK/Spain example shows you're trying to bring in outside knowledge. To make this stronger, use more specific facts. For example, you could mention the official NATO target for members to spend 2% of their GDP on defence, and note that many countries don't meet this, which directly proves Farrell's point.
'Weigh Up' the Arguments: Try to explicitly state which argument is more important or convincing and why. Use phrases like "While Farrell's point is valid, Malik's is more significant because..." This turns explanation into high-level evaluation (see the rewrite above).
Add a Conclusion: Your answer stops quite suddenly. A short final paragraph to summarise your key points and restate your overall judgement would provide a much stronger finish and make your argument feel complete.

Candidate 4349A

Word Count: ~287 words (400 - 450 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 9/12

Professor Sarah Malik (Writer 1) argues strongly against self-reliance, with significant points around security-levels and "diplomatic cooperation" in comparison to collective defence alliances. However, 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. Owen 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 national sovereignty and freedom of choice. The primary argument initially 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 inevitably face dictatorship-like demands and conditions under certain areas of the world. Writer 1 however counters this by suggesting that these collective defense 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, [strikethrough]it seems[/strikethrough] 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, Article 5, both the UK and Spain denied this request, showing disagreement between member states under NATO, 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.

Quality of Evaluation Excellent. This is a strong piece of evaluation that clearly reaches Level 3. You move beyond just explaining the sources and start to test their arguments against real-world examples. Your use of the USA/Iran/NATO scenario to challenge Professor Malik's point about cooperation is precisely the kind of critical thinking needed for top marks. While the argument could be developed further by looking at more points from the sources, this is a well-reasoned and well-supported judgment.

Developing a Point with Clarity: Your point about democracy was good, but could be sharper. Try this: "Farrell's argument is that countries lose their freedom of choice. This is a serious issue for a democracy, where the government is supposed to act on behalf of its people. If a treaty forces a democratic country into a conflict its citizens don't support, it undermines the very principles the nation is built on, making the alliance a threat to its values, not a protector of them."

Strengths

Using Own Knowledge to Evaluate: Your use of a specific example (the US/Iran conflict and NATO members' reactions) to challenge Professor Malik's argument is a superb demonstration of evaluative skill. This is what top-level answers do.
Direct Comparison of Writers: You effectively create a debate between the two writers. For instance, you introduce Malik's point on 'modern threats' specifically to challenge Farrell's argument, which creates a strong, analytical structure.
Clear Judgement: From the very first paragraph, you state clearly which writer you agree with and why. This gives your entire answer a strong sense of direction and focus.

Targets

Engage with a Wider Range of Arguments: Your evaluation focuses brilliantly on one main point. To make it even stronger, try to compare more of the arguments, such as Farrell's point about 'unequal burdens' or Malik's view on 'shared values'.
Develop Your Points Fully: Your point about democracy and 'dictatorship-like demands' was interesting but a little unclear. Always aim to explain your reasoning step-by-step so the examiner can follow your logic perfectly (see the rewrite example).
Check Factual Details: Using own knowledge is excellent, but be careful with the details. Article 5 of NATO applies to an attack *on* a member, not necessarily when a member starts a conflict. A more precise example would make your already strong argument undeniable.
Expand Your Answer: You've written a high-quality response, but at ~290 words, you could add more depth. Aiming for 400-450 words would give you space to bring in more arguments from the sources and develop your evaluation further.

Extended Writing Feedback

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

Teacher Next Steps

📊 Skill Assessment Overview (QLA)

📄 Source Passages

Simon Bridges — Low Taxes Should Be the Priority

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

💡 Own Knowledge You Could Have Used

Model Answer (Exemplar)

Candidate 16927

Candidate 19672

Candidate 4150

Candidate 4164

Candidate 4173

Candidate 4226

Candidate 4234

Candidate 4246

Candidate 4267

Candidate 4268

Candidate 4274

Candidate 4284

Candidate 4328

Candidate 4349

Candidate 68124

Candidate 72198

Candidate 76928

Candidate 89570

Candidate 89670

Candidate 91768

Candidate 4349A