📱💻

Extended Writing Feedback

This interactive feedback provides detailed analysis of student essays with smart highlighting and instant pop-up comments.

📌 How to Use This Page:
  • 📝 My Feedback: Enter your candidate number to view your personal feedback
  • 📚 Resources: View class-wide analysis, source passages, and the model answer
  • 🏆 Top & Middle Examples: Browse anonymised top 3 and middle 3 answers to learn from your peers
  • Mobile Users: Tap highlighted text to see feedback comments
  • Desktop Users: Hover over highlighted text for instant feedback

💡 Tip: The color-coded legend will stay visible as you scroll through student work.

Feedback Focussing on Evaluation

Topic: 12 Marker: Should nations rely on collective defence alliances, or is self-reliance a stronger strategy? Class Eval Avg: 4.6 / 10

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

Teacher Next Steps

📊 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)

View A(Professor Sarah Malik)
View B(Dr Owen Farrell)
Evaluation(Judgement)
Hover text for comments
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.

Candidate 03459

Word Count: ~180 words (320 - 340 words are expected)
Evaluation Score: 4/12
View A(Professor Sarah Malik)
View B(Dr Owen Farrell)
Evaluation(Judgement)
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."

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer these 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.

1. One of your targets is to 'Directly Compare Arguments'. Which of these sentences does that most effectively?

2. The 'Develop Your Points' target suggests using the 'Because' Rule. Why is this important?

3. Your feedback mentioned that your 'Own Knowledge' at the end was confused. What is the best way to use your own knowledge in an essay like this?

4. What does the 'E' for 'Explain' in the P.E.E.L structure require you to do?

Candidate 18926

Word Count: ~235 words (320 - 340 words are expected)
Evaluation Score: 7/12
View A(Professor Sarah Malik)
View B(Dr Owen Farrell)
Evaluation(Judgement)
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."

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer these 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.

1. Based on your feedback, what is the key technique for moving from Level 2 to Level 3 evaluation?

2. Your feedback mentions you made a good point about 'unreliable partnerships'. What was a strength of this part of your answer?

3. How can you improve your use of 'own knowledge', like your point about NATO being a 'bully'?

4. What does it mean to 'sustain your argument'?

Candidate 20876

Word Count: ~426 words (320 - 340 words are expected)
Evaluation Score: 7/12
View A(Professor Sarah Malik)
View B(Dr Owen Farrell)
Evaluation(Judgement)
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."

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer these 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.

1. The feedback suggests you should move beyond calling an argument 'great' or 'valid'. What is the best way to do this?

2. Your example about the USA was identified as a weakness. Why?

3. The feedback praised your use of 'own knowledge'. Which of these was a good example of this in your essay?

4. What does 'directly comparing' arguments mean?

Candidate 36091

Word Count: ~180 words (320 - 340 words are expected)
Evaluation Score: 5/12
View A(Professor Sarah Malik)
View B(Dr Owen Farrell)
Evaluation(Judgement)
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."

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer these 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.

1. One of your targets is 'Directly Compare Arguments'. What is the best way to do this?

2. To improve, you need to give more detail to Dr. Farrell's argument. Which of these points did Dr. Farrell make in the source?

3. Your feedback suggests using more precise evaluative language. Which of these phrases is the strongest example of this?

4. Your answer was praised for its clear structure. What was the first thing you did that made it easy to follow?

Candidate 4131

Word Count: ~204 words (320 - 340 words are expected)
Evaluation Score: 3/12
View A(Professor Sarah Malik)
View B(Dr Owen Farrell)
Evaluation(Judgement)
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."

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer these 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.

1. According to your feedback, what is the best way to improve your evaluation?

2. Your feedback mentioned a factual error. When was NATO actually formed?

3. One of your targets was to use the source more accurately. What term did Professor Malik use that was slightly misread in your answer?

4. Which of these sentences shows the strongest direct comparison, as suggested in your targets?

Candidate 4145

Word Count: ~130 words (320 - 340 words are expected)
Evaluation Score: 4/12
View A(Professor Sarah Malik)
View B(Dr Owen Farrell)
Evaluation(Judgement)
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."

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer these 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.

1. You wrote that Dr. Farrell "overexaggerates his point". What is the best way to improve this statement?

2. Your feedback suggests you should use more "specific source details". What would be a good example of this?

3. What does "directly compare arguments" mean?

4. Your point about 'economical problems' was a strength. According to your targets, what is the best way to make it a high-level evaluation point?

Candidate 42201

Word Count: ~31 words (320 - 340 words are expected)
Evaluation Score: 1/12
View A(Professor Sarah Malik)
View B(Dr Owen Farrell)
Evaluation(Judgement)
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."

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer these 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.

1. One of your targets is to use the P.E.E.L. method. What do the two 'E's stand for?

2. To get the highest marks for evaluation, what must you do?

3. Your feedback suggests using short quotes from the sources. Which of these is a good example of using a quote effectively?

4. Your answer correctly identified that Dr. Farrell is worried about countries losing their freedom. What is the correct political term for a country's independence and right to govern itself?

Candidate 4229

Word Count: ~180 words (320 - 340 words are expected)
Evaluation Score: 5/12
View A(Professor Sarah Malik)
View B(Dr Owen Farrell)
Evaluation(Judgement)
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."

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer these 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.

1. One of your targets is 'Direct Comparison'. Which of these sentences best demonstrates this skill?

2. Your feedback mentions using the P.E.E.L structure. What does the 'L' in P.E.E.L stand for?

3. A key strength you showed was 'Applying Own Knowledge'. How can you make this even better, based on your targets?

4. Why is it important to use the correct names of the writers from the sources?

Candidate 4252

Word Count: ~181 words (320 - 340 words are expected)
Evaluation Score: 4/12
View A(Professor Sarah Malik)
View B(Dr Owen Farrell)
Evaluation(Judgement)
Page 2

Writing Task: 12 mark question (conflicting beliefs)

Candidate number: 4252 Date: (Citizenship)

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

Meaning not only is nato inssuring any county with Doin's the organisation's scely but premy's warm on resaucs on the millatry Secondly Dr. owen Say's indapence gives a Country Compete indepence and freedoom to prore their own intrest but this is how country's end up building empires where lead to eventuall war's. [illegible] Instead if countrys groupen up on smual resouce's even if one country provide's mere then other e this would avoid war's over conflict's but men countries builds band's like nato intended.
Quality of Evaluation Okay. You have made a clear judgment and started to evaluate the sources by challenging one of the writer's ideas. This is a great start. However, your arguments are not yet developed enough to reach the higher levels. You identify points from the sources but don't explain them in detail, and your own reasoning needs more support to be convincing. The lack of clarity in some sentences also makes it difficult for the examiner to follow your logic and award marks.
Developing Your Evaluation: You wrote, "...this is how country's end up building empires where lead to eventuall war's." To improve this, you could explain your thinking more clearly, like this: "While Dr. Farrell argues for the freedom of self-reliance, this could be a significant risk. If a powerful country acts only in its own interest, as he suggests, it could lead to aggressive expansion to secure resources, similar to how empires were built in the past. This often resulted in major wars, which directly contradicts the goal of national security. Therefore, Professor Malik's idea of cooperation within an alliance seems like a safer path to peace."

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer these 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.

1. According to your targets, what does the 'E' in the P.E.E.L. technique stand for?

2. One of your strengths was directly challenging a writer's view. What is this skill called?

3. What is a good way to structure your answer to a 'which writer do you agree with most' question?

4. When you make an evaluative point (like "this leads to war"), what is the most important next step to get more marks?

Candidate 4304

Word Count: ~196 words (320 - 340 words are expected)
Evaluation Score: 4/12
View A(Professor Sarah Malik)
View B(Dr Owen Farrell)
Evaluation(Judgement)
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."

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer these 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.

1. Your feedback says you should "Develop Your Points". What does this mean?

2. Which of these phrases is best for directly comparing two arguments?

3. What was the main issue with the judgment in your answer?

4. What simple technique was suggested to help improve the clarity of your writing?

Candidate 4352

Word Count: ~127 words (320 - 340 words are expected)
Evaluation Score: 5/12
View A(Professor Sarah Malik)
View B(Dr Owen Farrell)
Evaluation(Judgement)
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."

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer these 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.

1. One of your targets is "Direct Comparison". What does this mean?

2. A key strength was that you evaluated the quality of Dr. Farrell's evidence. How can you develop this skill further?

3. Why is it important to use specific language or short quotes from the sources?

4. To improve your structure, you were advised to use P.E.E.L. What is the main benefit of this?

Candidate 60478

Word Count: ~154 words (320 - 340 words are expected)
Evaluation Score: 3/12
View A(Professor Sarah Malik)
View B(Dr Owen Farrell)
Evaluation(Judgement)
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."

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer these 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.

1. What is a good way to directly compare the two writers' arguments?

2. You identified that NATO has "combined military strength". According to your targets, what is the best next step to improve this point?

3. You correctly used a quote from Dr. Farrell. Why is using direct evidence from the sources a good strategy?

4. Your feedback noted a misunderstanding about the 9/11 example. What is the most important first step when using a point from a source?

Candidate 72189

Word Count: ~303 words (320 - 340 words are expected)
Evaluation Score: 7/12
View A(Professor Sarah Malik)
View B(Dr Owen Farrell)
Evaluation(Judgement)
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."

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer these 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.

1. One of your targets is to 'Develop Direct Comparison'. What is the best way to do this?

2. When using your own knowledge to challenge a source, what is the most important thing to do?

3. The feedback suggests you should 'Deepen Your Analysis'. How could you do this?

4. Why was starting your answer with a clear judgement identified as a strength?

Candidate 79162

Word Count: ~138 words (320 - 340 words are expected)
Evaluation Score: 5/12
View A(Professor Sarah Malik)
View B(Dr Owen Farrell)
Evaluation(Judgement)
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."

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer these 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.

1. Your feedback asks you to use 'Direct Comparison'. What does this mean?

2. Which of these phrases is the best example of the 'evaluative language' your feedback recommends?

3. Your feedback says you need to "Explain 'Why'". What does this mean you should do after making a judgment?

4. Based on your feedback, what is the most important skill to work on to move from a Level 2 to a Level 3 mark?

© 2026 Chris Mitchell | The Marking Project | All Rights Reserved
Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or modification of this system is strictly prohibited.