Feedback Focussing on Evaluation — 12 Marker: Is the UK's unwritten constitution fit for purpose

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

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

Teacher Next Steps

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

📊 Skill Assessment Overview (QLA)

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

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

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

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

Student-by-Student Breakdown

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

Suggested Intervention Groups

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

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

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

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

📄 Source Passages

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

Simon Bridges — Low Taxes Should Be the Priority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

💡 Own Knowledge You Could Have Used

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

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

Model Answer (Exemplar)

Evaluation Score: 10/10

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

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

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

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

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

Strengths

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

Targets

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

Candidate 0197

Word Count: ~162 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

I mainly agree with Professor Evelyn Reed as he thinks change shouldn't require constitutional crises. Some people may agree with Dr Julian Croft more as he believes every citizen should be able to read & understand a written constitution. I mostly agree with Professor Evelyn as i agree that unwritten constitution is one of its greatest strengths. an advantage of an unwritten constitution is how it is stable & flexible, creating a more effective system. This means that there's a far more democratic arrangement, which has provided stable governance for centuries. However, I disagree with writer Dr Julian Croft as he beliefs an unwritten constitution is dangerous for the modern world & has many weaknesses and i disagree with this as i because i believe an unwritten constitution actually strengthens the government. In conclusion i agree with Professor Evelyn as our system can evolve organically to meet new challenges.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have a clear point of view and you stick to it, which is great. You correctly identify the main arguments from both writers. The next step is to move from just stating your opinion to explaining *why* you hold it, using evidence and deeper reasoning. At the moment, you are mostly summarising the source you agree with and asserting your disagreement with the other, without much development.

Developing Your Evaluation: Let's look at your sentence: "...I disagree with this as i because i believe an unwritten constitution actually strengthens the government." You could develop this by adding 'why': "...I disagree with this. While Dr Croft worries about an 'elective dictatorship', I believe the flexibility of an unwritten constitution actually strengthens the government by allowing it to pass laws quickly in a crisis, like during the Covid-19 pandemic, without being blocked by constitutional rules. This shows it is effective and fit for purpose."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion on the writers clearly at the start, in the middle, and at the end. This gives your answer a strong focus.
Direct Comparison: You use words like 'However' and 'I disagree' to directly challenge the view you don't support. This is a key feature of evaluation.

Targets

Explain 'Why': After making a point (e.g., 'it strengthens the government'), always ask yourself 'why?' or 'how?'. Explain your reasoning. For example, *how* does flexibility make the government stronger or more democratic?
Use Own Knowledge: To reach the higher marks, you need to include your own specific examples. Could you mention Brexit, the Human Rights Act, or the power of the Supreme Court to support your points?
Develop Both Sides: Your evaluation of Professor Reed is more detailed than your evaluation of Dr Croft. Try to explain the strengths or weaknesses of Dr Croft's argument in more detail, even if you disagree with him. For example, why is his point about clarity for citizens a strong one?
Word Count: Your answer is quite short. By adding more detailed explanations and examples (your 'why' and 'own knowledge'), you will naturally increase your word count and the depth of your analysis.

Candidate 10897

Word Count: ~85 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 3/10

I believe Professor Evelyn Reed is correct and the one I agree with the most. The reason why I believe this is because it comes with great strengths and is remarkably flexible. Codified (written) Constitutions are considered more difficult to change. That means the system can evolve organically. Uncodified constitution - not all also allows power not to be abused (be easily prevented). This combination of tradition, flexibility and accountability has improved and served the - is country well, providing stable and de - mocratic governance for centuries.

Quality of Evaluation Asserted. Your answer makes a clear judgment and selects some relevant points from Professor Reed's argument to support it. However, it reads more like a summary of one side than an evaluation of the debate. To improve, you must engage with the counter-arguments from Dr. Croft and explain *why* you disagree with them. Your own reasoning is currently undeveloped, as you are mostly repeating phrases from the source.

Developing a Point with Evaluation: For example, instead of your sentence about power being prevented from abuse, you could evaluate the point like this: "While Professor Reed argues that the flexibility of the constitution is a key strength, Dr. Croft would counter that this same flexibility means citizens' rights are not properly protected. I find Reed's argument more persuasive because checks and balances like judicial review, although criticised by Croft as weak, do provide a way to challenge the government, showing that power is not absolute."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the very start, which gives your answer a good focus.
Using the Source: You have successfully identified and used key arguments from Professor Reed's text, such as the idea of flexibility and organic evolution.

Targets

Engage with Both Sides: Your answer only discusses Professor Reed. To get higher marks, you *must* also explain Dr. Croft's arguments and then explain why you disagree with them. For example, mention his idea of an 'elective dictatorship'.
Develop Your Reasoning (PEEL): Instead of just stating a point from the source, explain it in your own words and analyse *why* it is a strength or weakness. Use the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link (PEEL) structure to build your paragraphs.
Use Your Own Knowledge: Try to include a real-world example. For instance, when discussing flexibility, you could mention how the constitution adapted to include devolution for Scotland and Wales without a major crisis.
Increase Word Count: A score in the top bands requires a much more detailed answer. Aim for around 320-340 words to give yourself space to develop both sides of the argument fully.

Candidate 16908

Word Count: ~159 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I mostly agree with writer Evelyn Reed. They suggest an unwritten constitution is one of the greatest powers the uk has to offer. I agree with this because it means that the constitutional is able to constantly [illegible] evolve and meet new standards. They also suggest robust checks and balances that prevents the abuse of power. I strongly agree with this as it makes the constitution fair. However, I disagree with the argument given by the writer Julian Croft. [illegible] this is because they suggest that the unwritten constitution is an outdated relic. [illegible] I disagree with this because [illegible] without it the constitution could be less flexible. and unable to meet certain requirements. Overall I agree [illegible] more with writer [illegible] Evelyn Reed due to the fact that an unwritten constitution allows the constitution to constantly evolve and streng then its abilities due to it being flexible. It [illegible] has also been a stable democratic government for years.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have a clear structure and make judgments on both writers' arguments. You correctly identify key points from the source and state whether you agree or disagree. However, your reasoning is often too simple and repeats the source's ideas without adding your own knowledge or deeper explanation. To improve, you need to explain your points in more detail and use specific examples.

Developing Your Reasoning: Here's how you could have improved your weakest sentence:
Your version: "I strongly agree with this as it makes the constitution fair."
An improved version: "I strongly agree with Reed's point about checks and balances. For example, the use of judicial review means the government can't just ignore its own laws, which keeps its power in check and ensures fairness for citizens. This shows the constitution is working to protect people."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have a great structure for your answer. You clearly state your view on Reed, then your view on Croft, and finish with an overall conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Good Use of Sources: You have successfully picked out the main arguments from both writers, such as the constitution's flexibility (Reed) and it being an 'outdated relic' (Croft). This shows you understood the text.

Targets

Develop Your Reasoning: When you make a point like "it makes the constitution fair," you need to explain *how*. For example, how do checks and balances stop the abuse of power? Give a specific example, like select committees questioning a minister.
Introduce Own Knowledge: To get higher marks, you must include your own knowledge. You could have mentioned a specific law like the Human Rights Act 1998, or a real-world example of judicial review, to support your arguments.
Directly Challenge the Other Side: When you disagree with Croft, don't just repeat Reed's point. Try to tackle Croft's argument head-on. For example, challenge his idea that it's 'unclear' by arguing that this lack of clarity is actually what makes it so flexible and strong.
Expand Your Answer: At 159 words, your answer is too brief to allow for detailed evaluation. Aim for around 320-340 words. This will give you the space to add the extra detail, examples, and deeper reasoning needed for top marks.

Candidate 17629

Word Count: ~131 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

9Q/ci2

Professor Evelyn Reed is pro agreeing that the UK's unwritten constitution is fit for purpose for many have a numerous reason while Dr. Julian Croft disagrees with many good points as well.

Although I agree with Professor Evelyn Reed because the UK's unwritten constitution does fit for purpose, examples like our constitution do robust checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. Another example is parliamentary sovereignty, this allows supreme legal authority in the hands of the elected House of Commons.

But However, I disagree with writer Dr. Julian. They suggest that parliamentary sovereignty creates risk of "elective dictatorship" while the House of Commons is made up of multiple people. Overall I agree with writer Evelyn because of the checks and balances to prevent abuse of power.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have the right idea by making a judgment and trying to challenge the opposing view. However, your reasoning is currently too brief and needs more detail to be convincing. For example, your counter-argument to the 'elective dictatorship' point is a good start, but it doesn't fully explain *how* having multiple people in the Commons prevents a powerful government from dominating. To reach the higher marks, you need to develop these evaluative points with more explanation and specific knowledge.

Developing Your Evaluation: Here's how you could have strengthened your point about the 'elective dictatorship':
"I disagree with Dr. Croft's point about an 'elective dictatorship'. While a government may have a majority, the House of Commons contains opposition parties and powerful select committees whose job it is to scrutinise every government action. This constant challenge and public debate makes it much harder for a government to simply force through any law it wants without facing consequences, weakening the claim that it is a dictatorship."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have a good structure. You introduce both writers, state your own view, use evidence from the source, and then try to challenge the opposing view. This is the correct method for an evaluation question.
Using Source Evidence: You effectively selected key arguments from both sources to discuss, such as 'checks and balances' from Professor Reed and 'elective dictatorship' from Dr. Croft. This shows you have understood the core of their arguments.

Targets

Explain, Don't Just State: When you use a point from the source, like 'checks and balances', explain *why* it is a strength. For example, you could say "the checks and balances are effective because they ensure the government cannot act unlawfully, which protects citizens."
Deepen Your Counter-Arguments: Your attempt to challenge the 'elective dictatorship' idea is a good starting point. To improve, explain your reasoning fully. Instead of just saying there are 'multiple people', explain *how* opposition parties, or even MPs from the government's own party, can limit a government's power.
Bring in Own Knowledge: To boost your mark, try to add a specific piece of your own knowledge. When discussing checks and balances, you could have mentioned the role of the Supreme Court in using judicial review, or named a specific select committee.
Increase Word Count: Your answer is very brief. Aiming for the recommended 320-340 words will give you the space to develop your points in the detail needed for the higher marks, turning simple points into well-explained evaluation.

Candidate 19207

Word Count: ~149 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

I mostly agree with writer Proffesor Evelyn Reed. They suggest that a uncodified constitution is fit for purpose. They also suggest that codified constitutions are not fit for purpose. I strongly agree with this writer because uncodified constitutions are flexible and stable. This constitution has providing security and democratic governance for centuries. However, I disagree with the argument given by the writer Dr. Julian Webb. They suggest that the unwritten constitution is dangerously weak for the modern world. And I disagree with this because the unwritten constitution has served the country well for a long time. They also suggest that a written constitution would be stronger and I disagree with this because it is not flexible, traditional and it hasn't served the country as well as the unwritten constitution. Overall I agree with writer Proffesor Evelyn Reed because of the benefits and how the unwritten constitution has served us.

Quality of Evaluation Undeveloped. You have made a clear and consistent judgement throughout your answer, which is great. You also select relevant points from the sources to support your view. However, your reasoning is superficial. You state that you disagree with Dr Croft but you don't explain *why* his specific arguments about weak rights or an 'elective dictatorship' are wrong. To improve, you need to challenge the opposing view directly, rather than just repeating points from the writer you agree with.

Developing Your Evaluation: Instead of just disagreeing, try to challenge the specific point. For example, you could rewrite your point about Dr Croft like this:
"I disagree with Dr Croft's argument that the constitution is 'dangerously weak'. While he worries about an 'elective dictatorship', Professor Reed's point about parliamentary sovereignty is stronger because it ensures power rests with our elected MPs. This is more democratic than giving unelected judges the final say, which could happen with a codified constitution."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the start ("I mostly agree...") and maintain this position throughout your answer, which gives your writing a strong focus.
Using the Source: You have successfully identified the main arguments from both writers and used them to form the basis of your answer (e.g. 'flexible and stable').

Targets

Develop Your Reasoning: When you disagree with a writer, explain *why* their specific point is weak. For example, why is Dr Croft wrong to worry about an 'elective dictatorship'? This is called rebuttal and is key to evaluation.
Introduce Own Knowledge: To get into the top mark bands, you must include a piece of your own knowledge. You could have mentioned a specific law like the Human Rights Act 1998, or an example of a check and balance like Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs).
Weigh Up the Arguments: Instead of just agreeing with one side, try to compare the arguments directly. For example: "Although Dr Croft makes a valid point about clarity, Professor Reed's argument about flexibility is more persuasive because..."
Expand Your Answer: At 149 words, your answer is too brief to develop your points in enough detail. Aim for around 320-340 words to give yourself space to explain your reasoning fully.

Candidate 26190

Word Count: ~104 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 3/10

Professor Evelyn Reed Says Yes whilst Professor Julian Croft Says no. I personally agree with the professor. Professor ER says that ~~she~~ they agree to believe yes because the framework and governance is stable but extremely flexible essentially saying that if the Government can change and the anytime and the constitution can evolve over time without crisis. This is important because this means that the rules can change whenever an unwritten constitution helps because it is easier to change. The reason some may disagree is because if the constitution is a mix of the past which have serves or key rules and rights that we scattered into different laws.

Quality of Evaluation Limited. Your answer shows you have understood a key idea from each writer, which is a good starting point. However, there is very little evaluation. You state your own view at the start but don't explain it, and you only briefly explain why one of the points is important. To improve, you need to develop your points further, analyse both sides in more detail, and use this analysis to build a much stronger, well-supported conclusion.

Developing a Point: For example, you could develop Dr Croft's point like this: "Dr Croft would disagree, arguing that this flexibility is actually a weakness. He states that because key rules and rights are 'scattered' across different laws, the constitution is confusing and inaccessible. This is a significant problem because if citizens cannot easily understand their rights, it is much harder for them to hold the government to account, potentially leading to an 'elective dictatorship'."

Strengths

Identifies Both Sides: You clearly identify the core argument from both Professor Reed (flexibility) and Dr Croft (unclear/scattered laws).
Attempts Evaluation: You made a good start on evaluation with the phrase 'This is important because...', which shows you are thinking about the consequences of the arguments.

Targets

Develop Your Points (P.E.E.L): For every point you make from the source, explain it in your own words and then evaluate it. Ask yourself 'Why is this a strong/weak argument?' or 'What is the impact of this?'
Use the Source Directly: Quote or refer to specific phrases from the writers to make your points stronger. For example, you could mention Dr Croft's fear of an 'elective dictatorship' or Professor Reed's point about 'parliamentary sovereignty'.
Structure for a Conclusion: Don't state your opinion at the very start. Instead, analyse both writers' arguments first and then write a final paragraph that weighs them up and explains which one you find more convincing and why.
Word Count: Aim to write around 320-340 words. This will give you the space you need to develop your points, compare the two views, and write a proper conclusion.

Candidate 28896

Word Count: ~54 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 2/10

I get agree with professor evelyn because Reed because They sugest an uncodified constitution is fit for purpose and that professor evelyn reed and because written codified constitutions are dificult to change thone fore codified consititions cannot enfore new challanges. They also suggest that legal authority rests with the elected house

Quality of Evaluation Underdeveloped. This answer shows a basic understanding of Professor Reed's viewpoint but doesn't engage with the other side of the argument at all. To achieve a higher score, you must analyse both sources and use them to build a balanced argument before reaching a conclusion. The points you make are descriptive (saying what the source says) rather than evaluative (judging how strong the arguments are).

Developing a Point with Evaluation: Instead of just saying codified constitutions are 'dificult to change', you could evaluate this point like this: 'Professor Reed argues that the UK's uncodified constitution is more flexible, which is a significant advantage because it can adapt to modern issues like online safety laws without a major political crisis. This makes it more practical than a rigid, codified constitution, like the USA's, where changing the rules is a very slow and difficult process.'

Strengths

Clear Starting Point: You begin by clearly stating which writer you agree with. This gives your answer a clear direction from the start.
Identifying Key Arguments: You have successfully identified two of Professor Reed's main points: the flexibility of the constitution and the power of the elected House of Commons.

Targets

Analyse Both Sides: You only discussed Professor Reed's view. To get more marks, you must also explain Dr. Croft's arguments (e.g., the risk of 'elective dictatorship' or that rights are not protected) and compare them.
Move from 'What' to 'Why': Instead of just stating what the writers say, explain *why* their arguments are strong or weak. For example, *why* is it a good thing that 'legal authority rests with the elected house'? (Reed's view). Or *why* is it a bad thing? (Croft's view).
Use 'Own Knowledge': Try to bring in a real-world example to support a point. For instance, when discussing how the constitution can change, you could mention a specific Act of Parliament like the Human Rights Act 1998.
Develop Your Points: Your answer is very brief. Aim to write a full paragraph for each side of the argument, explaining their points in detail before you give your final judgment.

Candidate 37610

Word Count: ~135 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

I mostly agree with professor Evelyn Reed because By they Suggest that the unwritten constitution are easy to change, our system can evolve organically to meet new challenges I agree with this view because written or codified constitutions are difficult to change, therefore codified constitutions often cannot enforce new challenges. They also suggest that legal authority rests with the elected House of Commons, ensuring that power ultimately lies with the people's representative. And I strong agree with this because this is far more democratic arrangement. However Some may disagree with the arguement given by Professor Evelyn Reed because the suggest the unwritten constitution is a relic of the past that is dangerously unfit for the modern world, and I disagree with this because although we live in a modern world things can happen and we dont know

Quality of Evaluation Underdeveloped. You have started to build an argument by selecting points from both writers and stating your own opinion. However, your evaluation is very limited. You often repeat the source's own reasoning rather than developing your own ideas, and your final point is too vague to be credited. To improve, you must explain your judgements in more detail and use your own knowledge.

Developing Your Reasoning: Let's look at your final sentence: '...I disagree with this because although we live in a modern world things can happen and we dont know'. A stronger version would be: 'However, I disagree with Dr Croft's view. While a modern world presents challenges, the flexibility of our unwritten constitution, as Reed argues, is exactly what allows us to respond to unexpected events like the need for emergency Covid legislation, which a rigid, codified constitution might have slowed down.'

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have structured your answer well, dealing with Professor Reed first and then bringing in the counter-argument from Dr Croft. This is the right way to approach an evaluation question.
Direct Use of the Source: You have successfully identified key ideas from both writers to support your points, such as the constitution being 'easy to change' and a 'relic of the past'.

Targets

Explain 'Why': After you state your opinion (e.g., 'I agree because...'), always explain your reasoning in your own words. Don't just repeat the source. Ask yourself 'Why is this more democratic?' or 'Why is flexibility a good thing?'
Use Specific Examples: Your answer needs your own knowledge. Could you have mentioned a specific law that was changed easily (e.g., on same-sex marriage) to prove Reed's point? Or a controversy where the government was accused of having too much power (e.g., Brexit legislation) to support Croft's view?
Avoid Vague Language: Your final point ('things can happen and we dont know') is too general. Be specific. What 'things'? How does this connect to the constitution? Always aim for precise, clear arguments.
Develop Both Sides: Your analysis of Dr Croft's argument is much weaker than your analysis of Professor Reed's. To get a higher score, you need to engage with the counter-argument in more detail, even if you are going to disagree with it.

Candidate 6078

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

Evaluation Score: 3/10

In my opinion I agree with professor Evelyn Reed, because the uk Constitution is more flexible and stable without a Codified Constitution. I also agree with this statement because the uncodified constitution gives more power to the public rather than the unelected Judges in supreme Courts. I disagree with Julian Croft because he says that the government looks weak because the power is given to the public which shows how he dose not want the public to have power.

Quality of Evaluation Underdeveloped. You begin with a clear judgment and use points from Professor Reed's argument to support your view, which is a good start. However, your evaluation is very one-sided and is based on a significant misunderstanding of Dr Croft's argument. He believes the government is too powerful, not too weak. To improve, you must accurately explain both sides before judging which one is stronger.

Developing your evaluation of Dr Croft: Instead of your final sentence, you could have shown you understood his point and then argued against it, like this: "Although Dr Croft raises a concern about an 'elective dictatorship' where the government becomes too powerful, Professor Reed's view is more convincing. Reed points out that checks like judicial review and select committees already exist to limit government power, suggesting Croft's fears may be exaggerated."

Strengths

Clear Judgment: You start with a very clear statement saying which writer you agree with. This gives your answer a good, assertive focus from the beginning.
Using the Source: You have successfully picked out two key arguments from Professor Reed's text ('flexible and stable' and 'power to the public') to support your view.

Targets

Engage with Both Sides Fairly: Your main target is to understand and accurately represent the arguments of *both* writers. You misunderstood Dr Croft's point – he fears the government is too *strong* (an 'elective dictatorship'), not too weak. Always make sure you understand both views before you criticise one.
Develop Your Reasoning (The 'Why'): Instead of just stating a point, explain *why* it's a strong or weak argument. For example, *why* is flexibility more important than the clarity that Dr Croft wants? This 'why' is the key to evaluation.
Use 'Weighing Up' Language: Try using phrases that compare the arguments, such as "While Croft makes a valid point about..., Reed's argument is more convincing because...". This shows the examiner you are thinking critically and evaluating.
Expand Your Answer: A higher-scoring answer needs more detail. Aim to write more (around 320-340 words) to give yourself space to explain both sides properly and develop your own judgment with clear reasons.

Candidate 60789

Word Count: ~27 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 2/10

Overall I agree with professor Evelyn Reed because it is safe easy to change laws and more flexible and it also gives power to the public.

Quality of Evaluation Minimal. This is a good start because you make a clear judgement and pick out some key ideas from Professor Reed's argument. However, the answer is extremely brief and only looks at one side of the debate. To evaluate, you need to explain the points you are making and weigh up the strengths from one writer against the weaknesses raised by the other. Currently, this is a short list of points rather than a developed evaluation.

Developing a Point with Evaluation: For example, instead of just saying it's 'flexible', you could write: "Professor Reed's strongest argument is that the unwritten constitution is flexible, which means it can adapt to modern challenges without a major crisis. This is a significant advantage because society is always changing. However, Dr. Croft would argue this very flexibility is a weakness, as it means rights can be easily removed by Parliament, making the system less safe for citizens."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start with a very clear statement of your overall view ('I agree with professor Evelyn Reed'). This is a great way to begin an evaluative essay.
Using the Source: You have successfully picked out two key arguments from Professor Reed's text – that the constitution is 'flexible' and that it 'gives power to the public'.

Targets

Explain Your Points (PEEL): For every point you make, explain it in more detail. Why is being 'flexible' a good thing? How does it 'give power to the public'? Use the PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) structure to build your paragraphs.
Engage with Both Sides: To get higher marks, you must evaluate both writers. After explaining one of Reed's points, bring in a counter-argument from Dr. Croft. For example, "While Reed sees flexibility as a strength, Croft argues this makes citizens' rights vulnerable..."
Increase Depth and Word Count: Your answer is very brief. Aim to write a detailed paragraph for each side of the argument before writing your final conclusion. This will naturally increase your word count and allow you to add the necessary detail for a higher score.
Use Evaluative Language: Instead of just listing points, use phrases that show you are weighing them up. For example: "Reed's most convincing argument is...", "However, a significant weakness in this view is...", or "On balance, the evidence suggests..."

Candidate 62791

Word Count: ~261 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

In my opinion I agree with the UKs unwritten constitution being fit for purpose because it provides a framework for governance that are both stable, and remarkably and flexible. Its a dynamic mix of statue law, common law and convention:

A reason why someone might agree with the following statment is because an unwritten constitution because it provides robust checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. This ensures that power ultimetly lies with the peoples representatives. This ability to change without constitutional ensure crises is a sign of a mature and effective system.

On the other hand when someone would disagree with the unwritten constitution being fit for purpose could be because its dangerously unfit for the medoin world. its greatest weakness is lack of clarity. This makes having an unwritten constitution creates uncertainty about the true limits of government power. liberties are therefore not protected, they exist only at the pleasure of government.

Overall I agree think that having an unwritten constitution is more beneficial because it has provided stable and democratic goverence for centuries, at the same time ensuring public bodies act lawfully and fairly.

Quality of Evaluation A good start. You have done a great job of explaining the arguments from both Professor Reed and Dr Croft, showing you understand the source. You also make a clear decision about who you agree with. To improve, you need to move from describing their ideas to evaluating them. This means directly comparing their arguments in your main paragraphs and explaining *why* one is more convincing than the other, rather than just explaining them separately.

Developing Evaluation: Here's how you could have evaluated Dr Croft's point instead of just describing it:
"Although Dr Croft makes a valid point that the unwritten constitution can lack clarity, which could put citizens' rights at risk, Professor Reed's argument about flexibility is ultimately more convincing. For example, the ability to adapt laws quickly, such as passing emergency legislation during the Covid-19 pandemic, shows a key strength that a rigid, written constitution might not allow. Therefore, the risk of unclarity is a price worth paying for the practical benefit of an adaptable system."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have organised your ideas very well. You start with your opinion, explain one side, explain the other, and then conclude. This makes your answer logical and easy to follow.
Good Use of the Source: You have accurately selected and explained key arguments from both writers. This shows you have a solid understanding of the information you were given.

Targets

Move from 'What' to 'Why': Instead of just explaining *what* each writer says, focus on explaining *why* you find one argument stronger. Use phrases like: "Professor Reed's point is more persuasive because..." or "While Dr Croft is right about the lack of clarity, this is less important than flexibility because...".
Bring in Your Own Knowledge: To reach the top marks, add a specific example. When discussing rights, you could mention the Human Rights Act 1998. When discussing government power, you could mention a specific controversial law. This shows the examiner you can apply your learning.
Directly Compare the Arguments: Don't keep the two arguments in separate paragraphs. Try to make them 'talk' to each other. For example: "Dr Croft’s fear of an 'elective dictatorship' is countered by Professor Reed's point about 'robust checks and balances' like judicial review, which in my view is a strong enough protection because..."

Candidate 67128

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

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I mostly agree with writer professor Evelyn Reed. They suggest that the UK's uncodified constitution is fit for purpose. I agree with this view because since the UK constitution is uncodified, that means that the constitution is flexible and can evolve over time without crisis. They also suggest that it provides stable and adaptable governance and I strongly agree because the constitution can be changed easily during crisis without struggle. However, I disagree with the argument given by Dr Julian Croft. They suggest that parlimentary sovereignty creates the risk of an elective dictatorship were the government has too much power. I disagree with this because there are checks and balances, such as judicial review and select committees. They also suggest that a single constitution is needed for clarity and to protect the [crossed out] of citizens and I disagree with this because the UK constitution is based off customs or tradition that provide a stable constitution. Another reason why I agree with professor Evelyn Reed is because they state that parliamentary sovereignty is democratic. I agree with this because it places the ultimate power to the political party with the highest number of votes. Overall I agree more with writer professor Evelyn Reed because of their statement on codified constitution

Quality of Evaluation Solid. You have a good understanding of the arguments from both sources and you make a clear judgement. You attempt to evaluate the points, especially when you use your own knowledge of checks and balances to challenge Dr Croft. However, your reasoning is often too simple and you describe the arguments more than you analyse them in depth. To improve, you need to develop each of your points with more explanation or a specific example.

Developing your reasoning: Here's how you could have strengthened your point about checks and balances:
"I disagree with Dr Croft's fear of an 'elective dictatorship' because it ignores the powerful checks and balances that exist. For example, the cross-party Health and Social Care Select Committee repeatedly challenged government ministers over their handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, forcing them to publicly justify their decisions. This shows that even a government with a large majority cannot simply act without scrutiny from Parliament."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have structured your answer well, dealing with Professor Reed first, then Dr Croft, before making a final judgement. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Using Own Knowledge: You brought in your own knowledge of 'judicial review and select committees' to challenge Dr Croft's argument. This is a crucial skill for reaching the higher marks.
Engaging with Both Sides: You made a good attempt to address the arguments from both writers, which is essential for a balanced evaluation.

Targets

Develop Your Reasoning: After making a point (e.g., 'the constitution is flexible'), always explain *why* this is a strength or weakness. Instead of just saying it can be 'changed easily during crisis', explain how this benefits the country (e.g., allowing for rapid law-making during the pandemic) and then maybe consider a downside to that speed.
Use Specific Examples: Your point about checks and balances was good, but it would be much stronger with a real-world example. Can you think of a time a select committee challenged the government, or a specific judicial review case? Examples turn a simple point into a powerful argument.
Strengthen Your Conclusion: Your final sentence stated your judgement but didn't explain *why*. A good conclusion should briefly summarise your main reasons. For example: "Overall, I agree more with Professor Reed because the flexibility she highlights has proven more valuable than the clarity Dr Croft calls for..."
Expand Your Word Count: Your answer is well below the target word count. Following the targets above, especially developing your points with explanations and examples, will naturally help you write a more detailed and higher-scoring response.

Candidate 68720

Word Count: ~101 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 3/10

disagree with this because over the years of reign of the uncodified British constitution, there has never been a major crisis regarding the checks and balances on the law, which means the current state of the constitution is much more fairer and ensures justice. Overall, I agree with writer B Evelyn Reed as they have a stronger analysis over the effectiveness of the Uncodified British constitution, with points such as Parliamentary sovereignty, the flexibility and adaptability and the effective checks and balances, such as judicial review.

Quality of Evaluation Undeveloped. Your answer makes a clear judgment and identifies some key arguments from the source. However, it doesn't develop these points or consider the other side of the argument at all. To get a higher mark, you need to explain *why* Professor Reed's points are strong and also explain and evaluate Dr. Croft's counter-arguments before reaching your conclusion.

Developing a Point with Evaluation: For example, instead of just listing 'flexibility', you could write: "Professor Reed's argument that the constitution is flexible is very persuasive. For instance, the UK was able to respond quickly to the pandemic by passing emergency laws, something that might have been much slower with a rigid, codified constitution. This shows its adaptability is a key strength in a crisis."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start and end your answer with a clear overall opinion, which is exactly what the examiner is looking for.
Identifies Key Arguments: You correctly picked out the main points from Professor Reed's argument, like 'flexibility' and 'judicial review', showing good reading comprehension.

Targets

Engage with Both Sides: Your answer only looks at one side. You must also discuss Dr. Croft's arguments (e.g., the risk of 'elective dictatorship') and explain why you find them less convincing.
Explain, Don't Just List (PEEL): Instead of just listing Reed's points, use the PEEL structure. Make your Point (e.g., flexibility is a strength), Explain it in your own words, provide an Example (like a recent law), and Link back to the question.
Check Your Sources: You confused the writers, agreeing with 'Writer B Evelyn Reed'. Professor Reed is Writer A. Taking a moment to double-check these details shows care and accuracy.
Word Count: Your answer is very short. Aim for around 320-340 words to allow you to develop points for both sides of the argument and provide a detailed, well-supported conclusion.

Candidate 72061

Word Count: ~201 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I mainly agree with the writer professor Evelyn. They suggest that the unwritten constitution is the best option for its purpose. I agree with this view becaus the writer Evelyn has very strong evidence to back it, such as the ability to change without constitutional crisis this shows a developed, flexible constitution. They also suggest that it is a dynamic mix of the statue law, common law and convention and I strongly agree with this because it makes the uncodified constitution flexible & adaptable. It also has served for over centuries which kept our country stable. However, I disagree with the argument given by writer Evelyn. The writer of the draft states that the uncodified constitution is dangerously unfit for modern world due to the lack of clarity it contains. Thus contradicting professor Evelyns statement. They also suggest that key rules, citizen's rights are scattered all over and vague in written 'constitutions'. This shows that the uncodified constitution is not a good fit to the world. Overall I agree with professor evelyns statement due to the overwhelming amount of rock-solid evidence backing up her statement. This shows that the uncodified constitution has stayed uncodified for many reasons and not just laziness.

Quality of Evaluation Good. You have a clear structure, looking at both sides of the argument before reaching a final judgment. You successfully pick out key arguments from the sources to support your points. To move into the higher mark bands, you need to develop your reasoning further. Instead of just stating that evidence is 'strong' or 'rock-solid', explain *why* it is strong in your own words and try to bring in a piece of your own knowledge to support your evaluation.

Developing your counter-argument: Here's how you could have developed your third paragraph more:
"On the other hand, Dr. Croft presents a compelling counter-argument that the constitution is 'dangerously unfit for the modern world'. His point about the lack of clarity is particularly strong because if citizens cannot easily understand their rights, it makes it harder for them to hold the government accountable. This directly challenges Professor Reed's idea of a stable system, suggesting it might be stable for the government but confusing for the people."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start and end your answer with a clear statement of which writer you agree with. This gives your writing a strong sense of direction.
Using Evidence: You are good at selecting specific points from the source material, such as "change without constitutional crisis" and the "dynamic mix" of laws, to back up your arguments.

Targets

Develop Your 'Why': When you agree with a point (e.g., flexibility is good), push yourself further. Explain *why* it's good. For example, flexibility allows Parliament to quickly pass new laws on modern issues like social media regulation, which a rigid constitution might struggle with.
Introduce 'Own Knowledge': To get top marks, you must include facts from your lessons. When discussing rights, you could have mentioned the Human Rights Act 1998 as a key law that protects citizens, even within our unwritten system.
Refine Your Structure: Be careful with how you introduce the other side of the argument. In paragraph 3, instead of "I disagree with... Evelyn", use a phrase like "However, Dr. Croft offers a contrasting view..." to make your line of reasoning clearer.
Expand Your Points: Your answer is a little short. By developing your 'why' and adding 'own knowledge' as suggested above, you will naturally add more depth and detail, which will also increase your word count.

Candidate 72609

Word Count: ~170 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I mostly agree with writer [illegible] Evelyn Reed they suggest that it a strong framework for the government, I agree with this view as the ability to change the constitution without the need of trouble. To add on to this, furthermore the checks and balances can successfully prevent abuse of power by member of parliament. These points make it a great addition and keeps the country stable I disagreed with the writer Julian Croft who suggested it was unfit. They say its very old and not modernized. However [illegible] the constitution could create huge problems and disagreements. The constitution also still benefits us and it being old isnt necessarily a bad thing as not only is it a collection of multiple rules made from [illegible] experiences its also been improved over multiple decades. These are the primary reasons I didn't agree with him. Overall I agreed with writer Evelyn Reed as its ability to be changed at any time and other factors outweigh its downsides.

Quality of Evaluation Some evaluation. You have made a good start here, Eren. You make clear judgments on both writers and give reasons for your opinions, which is the core of evaluation. However, your points are often stated without being fully explained or supported with specific examples from your own knowledge. This limits the depth of your analysis and keeps your mark in the middle band. To improve, you need to develop each point further.

Developing a point: Here's how you could have improved your point on checks and balances:
"Furthermore, Professor Reed is right that checks and balances can prevent abuse of power. For example, Parliamentary Select Committees can investigate the actions of government departments and question ministers directly. This scrutiny holds the government to account and shows how the current constitution effectively limits power, even without being a single written document."

Strengths

Clear Judgements: You don't just sit on the fence. You clearly state who you agree with (Reed) and who you disagree with (Croft) and you do this for both the individual paragraphs and the overall conclusion.
Good Structure: Your answer is well-structured. You deal with Professor Reed first, then Dr Croft, before giving a final conclusion. This makes your argument easy for the examiner to follow.
Direct Counter-Argument: Your best moment was when you challenged Dr Croft's idea that the constitution being "old" is a weakness. You argued that its age is a strength because it has been "improved over multiple decades," which is excellent critical thinking.

Targets

Develop Your Points (The 'Why' Test): After making a point, always ask yourself 'why?'. For example, "the ability to change the constitution without trouble" is a strength. *Why?* Because it allows Parliament to react quickly to new issues like social media regulation or global pandemics. Adding this next step will add depth.
Use Specific Own Knowledge: To move up the mark bands, you must include specific examples. When you mention "checks and balances," name one like 'Judicial Review' or 'Select Committees' and briefly explain what it does. This proves your understanding.
Engage More Deeply with the 'Weaker' Argument: When you disagree with Dr Croft, first show you understand *why* he thinks being old and unwritten is a problem (e.g., "Dr Croft argues its age makes it unclear and inaccessible to citizens..."). Then, explain why you think the benefits of tradition outweigh this. This creates a more detailed evaluation.
Aim for a Higher Word Count: The low word count is a sign that your points are not developed enough. By applying the targets above (explaining 'why' and adding examples), you will naturally write more and produce a more detailed, higher-scoring answer.

Candidate 76099

Word Count: ~135 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 3/10

I agree with professor Evelyn Reed because provide framework that is no for government governance that is both stable and remarked flexible And it provide stable and democratic governance for centurys It gives alot of Information unlike rigid, codified Constitut' and it is more harder. This also help because the supreme Legal authorh reset with the election House of Commons that power lis with with the people represen so, this changes the Leader So People can vote for a new Lead- And There Constit Provid robus checks and balance to proven the power of abuse which means they can't overe there power So They can't do things That other humans can't do bea all human have the same right of other human being you have the same right as everyone else no one is diffe..

Quality of Evaluation Underdeveloped. Your answer shows you have understood some of Professor Reed's main arguments, which is a good start. However, it is entirely one-sided and does not engage with Dr. Croft's views at all. To achieve a higher score, you must analyse both sides of the debate and use your own knowledge to explain which argument is more convincing and why. Your reasoning is currently too simple, often just rephrasing the source.

Developing a point: You wrote that there are "robus checks and balance". Here's how you could evaluate that point more deeply:
"While Professor Reed argues the constitution has 'robust checks and balances', this can be challenged. For example, Dr. Croft would argue that judicial review is weak because it can't strike down an Act of Parliament, only check if it was applied correctly. This suggests the government's power isn't as limited as Reed claims, especially if a government has a large majority."

Strengths

Clear Stance: You state which writer you agree with right at the start ("I agree with professor Evelyn Reed"). This gives your answer a clear focus from the beginning.
Using the Source: You have successfully picked out several key ideas from Professor Reed's argument, such as the constitution being 'flexible' and having 'checks and balances'.

Targets

Engage with Both Writers: To improve, you must also discuss Dr. Croft's arguments. Explain his points (e.g., the risk of 'elective dictatorship') and then explain why you disagree with them to support your judgment.
Develop Your Points: When you make a point, explain it further. For example, when you mention 'checks and balances', your next step is to name a specific one, like 'Judicial Review' or 'Select Committees', and explain how it works to limit power.
Use Specific Own Knowledge: Try to bring in specific examples from your studies. When discussing parliamentary sovereignty, you could mention a specific law Parliament has passed to show how powerful it is. This proves you have knowledge beyond the source.
Expand Your Answer: Your answer is very short. Aim to write more (around 320-340 words) to give yourself space to discuss both sides, add your own knowledge, and develop a well-reasoned conclusion.

Candidate 78169

Word Count: ~113 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

I agree with Professor Evelyn-Reed the most. This is because I believe that the UK's unwritten constitution means that there is less conflict between people and the government. This makes the UK more democratic as the people and those in power have less arguments about issues. However, someone may disagree with the statement because an unwritten constitution may limit citizens rights. The citizens rights being limited due to an unwritten constitution shows that in the case of the people, a written constitution may be better for the people. Overall I agree more with Professor Evelyn. This is because her view presents more things which are important in our society, such as a stable economy, and a stable democratic governance for the upcoming generations.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have the right structure for an evaluation question, looking at both sides and giving a judgment. However, your reasoning is currently too simple and doesn't use enough specific evidence from the source. To improve, you need to explain the arguments in more detail, using the exact ideas from the writers to support your points, rather than just stating your opinion.

Developing a point: Instead of repeating the point about rights, try explaining it with evidence from the source. For example: "Dr. Croft argues that citizens' rights are at risk because parliamentary sovereignty allows a government with a majority to create an 'elective dictatorship'. This means our fundamental freedoms could be removed by a simple Act of Parliament, which a written constitution with an entrenched Bill of Rights would prevent."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have a really clear essay structure: you argue for one side, consider the other, and then give a final conclusion. This is the perfect way to organise an evaluation answer.
Direct Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the start and end ("I agree with Professor Evelyn-Reed..."). This shows the examiner exactly what you are arguing and keeps your answer focused.

Targets

Use Specific Evidence: To get a higher score, you must use specific phrases and ideas from the source texts. Instead of saying there are 'less arguments', use Professor Reed's idea that the constitution is 'flexible' and can 'evolve over time without crisis'.
Explain Your Points (PEEL): Try to use the PEEL structure (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link). You make a point (e.g., 'an unwritten constitution may limit citizens rights'), but you need to *explain* it. Why does it limit rights? Use Dr. Croft's idea of an 'elective dictatorship' to explain this.
Increase Depth and Word Count: Your answer is very short. Aim to write a full paragraph for each side and a conclusion. In each paragraph, try to explain one or two key arguments from the source in your own words, showing you understand them fully.
Avoid Repetition: In your second paragraph, you repeat the same idea about rights being limited. Once you've made a point, focus on explaining and developing it with evidence rather than just stating it again.

Candidate 78196

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

Evaluation Score: 3/10

I mostly agree with writer Professor Evelyn Reed who suggests that the UK's unwritten constitution fit for purpose. I agree with this view because as the UK'S unwritten constitution is not written on a document it means that the UK system can evolve and then set up a new challenge. They also suggest that the UK constitution provides checks and balances which also means the courts hold government to account ensuring public bodies (citizens) can all be treated fairly by law. However, I disagree with the argument given by writer Dr. Julian Gof Croft who suggests the opposite of Professor Evelyn. I disagree with him because laws by codified constitution can be very difficult to change. Secondly codified constitution will not be stable as you won't be able to change laws In conclusion I agree with prof I Professor Evelyn Reed who agrees with the statement because the country can be improved.

Quality of Evaluation Superficial. Your answer identifies the main view of each writer and makes a judgment. However, your reasoning is undeveloped and doesn't engage properly with Dr. Croft's arguments. Instead of explaining why his points are wrong, you just repeat the arguments from Professor Reed. This means your evaluation is one-sided and lacks depth.

How to Evaluate a Counter-Argument: Instead of: "I disagree with him because laws by codified constitution can be very difficult to change." Try something like: "While Dr. Croft argues that the constitution is unclear and creates an 'elective dictatorship', I believe this is an exaggeration. Professor Reed's point about flexibility is more important, as it allows Parliament to respond quickly to new issues like terrorism or online safety, which would be much harder with a rigid, codified constitution that is difficult to change."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have structured your answer well, with an introduction, a counter-argument, and a conclusion. This makes your line of reasoning easy to follow.
Using the Source: You have correctly identified key arguments from Professor Reed's text, such as the constitution being flexible and having checks and balances.

Targets

Engage with the Other Side: When you disagree with a writer, explain *why their specific arguments are weak*. For example, why is Dr. Croft wrong to say our rights aren't protected? Don't just repeat the points from the writer you agree with.
Develop Your Points (The 'Why' Chain): After making a point, ask yourself 'why' it's important. For example: "the constitution can evolve". Why is this good? "Because it can meet new challenges". What kind of challenges? "Like the need for new laws on technology". This adds depth.
Use Own Knowledge: To reach the higher marks, you need to include a specific example that isn't in the source. You could have mentioned the Human Rights Act 1998 as an example of a law that protects rights, or a specific Supreme Court case.
Write More: Your answer is very short (138 words). To develop your points and include own knowledge, you need to aim for a much higher word count, around 320-340 words, to build a detailed argument.

Candidate 79628

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

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I mostly agree with writer Professor Evelyn reed. They suggest that the UK's unwritten constitution is flexible and fit for purpose. I agree with this view because an unwritten constitution can easily envolve over time without crisis. They also suggest that it is a stable system. And I strongly agree with this because it has been built on centuries of tradition such as statue law, common law and conventions. However, I disagree with the argument given by the writer Dr. Julian Croft. They suggest that parliamentary sovereignty creates the risk of an 'elective dictatorship' where the government has too much power and I disagree with this because the parliamentary sovereignty is democratic as it places ultimate power with elected representatives. They also suggest that existing checks

Quality of Evaluation Good start. You have the right structure for a strong answer. You make clear judgements and you have even started to use one writer's arguments to challenge the other, which is a high-level skill. However, your reasoning is a little brief and relies only on the information given in the sources. To improve, you need to develop your points further and bring in your own specific knowledge and examples.

Developing your evaluation: Instead of just stating the counter-argument, try explaining *why* it's stronger. For example:
"I disagree with Dr Croft's fear of an 'elective dictatorship'. The idea that parliamentary sovereignty is democratic is more convincing because it means the government is accountable to the people at elections. For example, if a government used its power to pass a very unpopular law, it would likely be voted out at the next general election, which is a powerful check that Dr Croft's argument ignores."

Strengths

Clear Judgements: You begin your paragraphs with very clear statements like "I mostly agree" and "I disagree". This gives your writing a strong, analytical focus from the start.
Using Sources to Argue: In your third paragraph, you effectively use Professor Reed's point about democracy to argue against Dr Croft's point about 'elective dictatorship'. This is an excellent evaluation technique.

Targets

Develop Your Points: After making a point, try to explain it further. For example, when you say the constitution is 'stable', explain *why* this stability is more important than the clarity Dr Croft wants. This adds depth to your evaluation.
Introduce Own Knowledge: To get top marks, you must include your own examples. When discussing 'checks and balances', could you name a specific Supreme Court case (like the prorogation of Parliament) or a powerful select committee (like the Public Accounts Committee) to support your argument?
Address More Arguments: You started to discuss Dr Croft's view on checks and balances. To create a fully balanced answer, make sure you evaluate at least two distinct points from each writer.
Increase Word Count: Your ideas are good but brief. Aiming for the 320-340 word range will give you the space you need to develop your points with the depth and detail required for the highest marks.

Candidate 81672

Word Count: ~162 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 5/10

I mostly agree with Professor Evelyn Reed. They suggest that the UK's uncodified Constitution is great because it is flexible. I agree with this statement because the UK's Constitution can be changed at will in case of a crisis. They also suggest that the UK has a more democratic arrangement. I agree strongly because I believe that the public should get a say in legal matters. However, I disagree with the argument given by Dr Julian Croft, they suggest that the UK's Constitution is unfit for the modern world. I disagree with this because the UK Constitution has been a working system for multiple generations. They also suggest that the Constitution is "lacking clarity". I strongly disagree with this because the UK Constitution allows for organic evolutions. It is also a mix of statute law, common law and conventions. (Page Two) Overall, I agree more with Professor Evelyn Reed because they mention the potential and the flexibility of the UK Constitution.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have a clear structure and have understood the main arguments from both writers. You make a judgment and use points from the source to support it. However, your reasoning is often too simple. To improve, you need to explain your points in more detail, showing exactly *why* one argument is stronger than another, rather than just stating that you agree or disagree.

Developing Your Reasoning: Here's how you could have improved your argument against Dr. Croft:
"I disagree with Dr. Croft's point about the constitution 'lacking clarity'. While he sees the mix of statute law, common law, and conventions as confusing, I see it as a strength, as Professor Reed suggests. This mixture allows for 'organic evolution', meaning the constitution can adapt to modern issues like online rights or terrorism without the huge political battle needed to change a single written document. This flexibility is more valuable than the rigid clarity Croft wants."

Strengths

Clear Structure: Your answer is well-structured. You deal with Professor Reed first, then Dr. Croft, and finish with a clear conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Direct Use of Sources: You have successfully picked out key arguments from both writers, such as 'flexibility' and 'lacking clarity', to build your answer around.
Clear Judgement: You state who you agree with at the very beginning and stick to your view throughout the answer, which is a key skill for this type of question.

Targets

Explain 'Why' In Detail: When you agree or disagree, always explain 'why' in more detail. For example, instead of just saying you believe the public should have a say, explain *how* parliamentary sovereignty (electing MPs to make laws) gives them that say.
Directly Compare Arguments: Make the writers 'argue' with each other in your answer. For example: "While Dr. Croft claims the constitution is unclear because it's a 'jumble', Professor Reed would argue this is a strength because it allows for organic evolution..."
Use 'Own Knowledge': To reach the top marks, you need to add a fact or example that isn't in the source. When discussing flexibility, you could mention a real law like the Coronavirus Act 2020 as an example of Parliament acting quickly in a crisis.
Develop Your Word Count: Your answer is quite short. Following the targets above will naturally help you to write more and add the depth needed to reach the top mark bands (which usually requires over 300 words).

Candidate 87610

Word Count: ~56 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 2/10

They also suggest that the unwritten constitution is relic because it is a great weakness and is a lack of clarity, key rules and citizens' rights are scattered across a jumble of diffrent laws. Overall I agree with writer Professor Evelyn Reed

Quality of Evaluation Limited. Your answer shows you have understood a key point from one of the writers, Dr. Croft. However, to evaluate, you need to analyse both sides of the argument. You state that you agree with Professor Reed, but you don't use any of her arguments to explain why. This means your judgment is asserted rather than proven. The response is also extremely brief for this style of question.

Developing a Judgment: Instead of just stating who you agree with, try linking it to the evidence. For example: "Overall, I agree with Professor Evelyn Reed. Although Dr. Croft makes a good point about the constitution being unclear, Reed's argument that it is flexible and can 'evolve organically' is more convincing because it means our system can adapt to modern challenges without a major crisis."

Strengths

Identifying an Argument: You have successfully pulled out and explained a key argument from Dr. Croft's text regarding the constitution's lack of clarity.
Making a Final Judgment: You have clearly stated which writer you agree with. This is the correct final step for an evaluation question – now you just need to build the argument to support it.

Targets

Explain Both Sides: To evaluate, you must show you understand both writers. Your next step is to also explain Professor Reed's arguments (e.g., her points about flexibility or parliamentary sovereignty).
Support Your Judgment: You agreed with Reed but used evidence from Croft. Always use the writer's own arguments to explain why you agree with them. For example: "I agree with Reed because..." and then use a quote or idea from her text.
Develop Your Points (P.E.E.L): Your answer is very brief. Try to write a full paragraph for each writer's view (Point, Evidence, Explain) and then a final paragraph for your conclusion (Link). This structure will help you add more detail and reasoning.
Resolve Contradictions: Be careful that the evidence you discuss logically leads to your conclusion. Here, you explained Croft's view but then sided with Reed, which is confusing for the examiner. Make sure your argument flows clearly.

Candidate 89170

Word Count: ~128 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 4/10

9b/ci2

I mostly agree with writer Professor Evelyn Reed. They suggest that the unwritten constitution is on of the UK's greatest strengths. I agree with this view because codyied constitution is more difficult to change as we have the ability to change without a constitutional crises. And I agree strongly with this because if a decision has been made to help and it is not successful it is not hard to change.

However I disagree with the argument given by writer Dr. Julean. They suggest that it is a great weakness and has a lack of clarity and I disagree with this because if it has a lot of pros that can help the UK and it ensures that public bodies act lawfully and fairly.

Overall I agree with writer Professor Evelyn Reed because they talk about fairness, how the constitution can strengthen us.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have a clear structure and you correctly identify the main arguments from both writers. You make a judgment and try to support it using the sources. However, your reasoning is currently quite simple and doesn't go into enough detail. To improve, you need to explain your points more deeply and try to challenge the writers' views directly instead of just stating your disagreement.

Developing Your Evaluation: Let's look at your point about Dr. Croft. Instead of just saying you disagree, try to challenge his idea directly. For example: "While Dr. Croft argues the constitution lacks clarity, this is not its greatest weakness. The flexibility identified by Professor Reed is more significant, as it allows Parliament to quickly pass laws in a crisis, such as the emergency Covid-19 legislation. This speed and adaptability is more important for the country than having a single document that is hard to change." Notice how this directly challenges one writer using a point from the other, and adds a piece of specific own knowledge (Covid laws).

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have a really clear essay structure. You introduce your view, look at the other side, and then conclude. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Using the Sources: You do a good job of picking out the key ideas from both Professor Reed and Dr. Croft, such as the constitution's flexibility and its lack of clarity.
Making a Judgment: You consistently state your own opinion ('I agree...', 'I disagree...'). This shows the examiner you are trying to evaluate the arguments, not just describe them.

Targets

Develop Your Reasoning (P.E.E.L): For each point you make, try to explain it in more detail. Use the P.E.E.L (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) structure. For example, after you make your point about flexibility, *explain why* being able to change things easily is a sign of a strong system. Does it make government more responsive?
Use Specific Own Knowledge: To reach the higher marks, you need to include your own knowledge. Could you think of a specific law that was changed easily? Or an example of a check and balance, like the Supreme Court's ruling on prorogation of Parliament? Adding a real-world example makes your argument much stronger.
Directly Challenge the Arguments: When you disagree with a writer, try to explain *why their specific point is weak*. You said you disagree with Dr. Croft's point on clarity. Why is he wrong? Is clarity less important than flexibility? Directly challenging the source shows a higher level of evaluation.
Increase Word Count: Your answer is quite short. By developing your explanations and adding your own knowledge (Targets 1, 2 and 3), you will naturally write more and be able to explore the arguments in the depth required for top marks.

Candidate 89628

Word Count: ~58 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 3/10

and balances are too weak to truly limit government power and I disagree with this because there is effective checks and balances such as judicial review and select committees. Overall I agree more with writer Professor Evelyn Reed because an unwritten constitution provides stable and adaptable governance.

Quality of Evaluation Undeveloped. You have made a clear judgment and used points from both writers, which is a great start. However, the answer is far too short to develop any real evaluation. Your reasoning is asserted by quoting the source rather than explaining the points in your own words to show you understand them. To improve, you must explain *how* and *why* the evidence you use supports your judgment.

Developing a point: Here's how you could have expanded on your first sentence:
"Dr Croft argues that checks and balances are too weak, but I find Professor Reed's view more convincing. For example, Reed highlights the role of select committees. These committees can hold government departments to account by questioning ministers and publishing critical reports, which can pressure the government to change its policies. This shows that there are effective mechanisms in place to scrutinise the executive, directly challenging Croft's claim of an 'elective dictatorship'."

Strengths

Clear Judgment: You state clearly which writer you agree with ('Overall I agree more with...'). This gives your answer a clear direction and focus.
Direct Comparison: You have started to compare the two views by disagreeing with Croft's point on weak checks and balances and using Reed's evidence ('judicial review and select committees') to support your view. This is a key skill for evaluation.

Targets

Develop Your Points (P.E.E.L): Your points are currently just stated. For every piece of evidence you use (like 'select committees'), you must explain *what it is* and *why it is an effective check on power*. This adds the detailed reasoning needed for higher marks.
Increase Word Count: Your answer is 58 words, but a top-level response needs around 320-340 words. This extra length is where you add the detailed explanation and analysis. Plan to write at least two paragraphs evaluating the arguments before your final conclusion.
Use More Evidence: To build a stronger argument, aim to discuss at least two different arguments from each writer. For example, you could have also compared their different views on parliamentary sovereignty or citizens' rights.
Use 'Evaluative Language': Instead of just saying 'I disagree', try using phrases that show deeper thinking, such as 'Professor Reed's argument is more convincing because...', or 'While Dr Croft makes a valid point, he overlooks the benefit of...'.

Candidate 89672

Word Count: ~88 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 3/10

9QCi2

Date: 13/03/26

I mostly agree with writer professer evelyn reed because they suggest that consiruhci is more flexible I agree with this view because its true they also suggest that parliamentary sovereignty is democratic as it place citinzense power with elected representatives and I strongly agree with this because it democratica.

However I disagree with the argument given by arauer because they said there are effective checks and balance, such as judicial review and their country although they also suggested and I disagree with this statement because they ted said effective.

Quality of Evaluation Developing. You have made a clear attempt to look at both sides of the argument and give your opinion, which is the right structure. However, your evaluation is currently based on assertion (e.g. "I agree because it's true") rather than developed reasoning. You also seem to have misunderstood Dr Croft's argument about checks and balances, attributing Professor Reed's view to him. This limits the quality of your evaluation.

Developing a point: Instead of "I disagree with this statement because they ted said effective", a more developed point would be:
"However, I disagree with Professor Reed's view that checks and balances are effective. Dr Croft makes a stronger point that they are too weak, as judicial review can only challenge the process of a decision, not the fairness of the law itself. This means a powerful government could still pass laws that damage citizens' rights, showing the current system is unfit for purpose."

Strengths

Addresses Both Writers: You have correctly structured your answer to respond to both Professor Reed and the second writer. This is a key skill for this question.
Selects Key Arguments: You successfully picked out two important arguments from Professor Reed's text – the constitution's flexibility and the democratic nature of parliamentary sovereignty.

Targets

Explain Your Reasoning: When you agree or disagree, always explain 'why' in detail. Instead of "I agree because it's true", try explaining *why* a flexible constitution is better in practice, perhaps by giving a hypothetical example.
Check Your Understanding: Be careful to match the right argument to the right writer. You stated that the second writer (Dr Croft) argued for 'effective checks and balances', but this was actually Professor Reed's point. Dr Croft argued they were weak. Always re-read the sources carefully.
Use Specific Details from the Source: To make your points stronger, use specific words or ideas from the text. For example, you could have mentioned 'elective dictatorship' from Dr Croft's argument to explain the dangers of parliamentary sovereignty.
Increase Your Word Count: Aim to write around 320-340 words. This gives you the space to explain each point in much more detail, which is essential for reaching the higher mark bands.

Candidate 98716

Word Count: ~244 words (320 - 340 words are expected)

Evaluation Score: 6/10

I mostly agree with writer Dr. Julian Croft. I agree because unwritten constitution is 'a relic of the past that is dangerously unfit for the modern world'. It's because it's greatest weakness is its lack of clarity. Key rules and citizens' rights are scattered accross a jumble of different laws, historical documents, and vague, unwritten conventions. This makes it inaccessible to the public and creates uncertainty about the true limits of government that every citizen can read and understand. Another way it doesn't fit its purpose is that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, far from being a strength, creates the risk of an 'elective dictatorship'. A government with a large majority can pass almost any law it chooses, even laws that might erode fundamental rights, without any higher constitutional authority to stop it. Our liberties are therefore not properly protected: they exist only at the pleasure of the government of the day and can be removed by a simple Act of Parliament. But on the other hand some may say that unwritten constitution fits its purpose. This is because at its hearts lies the clear principle of parliamentary sovereignty. This means that the supreme legal authority rests with elected House of Commons. This is for more demachratic arrangement that one where unelected judges in a supreme court have the final say on the validity of laws. In conclusion, I believe that UK's unwritten constitution does not fits its purpose because it is inaccessible to the public and creates uncertainty about the true constitution that every citizen can read and understand.

Quality of Evaluation Solid. This is a good attempt at an evaluation question. You make a clear and consistent judgment, supporting it well with evidence from Dr. Croft's argument. You also show you understand the counter-argument from Professor Reed. To improve, you need to move from explaining the two sides separately to making them 'argue' with each other in your answer. You also need to bring in your own knowledge to reach the higher marks.

Developing Your Evaluation: Here's how you could have directly compared the arguments: "...where unelected judges have the final say. However, this argument is not as convincing as Dr. Croft's. While having elected MPs make laws is democratic, the risk of an 'elective dictatorship' where they can remove our rights (like the right to protest) is too great. Therefore, I agree with Dr. Croft that the weak protection of rights makes the unwritten constitution unfit for purpose."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state which writer you agree with from the very first sentence and stick with this view throughout your answer. This gives your writing a clear focus.
Good Use of Evidence: You effectively select quotes and ideas from Dr. Croft's argument (like 'elective dictatorship' and 'lack of clarity') to explain and support your points.
Logical Structure: Your answer is well-structured. You explain your own view, consider the alternative, and then conclude, which is the correct approach for this type of question.

Targets

Directly Compare Arguments: Instead of explaining one writer and then the other, try to make them 'debate'. For example, after explaining Reed's point, say "However, Dr. Croft's view is more persuasive because..." and explain why.
Introduce Own Knowledge: To get top marks, you need a specific example from your own knowledge. When talking about rights being removed, you could have mentioned a specific Act of Parliament, like the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, to make your point stronger.
Develop Your Conclusion: Your conclusion restated your main point. A stronger conclusion would briefly summarise the main argument from *both* sides before explaining why one is more convincing than the other.
Expand on the Counter-Argument: You only used one of Professor Reed's points. To show a more balanced understanding, try to briefly explain another of her ideas, for example her point about the constitution's flexibility.

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 0197

Candidate 10897

Candidate 16908

Candidate 17629

Candidate 19207

Candidate 26190

Candidate 28896

Candidate 37610

Candidate 6078

Candidate 60789

Candidate 62791

Candidate 67128

Candidate 68720

Candidate 72061

Candidate 72609

Candidate 76099

Candidate 78169

Candidate 78196

Candidate 79628

Candidate 81672

Candidate 87610

Candidate 89170

Candidate 89628

Candidate 89672

Candidate 98716