Feedback Focussing on Evaluation

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 03459

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

Evaluation Score: 4/12

I agree with professor Sarah Malik because she states. collective defence alliances like Nato are one of the most effective tools ever created for keeping the peace, Nato and many countries also state "An armed attack shall be considered an attack on all" Sarah's point backs this up because if nations rely on collective defence alliances, they're more likely to have backup from other countries and nations. However some may argue and agree with Dr. Owen Patel as he opposes and says no. what he thinks is "A nation tied to an alliance can be dragged into a conflict that has nothing to do with its own interests" This is simply because a treaty obligation demands it, and that there is nothing in their hands. And Dr Owen also says "This is not strength it is a dangerous loss of control. However I would partially agree with Dr Owen because he states. 'A country that relies on collective defences defence is in reality, relying on the goodwill of other governments. other governments have their own publics, own priorities and their own pressures to manage - this is true because if you rely on collective defence alliances sometimes you will have to handle it by yourself, you have to take Sarah's point. critics argue that alliances limit a nation's independence. And [illegible] in Barbados destroyed infrastructure for that once rely on defence alliances. - And ways the nations has changed - -after 9/11 is A-civil war broke out, this is clear breach of the geneva convention

Quality of Evaluation A promising start. You have done the first important job of an evaluation: you have used arguments from both sources and made a judgement. However, to move up from Level 1, your evaluation needs to be more developed and sustained. At the moment, you state points from each writer one after the other, rather than directly comparing them to see which is stronger. The confused own knowledge at the end also weakens your overall argument.

Developing Evaluation: Instead of saying Farrell's point is true and then mentioning Malik, try to directly compare them. For example: "Dr Farrell's argument that alliances rely on the 'goodwill of other governments' is more convincing than Professor Malik's idea of a united defence. This is because, as Farrell suggests, national priorities can change, making an ally unreliable in a crisis. This potential betrayal is a greater risk to a country's safety than the general deterrent effect Malik describes."

Strengths

Good Use of Both Sources: You've correctly identified and used key arguments from both Professor Malik and Dr Farrell. This is a great starting point for any evaluation question.
Making a Judgement: You clearly state who you agree with ("I agree with...", "I would partially agree with..."). This shows you understand the question is asking for your opinion, which is essential for AO3.

Targets

Develop Your Points (The 'Because' Rule): After stating a point from a source, explain in your own words *why* it is strong or weak. For example, explain *why* being dragged into another country's conflict is such a "dangerous loss of control".
Directly Compare Arguments: Instead of just listing points from both sides, put them head-to-head. Use phrases like: "Malik's argument is less convincing than Farrell's because..." This shows deeper analysis.
Check Your 'Own Knowledge': The points you made at the end about Barbados and 9/11 were a little confused. Make sure any extra information you add is accurate and directly helps you evaluate the arguments in the text.
Structure with P.E.E.L: Try using Point, Evidence, Explain, Link. Make a **P**oint (e.g., Farrell's argument is strong), use **E**vidence (quote him), **E**xplain why it's a strong argument, and **L**ink it back to the question or compare it to the other writer.

Candidate 18926

Word Count: ~235 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/12

I agree with Sarah Malik (SM) more. This is because She displays clear evidence on how NATO is a strong use of Collective defence. This helps defend other countries and step in while one is at war as they are part of NATO to promote political views and the shared across a range and the rule of law. It can also quickly adapt to any potential threats which may pose a challenge against a member of NATO. (SM) also describes how Collective defence like NATO is not a restriction of Sovereignty but is Sovereignty exercises wisely which is in partnership with people sharing the same values and interests. While (SM) makes a strong point on how NATO should be relied on, what she forgets to mention is that NATO is a bully and can invade different vulnerable countries at will and also that it can depend but at serious cost. Owen Carroll (OC) says that a nation tied to an alliance can be dragged into a conflict which has nothing to do with them. This can mean that a nation which is at peace can be forced into a conflict which was started for nothing. It can also be argued that some members contribute far more than others in terms of spending, troops, and political commitment. Implying that some nations in peace contribute more than others which begin the conflict resulting in unreliable partnerships.

Quality of Evaluation Good. You have provided a clear judgment and have explained relevant arguments from both writers, showing a solid understanding of the sources. Your answer explains the key points well. To move into the top level (Level 3), the next step is to make your evaluation more sustained by directly comparing the arguments from each writer, weighing them against each other to prove why one is more convincing.

Developing Evaluation: Here's how you could turn your final point into a direct comparison:
"Dr Farrell's argument that unequal contributions create 'unreliable partnerships' is more convincing than Professor Malik's point about shared values. While shared values are important, the reality is that a major nation feeling it is paying an unfair price might hesitate to act in a crisis, making the alliance weak when it's needed most. This risk of unreliability seems more significant than the ideals Malik discusses."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a clear statement of which writer you agree with. This gives your answer excellent focus right from the start.
Good Use of Both Sources: You have successfully identified and explained key arguments from both Professor Malik and Dr Farrell, showing you understand their different perspectives on collective defence.
Developing Arguments: You don't just list points; you try to explain their meaning and consequences, for example when you link unequal contributions to the idea of 'unreliable partnerships'.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of explaining one writer and then the other, try to put their arguments head-to-head. For example: "Malik's point about X is strong, but Farrell's counter-argument about Y is more convincing because..."
Sustain Your Argument: After making your judgment, every point you discuss should help to prove *why* you think Malik is more convincing. Use phrases like "This reinforces Malik's view that..." to link evidence back to your main point.
Strengthen 'Own Knowledge' Points: Your point about NATO being a 'bully' is an interesting idea. To make it a high-level evaluation point, link it directly to the sources. For example, you could say it supports Farrell's claim that alliances lead to a 'dangerous loss of control'.

Candidate 20876

Word Count: ~426 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/12

Although this whole topic about whether nations should rely on collective defence alliances, or is self-reliance a stronger strategy; is a big debate. I agree to a large extent with Sarah Malik about how nations should rely on collective defenses as she provides a more sophisticated and valid arguement. To begin with, Sarah Malik (SM) argues for the reliance on collective defense as it creates a sense of unity and support. For example, she states how NATO are one of the most effective tools ever created for keeping peace. The valid thing she mentioned shows how its establishment increased global peace better than before. This is true because I know that since NATO has been created since during the cold war, it has decreased potential rise of enemies and invasions just because of its presence, symbolising justice and peace. Furthermore, she further states how "an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all." This is a great arguement as it further shows the unity and collectiveness of NATO honouring each other by giving support. This is true because of Article 5 of NATO, countries do not want to invade NATO member countries which has decreased global threat around 33%. On the other hand, you could argue for Owen Farrell's argument that self-reliance is a stronger strategy because it is more democratic. For example, Owen Farrell states "how self-reliance gives a nation the freedom to act in its own interests". One thing Owen Farrell forgot to mention is that it could eventually lead to dictatorship or excessive arrogance and pride that can lead to a harmatia. This is true because America believes that they can be self-reliant which makes them very arrogant and practically dictatorship to an extent. Futhermore, Owen Farrell also states how "some members contribute far more than others in terms of spending" as they believe it will create an imbalance which could lead to potential threat because of a lack of superiority. What Owen Farrell forgot to mention here is that the Article 5 makes sure that all military spending is used to support member countries no matter who has spent more. Futhermore, Owen Farrell also states Furthermore, Sarah Malik (SM) states how "NATO promotes shared political values". This is a well made arguement as it promotes democracy and rule of law across Europe. This is true as more european countries have now increased their democratic values since joining. In conclusion, Sarah Malik's conveys a strong arguement about collective defense, therefore I agree with her.

Quality of Evaluation Solid. This is a good Level 2 response. You make a clear judgment and support it with points from both sources, and you should be praised for bringing in your own knowledge about NATO and Article 5. However, your evaluation isn't always fully developed. Sometimes you assert that an argument is 'great' without explaining why, and your counter-arguments against Dr Farrell are based on some misunderstandings and exaggerations. To reach the top level, focus on making your supporting examples more precise and directly comparing the weight of the arguments.

Developing Counter-Arguments: Your point about self-reliance leading to arrogance was good, but the example was weak. Here's another way you could have written it:
"While Farrell argues self-reliance gives a nation freedom, this could be challenged. A nation focused only on its own interests might ignore international laws, acting in a way that destabilises global politics. For instance, some critics argued that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led without broad UN consensus, showed the dangers of powerful nations acting alone, undermining the very security Farrell claims self-reliance provides."

Strengths

Clear Structure & Judgement: You start with a clear thesis statement, immediately telling the examiner which writer you agree with. This gives your answer excellent focus from the beginning.
Use of Own Knowledge: You effectively bring in your own knowledge about NATO's history (Cold War) and its key principles (Article 5) to support Sarah Malik's points. This is a great way to show deeper understanding.
Attempted Rebuttal: You don't just explain Farrell's points; you actively try to challenge and rebut them. This is a sophisticated skill that, with more precision, will move you into the top mark bands.

Targets

Develop Your Evaluation: Instead of just stating an argument is 'great' or 'valid', explain *why*. For example, *why* is the idea of shared values a 'well made argument'? Does it create more predictable and stable international relations? Always ask 'why?'.
Strengthen Your Examples: Your example of the USA becoming a 'dictatorship' was too exaggerated and weakened your point. Aim for more precise and credible examples, like the real-world debates about NATO members not meeting the 2% GDP spending target.
Compare Arguments Directly: To reach Level 3, you need to weigh the arguments against each other. For example: "Although Farrell raises a valid concern about unequal spending, Malik's point about the deterrent power of a united alliance is more convincing because..."
Check Your Understanding: Your use of Article 5 to counter Farrell's point on spending was inaccurate. Article 5 is about collective defence, not pooling funds. Always double-check that your own knowledge is being applied correctly to the specific point you are making.

Candidate 36091

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

Evaluation Score: 5/12

I agree with 'writer A' (Professor Sarah Mathes). This is because professor Sarah makes a good argument on why nations should rely on collective defence alliances and has a clear structure when explaining. For example professor Sarah explains how collective defence alliances such as "NATO" disable other countries to invade as if a country such as North Uovent was to attack America all the other countries in NATO would have to join in defending America & making more countries cohesively defending each other. Another example of this is how [illegible] fundamental british values are respected and how its achieved amongst NATO. For example [illegible] respecting democratic countries rules would would further lead to a positive outcome as it enables those countries to have trust and respect for the defensive alliance. This shows that nations should rely on 'collective defence alliances' as they are super-benefitial for wars and have a opportunity for countries to be closer. However, other individuals such as (Dr. Owen Farmers) disagrees that nations should rely on collective defence alliances as they could lead to armany many cinures and & waste a country wasting unnessisary resources on another country.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have made a good start here by stating a clear judgment and explaining the arguments of the writer you agree with. You used specific examples from the source, like NATO, which is great. To improve, you need to move from just explaining the two sides to directly comparing them. The highest marks are for weighing the arguments against each other and explaining exactly *why* one is more convincing than the other.

How to compare arguments: Instead of just stating Dr. Farrell's point, you could compare it directly to Professor Malik's. For example: "While Dr. Farrell raises a valid concern that alliances can waste resources on other countries' problems, Professor Malik's argument that a united alliance prevents war from starting in the first place is more convincing. This is because preventing a conflict altogether saves far more resources and lives than winning one you've been dragged into."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have a really clear structure to your answer. You state your opinion, explain the arguments for it, and then acknowledge the other side. This makes your reasoning easy to follow.
Good Use of Evidence: You effectively used specific examples from Professor Malik's argument, like NATO's collective defence principle, to support your points. This shows you understood the source well.

Targets

Develop Both Sides: Your explanation of Professor Malik's view is detailed, but your summary of Dr. Farrell's argument is very brief. To get higher marks, try to explain the arguments from *both* sources with a similar level of detail before you decide which is stronger.
Directly Compare Arguments: The key to a top-level answer is comparison. Instead of just listing the two viewpoints, try to weigh them against each other. Use phrases like 'While Farrell argues X, Malik's point about Y is more convincing because...'
Use More Precise Language: Move beyond saying an argument is 'good' or 'super-beneficial'. Use more precise evaluative words. Is an argument more realistic? More persuasive? Is a risk more significant? Is a benefit more likely? This will make your judgment stronger.
Expand Your Answer: Your answer is currently 180 words. Aiming for around 320-340 words will give you the space to develop both sides of the argument and make those crucial comparisons in more detail.

Candidate 4131

Word Count: ~204 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 3/12

Sarah Malik (SM) believes Nato is an extremely effective peace keeping tool. She believes it is a helpful way to protect countrys from cyber war - terrorism and economic independance. Nato is in my opinion a good way to prevent conflict it gives smaller countrys power to res it one is attacked the other countrys will come to its aid an example of this is the [redacted] turkey earthquakes which took place a few years ago other nieghboring countrys and members of Nato sent aid to help. Owen Farrell (OF) believes Nato is not an act of aliance but a dangerous loss of control and it can lead to other countrys being dragged into unnesecary conflict which can lead to another world war. I believe Nato has not only lead to two world wars but it may even lead to a third as other countrys may begin to lose control and feel threatened leading to even more unnesecary conflict. Nato can lead to trades forming with members of nato leading to other members of nato also leading to other countries being left out or receiving less which may also lead to conflict in the long run or even over time

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have started to evaluate by picking out ideas from both writers and giving your own opinion. However, the response is mostly a summary of the sources with some simple judgements. To reach the higher levels, you need to move beyond saying what each writer thinks and start directly comparing their arguments to explain *why* one is more convincing than the other. A major historical error also weakened your evaluation.

Modelling Higher-Level Evaluation: Instead of "I believe Nato has not only lead to two world wars...", a more effective evaluation of Farrell's point would be: "Farrell's argument that nations can be dragged into unnecessary conflicts is very convincing. This 'loss of control' seems a more immediate danger than the shared values Malik praises, because a country could be forced by a treaty to enter a war that its own citizens do not support, which is a fundamental challenge to its sovereignty."

Strengths

Identifies Both Sides: You have clearly understood that there are two different viewpoints and you have included ideas from both Professor Malik and Dr Farrell in your answer.
Attempts Own Knowledge: You tried to bring in your own example (the Turkey earthquake) to support a point. Using relevant, real-world examples is a key skill for top-level answers.

Targets

Develop Your Evaluation with 'Why?': Instead of just stating your opinion (e.g., "Nato is a good way to prevent conflict"), explain *why* it's good by linking it to the source. For example, "...because as Malik argues, the combined strength of 32 nations is a powerful deterrent."
Compare Arguments Directly: To get higher marks, you need to weigh one argument against the other. Use phrases like: "Farrell's point about losing control is a more serious risk than Malik's argument about shared values because..."
Check Your Facts: Your answer claims NATO led to two world wars, but NATO was created *after* WWII. Inaccurate own knowledge can undermine your argument, so always double-check key historical facts.
Use the Source Accurately: You mentioned 'economic independence', but the source talks about 'economic interdependence', which has a different meaning. Read the source carefully to make sure you are using the writer's exact ideas.

Candidate 4145

Word Count: ~130 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 4/12

At a certain extent I Agree with Sarah Malik Because She Explains the Advantage of relying on collective defense leagues as it helps to Acknowledge the strong Alliance each of the nato members have, As the security is very powerful. Which each member is [illegible] of different Abilities to carry out resources etc, which obviously save members will need support within Most Members can't nessessery be self relient due to economical problems. this does help gain each members trust effectively one by one. I disagree at an certain extent with Owen, he overexaggerates his point, it is an great opportunity for members to be defensive Allies Because there is Alot of Advantages to it, it's essential as it would cause lesser conflicts members are supposed to contribute equally and fairly, there would be a spread Amount of control equally towards All nato members, it does depend on the circumstances.

Quality of Evaluation Basic. You have made a clear judgement and used points from both sources to support it. However, your reasoning is simple and often asserted rather than explained. To reach the next level, you need to explain your points in more detail and directly compare the arguments from each writer, weighing them against each other to show who is more convincing and why. This response currently meets the criteria for Level 1.

Developing your evaluation: Here's how you could improve your challenge to Dr. Farrell: "While Dr. Farrell argues that burden-sharing is unequal, making alliances unreliable, this point is less convincing than Professor Malik's. Malik argues that shared values like democracy create a foundation of trust that is more important than equal spending. For example, even if some nations contribute less financially, their shared commitment to security, as seen when NATO invoked its defence clause after the 2001 attacks, shows the alliance is still reliable when it matters most."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start your answer with a clear judgement, stating which writer you agree with. This is a great way to structure your evaluation.
Using Both Sources: You have correctly identified arguments from both Professor Malik and Dr. Farrell, showing you have understood the basic debate.
Developing Your Own Ideas: You brought in your own idea about 'economical problems' making self-reliance difficult. This is the start of good evaluation (AO3)!

Targets

Use Specific Source Details: Instead of saying Malik talks about a 'strong Alliance', refer to her specific point about "an attack on one is an attack on all" or how alliances can adapt to "modern threats". This adds power to your analysis.
Explain, Don't Just Assert: You say Farrell 'overexaggerates his point'. To improve, you must explain *why*. For example, "Farrell's fear of being dragged into conflict seems exaggerated when compared to Malik's point that shared values help prevent conflicts from escalating in the first place."
Directly Compare Arguments: Make the writers 'talk' to each other. Instead of two separate paragraphs, try linking their ideas. For example: "Farrell is worried about unequal burdens, but Malik's argument about shared values creating trust is more persuasive because..."
Develop Your Points: Your point about 'economical problems' is good, but brief. Expand on it! For example: "...due to economical problems, smaller nations cannot afford a large military, making Malik's idea of collective defence essential for their survival, a point Farrell overlooks."

Candidate 42201

Word Count: ~31 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 1/12

Brentn says that [illegible] on of of har countries like Uk loses their proper will to do what they want shows that laws are and not by made by the people their [illegible]

Quality of Evaluation Unfortunately, this response does not yet meet the criteria for a Level 1 answer. There is a brief attempt to engage with one of Dr. Farrell's ideas about losing freedom, but the point is not explained and the overall meaning is very unclear. To improve, you need to clearly state the arguments from both sources, explain them in your own words, and then compare them to decide which is more convincing.

Developing a Point: Here's how you could have developed your idea about countries losing their 'will':
"Dr. Farrell makes a strong point that countries in an alliance lose their freedom. He argues that membership means 'surrendering a fundamental aspect of national sovereignty: the freedom to decide when and whether to go to war'. This shows that a country could be forced into a conflict against its will, which supports his view that self-reliance is safer."

Strengths

Identifying a Key Theme: You correctly picked up on Dr. Farrell's central argument about countries losing their freedom or 'will to do what they want'. This is a great starting point for an evaluation.
Attempting to Engage: You have made a start by trying to refer to one of the writers and their ideas. The first step to a good answer is always to use the sources provided.

Targets

Address Both Writers: To evaluate, you must discuss both sides. Explain at least one main argument from Professor Malik (e.g., about shared strength) and one from Dr. Farrell (e.g., about losing freedom).
Use P.E.E.L. Paragraphs: Structure your points using Point, Evidence, Explain, Link. Make a Point (e.g. 'Malik argues alliances provide security'), use Evidence (quote her phrase 'powerful deterrent'), Explain what it means, and Link it back to the question.
Quote the Sources: Use short, direct quotes from the text to support your points. For example, you could mention Farrell's concern about being "dragged into a conflict" or Malik's view that cooperation is "sovereignty exercised wisely".
Form a Clear Judgment: Start or end your answer with a clear conclusion stating who you find more convincing and why. For example, "Overall, I find Dr. Farrell more convincing because the risk of losing control over foreign policy is more significant than the benefits of shared defence."

Candidate 4229

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

Evaluation Score: 5/12

Whether panels should rely on collective defence alliance or if it should - reliance a strong military is a good disease. For example people on one hand like professor Sarah Micah Micah argues that "Nato one of the most successful tools ever created for keeping the peace promise an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all. The strength with this argument can be helps prevent constant risk of country power countries from getting into a in to a nuclear war for example provides safety for small countries like Italy which doesn't have strong military power from attack for biging bullied. Further more the was only big organisation that acted to prevent Russia from expanding into other country which However the flaw with this argument can be that some countries like America can use it to their advantage to bully other country for example the USA having the military power to assassinate the president of Venezuela prove that Nato is powerfull that other countries can't fight back against their bullying members of Nato. On the other hand the argument of Dr Owen Parnell says that "membership of a collective defence organisation impacts surrending their national sovereignty" the

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have made a good start by picking out key ideas from both writers and trying to explain their strengths and weaknesses. You've even brought in your own examples like Italy and Russia, which is a key skill. To reach the higher levels, you need to build a more structured argument that directly compares the two viewpoints, explaining *why* one is stronger than the other, rather than just discussing them one after the other.

Improving Evaluation: Here’s how you could refine your point about the USA to make it a stronger evaluation:
"While Professor Malik sees NATO as a tool for peace, her argument overlooks how powerful members can dominate the alliance. This supports Dr. Farrell's concern about sovereignty, as smaller nations might feel pressured by members like the USA to support actions they don't agree with, effectively losing control over their own foreign policy. This suggests Farrell's argument about the loss of control is a more serious risk than Malik acknowledges."

Strengths

Using the Sources: You've correctly identified a key argument from both Professor Malik (collective defence) and Dr. Farrell (loss of sovereignty). This is a great starting point.
Applying Own Knowledge: You tried to use your own examples, like Italy's relative military power and Russia's expansion, to support your points. This shows you are thinking like a citizenship student.
Attempting Evaluation: You didn't just list points; you tried to explain the 'strength' of one argument and the 'flaw' in another. This is the right skill for a top-level answer.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing one writer and then the other, try to compare their ideas directly. Use phrases like "While Malik argues..., Farrell's point about... is more convincing because..." This creates a direct debate.
Develop Your Points: Your ideas are good but need more detail. For example, when you mention Russia, explain *how* NATO's collective action demonstrates Malik's point about deterrence. A few more sentences on each point would make your argument much stronger.
Structure with P.E.E.L: Try to structure your paragraphs using Point, Evidence, Explain, Link. Make a point (e.g., Farrell is more convincing), use evidence from the source, explain it, and then link it back to the question.
Check Source Details: Be careful with names from the sources (it's Professor Malik and Dr. Farrell). Using the correct names shows the examiner you've read the sources carefully and adds precision to your answer.

Candidate 4304

Word Count: ~196 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 4/12

I some what again with Proffesser Sarah marilt as the benefit os collective defence out weigh the benefits the disadvatse As it help keep the Peace between countrs & one of thes can be sercits it where countrs who 'step out line or try to invade a another countri' or 'is misreading there People Sercity can Put Forward restrict or Punishmeny this is effect As it does invole war between difference countirs. For example Nato Promise if a check one countirs in Nato a check the whole Nato this is wks to detterent countrie for invading also help with democrats encorls benefit as countries as share role of law. individul hilbts. - democras which enplisn trust within a nation a his countirs can't buly smat centre into being taking over also Power centros can sucedente scue becuse there other countries as well I some what see-cstee with Dr.owen as collective defence is other way os countries giving up indepence and soverin is which a cestion every countrie is soverins & ideclogy. also is countries so to get other Nato a depende on the can be depending of countries thes can deserve them selve c

Quality of Evaluation Beginning. You have made a good start by identifying some of the main arguments from both Professor Malik and Dr. Farrell. You correctly mention Malik's points on deterrence and shared values, and Farrell's point about the loss of sovereignty. However, your answer remains a simple summary because you don't explain these ideas in detail or, crucially, compare them directly to decide which is stronger. To improve, you need to build a single, clear argument that weighs one writer's points against the other's.

Building a Comparison: "While Professor Malik makes a strong case that collective defence deters aggression, Dr. Farrell's argument that it forces countries to give up their sovereignty is more convincing. For example, Malik's point about the NATO promise is powerful, but Farrell would argue that this same promise could drag a country into a war it doesn't support, which is a greater risk to its own people than standing alone."

Strengths

Identifies Key Arguments: You successfully picked out some of the most important ideas from both sources, like NATO's deterrence (Malik) and the loss of sovereignty (Farrell).
Uses Specific Examples: Your use of the NATO promise ("an attack on one is an attack on all") was a great way to support your point about deterrence.

Targets

Develop Your Points: After you state an idea from the source (e.g., "it help keep the Peace"), explain *how* or *why* in your own words. For example: "This keeps the peace because a potential attacker knows they would face the combined military strength of all members, not just one."
Compare, Don't Just Describe: Instead of explaining one writer and then the other, try to link them. Use phrases like "On the other hand...", "A stronger argument is...", or "While Malik says X, Farrell's point about Y is more important because..."
Form a Single Conclusion: Your answer agrees with both writers at different points. For a top-level evaluation, you need to decide which writer is *more* convincing overall and explain why in a final concluding sentence.
Improve Clarity: Some of your sentences are difficult to understand. Try reading your work aloud before you finish. This can help you spot where sentences are confusing or words are missing, making your good ideas much clearer to the examiner.

Candidate 4352

Word Count: ~127 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/12

I agree with Sarah Mine that Nato is one most effective organisation. This is because due to nato's size and influence it causes other country's to avoid potential conflict with a Majority of europian country being together on the other hand, Dr owen foul myles's weak arguments for example "It is a dangerous less of controll" but he fails to mention what is lost or provide any statistics this weakens his arguments and highlights his potential bias on the subject or choice rather more nato is shown to allow countrys to fully keep all decision making apart from war this would be made know to country's before jeing nato meaning country's are fully aware their ability to freely war is compromised because nato aims to acheive peace

Quality of Evaluation Promising. You have made a clear judgment and have started to evaluate the arguments from both sources, which is great to see. You correctly identify a weakness in Dr. Farrell's argument by pointing out the lack of specific evidence. To reach the top marks, you need to develop this evaluation further by directly comparing the strengths and weaknesses of each writer's specific points against each other to build a more sustained and logical argument.

Developing Evaluation: Here's how you could improve your point about Dr. Farrell's argument: "While Dr. Farrell claims that joining an alliance is a 'dangerous loss of control', his argument is less convincing because it is vague. In contrast, Professor Malik provides a stronger counter-argument that this is 'sovereignty exercised wisely', explaining that cooperation is essential for security against modern threats like terrorism, making the trade-off a necessary one."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start with a very clear judgement ("I agree with Sarah"), which gives your answer a strong focus from the beginning.
Evaluating Evidence Quality: You effectively critique Dr. Farrell's argument by pointing out that he "fails to... provide any statistics". This shows you are thinking about the quality of his evidence, not just what he says.
Using Own Reasoning: Your point that countries are "fully aware" of what they agree to when joining NATO is a good piece of independent reasoning to challenge Dr. Farrell.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing each writer separately, try to directly compare their specific arguments. For example: "Malik's point on deterrence is stronger than Farrell's on loss of sovereignty because..."
Use Source Language: To show you are engaging with the text, try to quote or paraphrase specific phrases from both sources. For example, you could use Malik's phrase "powerful deterrent" or Farrell's idea of being "dragged into a conflict".
Develop Your Points (P.E.E.L): Expand on your ideas. When you say Farrell's argument is weak, explain the *impact* of this. For example: "This lack of evidence makes his claim less credible than Malik's, who points to NATO's real-world response after 2001."
Expand Your Answer: Your response is quite short. Aim to write two or three well-developed paragraphs to allow you to explore the arguments in more detail and build a sustained evaluation.

Candidate 97062

Word Count: ~165 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/12

I Partially but confidently agree with Owen Farrell. This is because he states some reasonable Points in his Statement Such as:"The idea that nations... Sound appealing but It comes at a serious cost I agree with this statement because although nations do Sound safer, they expenses are comi expenses are high. This mons loads of money will have to be spent on NATO. I also agree with (OF) when he States "True national Security comes from building your own capabilities. I agree with this statement because a good national Security would be things like a well-funded military or strong boarders. On the other hand, I dissagree with Sarah Malive because she implies that NATO is one of the most effective Gools ever created" and it is "keeping the Peace: I dis sagree with that because I wouldn't Say NATO is the best tool ever created as there are better solutions Out there. Lastly, I dissagree wien (SM) When she sasur NATO"creates a foundation of trust between member nations"

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have made a really solid start here by clearly stating your opinion and picking out some excellent direct quotes from both writers to back up your points. You show a good understanding of what both writers are saying. However, to get higher marks, your "because" reasoning needs to be much more specific. When you disagree with a writer, you need to prove exactly *why* they are wrong using real-world examples, rather than just stating that there are better options out there.

Developing Evaluation: Instead of "I wouldn't say NATO is the best tool ever created as there are better solutions out there," try explaining what those solutions are: "I disagree with Malik's claim that alliances are the 'most effective tools' because relying on others can be unreliable. A better solution, as Farrell argues, is investing that same money into your own independent military, ensuring you are never left vulnerable if an ally decides not to help."

Strengths

Direct Quotations: You have successfully picked out specific quotes from both Dr. Farrell and Professor Malik to build your answer.
Clear Position: You state exactly who you agree with right from the start, making your argument easy to follow.

Targets

Develop Your Reasoning: When you disagree with Malik, you say there are "better solutions out there". What are they? Give a specific example to prove your point.
Explain the Quotes: After quoting Farrell about capabilities, you mention "strong boarders". Explain *why* strong borders make a country safer than relying on allies.
Check Your Word Count: Your essay is quite short (165 words). Aim to write around 320 words to ensure you have enough space to fully explore the arguments of both writers.

Candidate 4252

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

Evaluation Score: 7/12

I agree with Sarah Mine that Nato is one most established post defence organisation. This is because due to nato's size and influence it causes other countrys to avoid petential conflict with a majority of europian countrys being together on the other hand Dr owen foul myles weuM argument for example It is a dangerous less or can tell but he fails to mention what is less or provide any statistics this weakens his arguments and highlights his potential bias on the subject a choice rather mene nato is shown to allow countrys to fully keep all desisions militry apart from war this would be made know to countrys before jeing westo meaning countrys are fully aware their ability to freely so war is compensated because nato aims to acheive peace meaning not only is nato insuring any country with Join's the organisation's safty but prevent's wars or resurses on the millatry. Secondly Dr. owen says indapendce gives a country compete indapendence and freedem to prove their own intrest but this is how country's end up building empires which lead to eventull wars. Insted if countrys group up and share resurce's even if one country provide's more then other's this would avoid war's over conflict's but new countries build's banu's like nato intened

Quality of Evaluation Good. You have made a clear judgment and supported it with points from both sources. Your best moment is when you challenge Dr. Farrell's view on independence by arguing it could lead to empires and war; this shows you are thinking critically about the arguments. To move into the top level, you need to develop these comparisons more consistently and use specific language from the sources to make your points even sharper.

Developing Evaluation: Instead of "he fails to mention what is less or provide any statistics", you could write: "Dr. Farrell claims that joining an alliance is a 'dangerous loss of control', but he doesn't provide a specific example to support this. This makes his argument less convincing than Professor Malik's point that NATO acts as a 'powerful deterrent', which is a more concrete and proven benefit of collective defence."

Strengths

Clear Judgment: You start with a clear decision on which writer you find more convincing. This gives your answer a strong focus from the beginning.
Engaging with Both Sides: You have successfully picked out key arguments from both Professor Malik (deterrence) and Dr. Farrell (loss of independence) to build your answer.
Developing Own Arguments: Your point that total independence can lead to 'building empires which lead to eventull wars' is an excellent piece of evaluation. You are thinking beyond the sources to challenge a viewpoint.

Targets

Use Specific Quotes: To make your analysis stronger, try to use short, specific quotes from the sources. For example, instead of paraphrasing Dr. Farrell's argument, quote his exact phrase 'dangerous loss of control'.
Directly Compare Arguments: Try to explicitly weigh one writer's point against the other's. For example, "Malik's argument about shared values is more convincing than Farrell's point about unequal burdens because..." This direct comparison is key for top marks.
Develop Your Points Fully: Some of your ideas are great but need more explanation. When you say countries sharing resources would avoid wars, explain *how* this works in practice to make your point more powerful.
Proofread for Clarity: Read your work aloud before finishing. This will help you spot where sentences are unclear (e.g., 'build's banu's like nato intened') and fix spelling errors. Clear communication helps the examiner see your great ideas.

Candidate 60478

Word Count: ~154 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 3/12

Natos Strength -> they have a combined military strength of keeping 28 nations. The members of Nato and, Albania, Turkey, the UK, Canada and Spain and many more. However it was a previously stable democracy democratic country gov- has been overthrown by the army army and this showed their weaknesses and countries. An example of how Nato has changed since 9/11 is. The army has appointed a new leader and the country is now a dictatorship, protests are brutally put down - democracy is that people are arrested and imprisoned unlawfully - this would be beneficial to have the nation rely on collective defence alliances. Nato's role changed because of after 9/11 by a tornado hitting the carribean island and that effected Nato significantly. Drowen says true national security comes from building your own capabilities 'a well funded military, strong borders and effective intelligence service'. Overall I agree with Sarah maule. that

Quality of Evaluation Basic. You have identified simple points from both sources and stated a final judgement, which is the foundation of an evaluation question. However, your reasoning is often unclear or based on a misunderstanding of the source material. To reach the higher levels, you need to move beyond just listing points and start explaining them in more detail, checking you understand them correctly, and directly comparing the two writers' ideas to show why one is more convincing than the other.

Developing Source Analysis: Here is how you could have used the 9/11 point more effectively:
"Professor Malik argues that NATO can adapt to new threats, using the response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks as proof. This is a strong point because it shows the alliance isn't just for old-fashioned wars. However, Dr. Farrell might argue that being dragged into a global 'war on terror' is a perfect example of his point about losing control and being pulled into conflicts that aren't in every member's direct interest."

Strengths

Identifies Both Sides: You successfully picked out an idea from both Professor Malik (collective strength) and Dr. Farrell (self-reliance). This is the first step to a balanced answer.
Uses Direct Evidence: You quoted Dr. Farrell's argument about a 'well funded military, strong borders and effective intelligence service'. Using quotes is a great way to ground your answer in the sources.

Targets

Explain, Don't Just State: Instead of just mentioning NATO's "combined military strength", explain *why* this makes Professor Malik's argument convincing (e.g., "This acts as a powerful deterrent...").
Check Your Understanding: Your point about a "tornado hitting the caribbean" shows a significant misunderstanding of the source. Always re-read the sources carefully to ensure you understand the exact point the writer is making (in this case, it was about the 9/11 terrorist attacks).
Compare Arguments Directly: To get higher marks, you must weigh the arguments against each other. Try using phrases like: "While Malik's point is strong, Farrell's argument is more convincing because..."
Complete Your Conclusion: Your answer ends abruptly. Make sure you write a full concluding sentence that summarises *why* you find one writer more convincing, linking back to the arguments you have discussed.

Candidate 72189

Word Count: ~303 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 7/12

Although both Dr Owen Farrell and Professor Sarah Malik raise good arguments I lean more towards Dr. Owen Farrell's arguments. This is because he states that "membership of a collective defence organisation means surrendering a fundamental aspect of parlimentary soverignty". This is a great point because countries working together and being influenced and supported by each other goes against the idea that each country is soverign and should be making its own laws, rules and decisions, which would not happen with the constant influence of Nato. This is important to understand because smaller countries with less military power are forced to join and rely on Nato due to them being vunrable and easy to invade. This means that smaller countries are more likely to be influenced by Nato which goes against the soverignty of countries. However Sarah Malik also raises a good argument that "The shared commitment of Nato acts as a powerful deterrent" this is a good point because the combined alliance of Nato greatly reduces the threat of attack on weaker and more vunreable countries. Adding onto this Sarah Malik also says "No single nation, however large its military can provide the same security as Nato" this is a strong point because the introduction of Nato ensures not one country can have complete power and establish empires unlike in the past. However there is also a flaw to this argument because there are examples of big military powers effectively abusing their power against smaller countries without Nato intervention for example the USA's invasion of Venezuela goes against what majority of Nato stands for, this is because the invasion goes against the Geneva convention which is a key principle of Nato which highlights why I believe Dr Owen Farrell raises a stronger point. In conclusion I belive Owen Farrell raises a stronger point because the Nato fails to serve their purpose in certain occasions.

Quality of Evaluation Good. This is a solid Level 2 response. You have a clear structure, starting with your judgement and using evidence from both sources to support it. You explain the arguments well and make a strong attempt to use your own knowledge to challenge one of the writers, which is a key skill for reaching the top marks. To improve, you need to make the comparison between the two writers more direct and ensure any real-world examples you use are factually accurate.

Developing a Counter-Argument: Your attempt to use the USA/Venezuela example was a great idea. Here is how you could make a similar point with a more accurate example:
"However, Farrell's argument that alliances are unreliable seems stronger. For instance, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by NATO members like the US and UK, was strongly opposed by other key members like France and Germany. This shows that when national interests are at stake, the 'shared commitment' Malik praises can break down, proving that collective defence is not always guaranteed."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start your answer with a very clear judgement, stating which writer you find more convincing. This gives your writing a strong focus from the beginning.
Good Use of Sources: You effectively select and explain key quotes from both writers, showing you have understood their main arguments about sovereignty and deterrence.
Attempting Counter-Argument: You try to challenge Professor Malik's argument using your own knowledge. This is a high-level skill, showing you are thinking critically about the sources.

Targets

Develop Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing each writer separately, try to directly compare their arguments. For example: "While Malik sees shared values as a strength, Farrell would argue this is irrelevant when national interests are at stake." This creates a 'debate' in your answer.
Check Factual Accuracy: Your attempt to use a real-world example (USA/Venezuela) was a great idea, but the details were incorrect. Always double-check your examples. A more accurate one might be the disagreements within NATO over the Iraq War in 2003.
Deepen Your Analysis: When you explain a point, try to add another layer of reasoning. For example, after explaining Farrell's sovereignty argument, you could add: "This is a significant weakness because it means a country could be forced to risk soldiers' lives in a conflict that its own citizens do not support."

Candidate 79162

Word Count: ~138 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/12

I strongly agree with Professor Sarah Malik as she makes a strong point with examples. For example she believes that collective desence alliances like Nato are great deturents from war. As 32 countrys are stronger than one. She also believes that these alliances create strong trust between it's members. However her arguement would be stronger is she use othe examples like the EU or how countrys will do bette saser together but economically too. I disagree to an extent with Dr Owen Farrell who believes countrys are saser alone. For example he says that these alliances pull in other countrys that have nothing to do with the conflict. And how some members contribute far more than others. However Dr Owen fails to express that some countrys cant offer as much and are bigger countrys are okay with that.

Quality of Evaluation Promising. You have done a good job of picking out the main arguments from both Professor Malik and Dr Farrell and you make a clear judgement on who you agree with. This is a solid Level 2 response. To improve, you need to move from explaining their ideas separately to directly comparing them against each other. Ask yourself *why* one writer's point is stronger or more convincing than the other's and explain that reasoning.

Developing Your Evaluation: Here's how you could rewrite your final point to show direct comparison: "While Dr Farrell raises a valid concern about unequal contributions, his argument is weakened when compared to Professor Malik's point about shared values creating trust. This trust suggests that larger countries in an alliance accept that smaller members will contribute differently, because the overall security and diplomatic unity is a more important goal than every member paying the exact same amount."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You've structured your answer well, dealing with each writer in a separate paragraph. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Good Source Selection: You have successfully identified and explained key arguments from both Professor Malik (deterrence, trust) and Dr Farrell (being dragged into conflicts, unequal contributions).
Attempting Evaluation: You've started to evaluate the arguments by suggesting how Malik could be stronger and by challenging one of Farrell's points. This is the right idea to build on for top marks.

Targets

Develop Direct Comparison: Instead of just explaining each writer's view one after the other, directly compare their points. For example: "Malik's point about deterrence is more convincing than Farrell's point about losing sovereignty because..." This is the key to reaching Level 3.
Use 'Evaluative Language': Use phrases that show you are weighing up the arguments, such as 'more convincing', 'less persuasive', 'a significant weakness', or 'while this is a valid point, it overlooks...'.
Explain 'Why': After making a judgement (e.g., "Malik is more convincing"), always explain *why* you think that. For example, *why* is the argument about shared trust stronger than the argument about unequal burdens? Give your reasoning.
Expand Your Points: Your word count is a little low. Try to add more detail to your explanations. For example, when you mention NATO as a deterrent, you could briefly explain *how* the 'attack on one is an attack on all' principle works.

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 03459

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 18926

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 20876

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 36091

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4131

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4145

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 42201

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4229

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4304

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4352

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 97062

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4252

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 60478

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 72189

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 79162

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

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 03459

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 18926

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 20876

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 36091

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4131

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4145

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 42201

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4229

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4304

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4352

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 97062

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4252

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 60478

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 72189

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 79162

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback