Feedback Focussing on Evaluation

Model Answer (Exemplar)

Evaluation Score: 12/12

Word Count: ~360 words (320 - 360 words are expected)

I agree more with Professor David Chen because, while the UK has flexible tools like delegated legislation, the primary legislative process is far too slow to deal with modern technological threats. Dr. Sarah Jenkins argues that our uncodified constitution allows Parliament to "pass new laws relatively quickly" and use delegated legislation for technical updates. This is a fair point in emergencies, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic when the Coronavirus Act was passed in mere days. However, Professor David Chen is more convincing when he states the system is "dangerously slow and entirely ill-equipped" for fast-moving tech like AI. He is correct that Parliament lacks "specialized technical expertise," which means by the time a bill like the Online Safety Act passes through both Houses, it is often already outdated. Relying on unelected judges to fill these gaps through common law is, as Chen correctly notes, "undemocratic". Overall, Chen's argument is stronger. While Jenkins focuses on the theoretical flexibility of the system, Chen addresses the reality: the traditional, reactive nature of Parliament leaves society vulnerable to rapid cultural and scientific changes before the law can catch up.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Analysis of Sources Excellent. Both writers are referenced directly with integrated quotations. You demonstrate a clear understanding of Jenkins's points on flexibility and Chen's concerns about archaic, reactive processes.

2. Quality of Evaluation Sustained and clear. You provide a well-supported judgment by acknowledging Jenkins's valid points (using the COVID-19 example) but successfully arguing that Chen's points regarding modern technology are ultimately more pressing.

Strengths

Clear, sustained line of reasoning establishing a firm overall judgement.
Integrated quotes from both writers throughout.
Nuanced concession to the opposing side before firmly rejecting it.
Strong use of real-world examples (COVID-19 Act, Online Safety Act) to anchor your evaluation.

Targets

To secure full marks consistently, ensure you expand briefly on how the Law Commission or delegated legislation works when analyzing Jenkins's viewpoint.

📄 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.

Dr. Sarah Jenkins says YES

Our law-making system is remarkably effective at adapting to the rapid pace of scientific, cultural, and social change. The flexibility of our uncodified constitution means Parliament can pass new laws relatively quickly when urgent issues arise, without navigating the complex amendment processes required in countries with rigid constitutions. Furthermore, the system is supported by dedicated bodies like the Law Commission, which constantly reviews legislation to ensure it remains relevant and proposes necessary reforms to reflect modern societal values.

In addition to statutory law, our tradition of common law allows judges to interpret and apply existing legal principles to novel situations, providing an immediate response to emerging cultural and technological challenges. The use of delegated legislation also empowers government ministers to swiftly update regulations in technical areas, such as medical advancements or environmental standards, without waiting for full parliamentary time. Overall, this combination of parliamentary sovereignty, expert consultation, and judicial flexibility ensures our legal framework remains dynamic, relevant, and entirely fit for the modern age.

Professor David Chen says NO

Our current system of law-making is dangerously slow and entirely ill-equipped to keep pace with modern scientific and social advancements. The legislative process is archaic, often requiring months or even years for a bill to pass through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. By the time legislation regarding fast-moving technologies—such as artificial intelligence or social media regulation—finally receives Royal Assent, it is frequently already outdated.

Furthermore, Parliament is inherently reactive rather than proactive; lawmakers typically only address issues after significant public harm has occurred. There is also a severe lack of specialized technical expertise among politicians, leading to poorly drafted laws that fail to comprehend the nuances of complex scientific developments. While common law can adapt, relying on unelected judges to update the law through precedent is piecemeal and undemocratic. Ultimately, our cumbersome, traditional procedures leave society vulnerable to emerging threats and fail to adequately reflect rapidly shifting cultural norms and technological realities.

💡 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 Online Safety Act: An excellent example supporting Chen. It took years of debate to pass, and by the time it was enacted, new social media platforms and AI technologies had already outpaced parts of the original draft.
The Coronavirus Act 2020: A prime example supporting Jenkins. Emergency legislation was drafted and passed through both Houses in a matter of days to respond to an unprecedented, rapidly evolving health crisis.
No Fault Divorce (Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020): Shows the Law Commission working well (supporting Jenkins). They recommended changing the archaic divorce laws to reflect modern cultural realities, and Parliament eventually acted on it.
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: A classic example of "reactive" legislation (supporting Chen). It was rushed through Parliament quickly after public outcry over dog attacks, but was poorly drafted and required numerous amendments over the years.
Surrogacy and Fertility Laws: Many legal scholars argue that our laws on IVF, surrogacy, and genetic engineering are severely outdated, supporting Chen's claim that Parliament struggles to keep up with scientific and medical advancements.
Common Law Adaptability: The common law tort of negligence, established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), has been adapted by judges over decades to apply to modern issues like internet liability and psychiatric harm (supporting Jenkins).

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

1. Lack of Sustained Comparison: Many students described each source in separate paragraphs rather than creating a direct 'dialogue' between them. Top-level answers must consistently weigh the arguments against each other throughout the essay, not just in the conclusion.
👉 Model: While Dr Farrell argues that alliances create a dangerous dependency, Professor Malik's view is more convincing because the principle of burden-sharing makes modern defence economically sustainable for most nations.
2. Incorrect Use of Source Details: A very common and avoidable error was using the wrong names for the writers (e.g., 'Jenkins' or 'Chen'). This demonstrates a lack of careful reading and undermines the credibility of the analysis. Accuracy with names and titles is a basic requirement of academic writing.
👉 Model: Professor Sarah Malik's argument regarding the deterrent effect of NATO's Article 5 directly challenges the claims made by Dr Owen Farrell.
3. Weak or Undeveloped Conclusions: Conclusions often summarised the arguments without making a final, justified judgment. A conclusion must explicitly state which argument is more persuasive and briefly explain *why*, synthesising the main points of comparison into a final verdict.
👉 Model: In conclusion, although self-reliance guarantees sovereignty, Professor Malik's argument for collective defence is stronger because the shared intelligence and economic efficiency it provides are more critical to national security in an interconnected world than the absolute autonomy Dr Farrell advocates.
4. Imprecise Evidence and Examples: Students frequently made vague points or used generic examples (e.g., "an online tournament" or "a drunk driver case" in previous essays). Arguments must be supported by specific, accurate evidence from the sources or the student's own knowledge to be convincing.
👉 Model: Dr Farrell could strengthen his point about the slowness of alliances by citing the lengthy internal debates within NATO before the 2011 intervention in Libya, which contrasts with the speed of a unilateral decision.

Teacher Next Steps

1. Argument Tennis Drill: To improve sustained comparison, put a key argument from one source on the board (e.g., "Dr Farrell: Alliances risk dragging nations into other people's wars."). In pairs, students have 2 minutes to write a single sentence that directly counters this using the other source's perspective, starting with a comparative phrase like "While Farrell argues..., Malik would counter that...". Cold-call students to share their sentences.
2. Source Sleuth Drill: To improve attention to detail, provide a short model paragraph containing deliberate errors (incorrect names, wrong titles, misattributed ideas). Give students 3 minutes to work in pairs to find and correct all the mistakes. This turns proofreading into a focused, competitive activity.
3. Conclusion Distillation: To strengthen conclusions, give students the two main competing ideas from the essay (e.g., "Point 1: Alliances offer security but reduce autonomy. Point 2: Self-reliance offers autonomy but is hugely expensive."). In groups, they have 4 minutes to write one perfect concluding sentence that weighs these two points and delivers a final, justified verdict on which is more significant.
4. Vague-to-Specific Challenge: To improve use of evidence, write a vague analytical sentence on the board (e.g., "Malik says alliances are good for security."). Challenge students to individually rewrite it in the most specific and evidence-rich way possible in 90 seconds (e.g., "Malik's argument is strengthened by the example of NATO's Article 5, which provides a credible security guarantee that has deterred major conflict in Europe for over 70 years."). Share the best examples.

Candidate 16927

Word Count: ~366 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

Despite David Chen (DC) providing good points on the matter through the lack of knowledge and expertise that MP's have which may lead to failed laws. I agree more with Sarah Jenahri (SJ) as she makes compelling arguments surrounding the adaptability of the constitution, the judges roles within law-making and the efficacy of the government. I agree more with SJ due to her point on the "uncodified constitution" leading to relatively quickly "laws" being passed. This is beneficial to the UK's constitution as this allows laws to be flexible and be able to adapt quickly to the constant changes in the UK's society and culture. Moreover, in addition to "statutory law" which are laws made through needing a majority of the parliament, there is also "common law" which is also known as judicial review - that allowed knowledgeable judges to interpret the law in "novel" situations and circumstances making sure laws being passed on society/social changes are being made accurately and correctly. This point is a good because it allows judges to make decisions on the world, emerging cultural and technological changes with an immediate response. However, some may also agree with DC as he emphasises the "dangerously slow" and "ill equipped" --- [Page 2] Writing Task: 12 mark question (conflicting beliefs) Date: 17/3/26 Candidate number: 1 6 9 2 7 Paper 2 "law making" "system". I know this is true as all bills must go through a long legislative process through multiple readings, long select committees and keep doing this process with the House of commons and House of Lords. This is a compelling point as in times of "environmental" instability like covid-19 it can take up to "months or even years" when there are lives at risk making our law-making system a violent and hurtful one. This is reinforced through "the severe" lack of "specialised" politician that are voting on laws. This is an advantageous point as who gives the right for politicians that have zero expertise in the sector of "scientific development" and other "complex" nuances to vote on and will result in completely wrong law to be made. To conclude, after weighing both sides of the argument through SJ's thoughts on the judicial review and the unwritten constitution and DC's argument on the lack of knowledge of politicians I agree more with SJ.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a strong response that clearly explains arguments from both writers and supports them with excellent own knowledge (e.g., the legislative process, COVID-19). You make a clear and consistent judgement. To reach the top level, the key is to move from explaining the two sides separately to directly comparing them. Create a 'dialogue' where you weigh one writer's point directly against the other's to show why you find one more convincing. Also, be careful with the precise meaning of key terms like 'judicial review'.

Sustained Evaluation: To improve your conclusion, try directly weighing the arguments. For example: "To conclude, while Dr Farrell's argument about the dangers of slow law-making by non-specialist MPs is powerful, especially in crises, I find Professor Malik's view more convincing. The flexibility of the uncodified constitution, combined with the expertise of judges, provides a crucial adaptability that is more valuable in the long term than a rigid system that might still be slow to react to complex social change."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start and end your essay with a clear, consistent judgement. This provides a strong, logical structure and shows the examiner you have understood the question's focus.
Excellent Use of Own Knowledge: You effectively support points from the source with your own specific knowledge. Detailing the legislative process and using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example are high-level skills that make your arguments much more powerful.
Well-Explained Arguments: You don't just state what the writers say; you explain *why* their arguments are compelling. For example, you clearly articulated the benefit of a flexible constitution for a changing society.

Targets

Develop Sustained Comparison: Instead of discussing each writer in separate paragraphs, try to directly compare their arguments. For example: "While Dr Farrell argues the system is slow, Professor Malik would counter that this is a necessary trade-off for flexibility, which is more important because...". This creates a 'dialogue' between the sources and is the key to sustained evaluation.
Strengthen Your Conclusion: Your conclusion should be more than a summary. It's your final chance to weigh the arguments directly against each other. Explain precisely *why* Professor Malik's perspective on flexibility ultimately outweighs Dr Farrell's concerns about speed and expertise.
Refine Key Terminology: You show good knowledge of legal concepts, but be precise. Double-check the definitions of terms like 'common law' and 'judicial review'. Judicial review is a specific legal process to challenge the lawfulness of a public body's decision, whereas common law is law developed by judges through precedent over time.

Candidate 19672

Word Count: ~360 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I agree with Sarah Jenkins view as she brings strong, revelent points across regarding the problem with her view, however David Chen's argument suggest a variety of points and views to the table and telling about one part of the constitution and not other alternative ways laws are quite frequently passed. One reason why I agree with Sarah Jenkins (SJ) is through her strongly evaluated point about how the UK has an 'uncodified constitution' which allows laws to pass through easier and be more flexible compared to countries like America where they have to pick out specific points to see the law is fair and doesn't get in the way of peoples rights or amendments. (SJ) also stated that 'Judicial maximalism ensures our legal framework remains revelent and fit for the modern age' while this is a great and strong point this is a vague explanation of judicial review as it is used to fix a law that may not be fair by a judge for example the drinking while driving law. It wouldn't be fair for someone to be charged with that if they haven't had to do it for their survival or for the safety of others so judicial review can change that so it can be fairer for those in future who had to drink and drive against their own will. SJ also states that 'legislation' can reflect 'modern societal values' this is a good point as it proves to an extent because the judicial review has it can those values. An example of that is an online tournament where civilians are free to suggest some laws and then can be spoken about in parliament. On the other hand David Chen (DC) doesn't agree and I disagree with his views because I believe he didn't use a diverse set of ideas to explain his point for example he states that 'Parliament is both inherently reactive than proactive' and lawmakers only solves issues when it is already done'. I agree and disagree with this statement as MPs, political parties wouldn't have been elected if they didn't have proactivity and the publics pressure encourages parties to do what is best to have the publics interest to gain more support and power. and in addition due to laws being passed and harming the public there are other things that act as in a major factor to the public than what suddenly happened or it was most likely not occured before and there are other types of legislature that can exist instantaneously take accountability and make change due to the uncodified constitution that (SJ) stated. In conclusion SJ has a more wider and diverse view that makes her point stronger whereas (DC) only focuses on one issue not accounting to all.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You provide a clear judgement and engage with arguments from both writers. The highlight of your response is the effective challenge you make to Dr Farrell's argument about Parliament being 'reactive', which shows strong independent thought. However, your overall evaluation is held back by a significant misunderstanding of the concept of 'judicial review', leading to a confused and inaccurate example. To move into the top level, you must ensure your understanding of key citizenship concepts is secure and your examples are precise and relevant.

Conceptual Accuracy: "For example, judicial review allows judges to check if a new government policy, like one restricting protests, is compatible with existing laws such as the Human Rights Act. If a judge finds the policy unlawful, they can order the government to change it, ensuring laws remain fair and protect citizens' rights."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin and end your answer with a clear statement on which writer you find more convincing. This provides a strong structure for your evaluation.
Source Engagement: You effectively select key arguments and quotes from both sources to build your points, such as the 'uncodified constitution' and Parliament being 'reactive'.
Independent Challenge: Your counter-argument that MPs must be 'proactive' to get elected is an excellent piece of evaluation. It shows you are thinking critically about the source material and not just describing it.

Targets

Conceptual Accuracy: Your main target is to improve your understanding of key terms. The example you gave for 'judicial review' was incorrect and significantly weakened your argument. Always revise core concepts before the exam.
Use Precise Examples: The examples you used (drink-driving, online tournament) were either inaccurate or too vague. To support your points effectively, use specific and relevant real-world examples, such as a known court case or a specific Act of Parliament.
Improve Sentence Clarity: Some of your sentences were long and grammatically confusing, which made your argument difficult to follow. Try to write in shorter, clearer sentences to ensure your reasoning is precise and easy for the examiner to understand.
Use Correct Writer Names: A small but important point of exam technique is to use the names provided in the source material (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell) rather than inventing new ones.

Candidate 20179

Word Count: ~468 words

Evaluation Score: 10/12

Despite the ideas that David Chen (DC) presents about the inefficient, aged process of law-making and, current laws and power checks, I agree mostly with Sarah Jenkins (SJ) because she agrees that the law has been meticulously adapted and organised to benefit modern society (which is true). Firstly, SJ argues that our law-making system is "remarkably effective at adapting to the rapid pace of scientific, cultural and social change." This point is effective as the process can take at a minimum of a few weeks to pass law or policy. Especially in times of a major crisis such as Covid-19, the Parliament efficiently made it aware to the public that social distancing should exist which is an exemplary example of how the law-making process is fluid and adaptable. However, DC says that it is "dangerously slow and entirely ill-equipped", but he is very wrong in this statement. This is because this process has to be slow in order to maintain the intricacy and rigorousness of the laws in the UK. And this process has 5 stages, although quite long, it is still very important; there are specialised select committees who are experts in their fields who come from multiple political parties that scrutinise the law. DC also says that this process can often be "undemocratic" through the "Royal Assent". Although this point is valid, the monarch has never said no since a few centuries ago, so this Royal Assent is merely traditional which is symbolic of the values our country upholds. It is more vital that we actually have experts who understand the law that can make these decisions for us, which although it may slightly undermine democracy, it creates a law that has been scrutinised to the fullest extent. However it is true in some ways of in DC's arguments as he says that laws are "made to respond to issues that have already got significant public harm." This may be true, but what DC fails to see is that the law requires time and if the law was done the way DC had wanted it, our constitution would be filled with laws that lack any substance. We need laws that have everlasting, indelible effects which also uphold the cultural standards of modern society. There are the ideas that SJ proposes as she says that there are "precise institutions and people who are employed to specifically and correctly interpret the law and hold it to accountability, she says there are dedicated bodies like the "Law Commission" whose job is to "review legislation". This is true as through judicial review, our laws can be checked by an unbiased third-party that holds our lawmakers to account. This point is very strong as the importance of accountability in a rigorous process like law-making is the number one priority, much more important than DC's ideas about efficiency. Efficiency or rigorousness: The law needs to be certain and straightforward, but this requires time, not a fast process. In conclusion, although DC makes excelling arguments based on democracy and efficiency of the law-making process, my stance is still with SJ as the law has been around for hundreds of years and overtime it has been widely scrutinised by experts and held to account by dedicated people, and for that reason, I agree mostly with SJ that the system can adapt to scientific, cultural and social changes in the world.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a high-level response that consistently evaluates the arguments rather than just describing them. You establish a clear line of reasoning from the start and sustain it by directly comparing the two writers' viewpoints on issues like speed versus rigour. Your use of specific own knowledge, such as the Covid-19 laws and the role of select committees, is a significant strength that elevates your analysis. The conclusion effectively summarises your well-supported judgment.

Integrating Counter-Arguments: Instead of "This may be true, but what DC fails to see...", try: "While Farrell's point that laws are often reactive, responding to 'significant public harm' that has already occurred, has some merit, he overlooks a crucial trade-off. A system designed for instant law-making would likely sacrifice the very scrutiny that ensures laws are robust, not just knee-jerk reactions."

Strengths

Sustained Evaluation: You consistently weigh up the arguments from both sources, making mini-judgements throughout (e.g., "accountability... is much more important than... efficiency"). This is the key skill for Level 3.
Effective Use of Own Knowledge: You support your arguments effectively with precise own knowledge, such as the Covid-19 laws, the 5 stages of law-making, and the role of judicial review.
Direct Comparison: You create a strong line of reasoning by directly comparing the writers' views on key themes like speed vs. rigour and democracy vs. expert scrutiny.

Targets

Use Correct Writer Names: Throughout your answer, you refer to 'David Chen' and 'Sarah Jenkins'. The source material names them as Dr Owen Farrell and Professor Sarah Malik. Always use the names provided in the exam to ensure clarity and accuracy.
Develop Nuance on 'Democracy': You rightly defend the role of experts, but you could strengthen your argument by exploring the democratic checks that *do* exist. For example, explain that select committees are made of elected MPs and that the government proposing the law has a democratic mandate from an election.
Refine Concluding Statements: Your conclusion is good but slightly repetitive. Aim to synthesise your main arguments into a fresh, powerful final statement rather than just listing them again. For example: "Ultimately, while Farrell's desire for efficiency is understandable, Malik's defence of a rigorous process is more convincing because it prioritises lasting, effective law over immediate, potentially flawed, responses."
Integrate Counter-Arguments More Smoothly: When you address Farrell's points, you sometimes state "This is true, but...". Try to integrate the counter-argument more fluidly. For instance: "While Farrell highlights the reactive nature of law-making, he fails to consider the alternative..." (See the RAG rewrite for an example).

Candidate 21226

Word Count: ~106 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I agree with Sarah Jenkins because our law making system is remarkably effective at adapting to the rapid pace of scientific, cultural and social change. The flexibility of our uncodified constitution means Parliament can pass new laws relatively quickly when urgent issues arise without navigating the complex amendment processes required in countries with rigid constitutions. On the other hand, I partially agree with David Chen as our current system of law-making is dangerously slow and entirely ill-equipped to keep pace with modern scientific and social advances. The legislative process is archaic rather than requiring

Quality of EvaluationPromising. You have made a good start by providing a clear judgement and explaining the argument from the first source well. This demonstrates the core skill of evaluation. However, the response is not sustained; the explanation of the second source is brief and the answer cuts off abruptly without a conclusion. To move into the top level, you need to give equal weight to both arguments and build a complete, coherent line of reasoning that leads to a final, supported judgement.

Developing a Point: "...The legislative process is archaic, often taking years to pass a single bill through its many stages, such as the multiple readings in both the Commons and the Lords. This means that by the time a law is enacted to deal with a new technology, the technology itself may have already become obsolete."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a direct and clear judgement, stating which writer you find more convincing. This is a key feature of a good evaluation.
Explanation of Source A: You provide a well-explained summary of Professor Malik's argument, correctly identifying key concepts like the 'uncodified constitution' and its flexibility.

Targets

Develop Both Sides: Your explanation of Dr Farrell's view is much less developed than your explanation of Professor Malik's. To reach a higher level, ensure you give equal weight and detail to both arguments presented in the sources.
Sustain the Argument: Your answer ends abruptly. A sustained evaluation needs a concluding sentence that summarises your overall judgement, reinforcing why one writer is ultimately more persuasive than the other.
Use Specific Evidence: To strengthen your points, try to incorporate specific examples or details from the sources. For instance, when mentioning the 'archaic' process, you could refer to the specific stages of a bill (e.g., Committee Stage, Report Stage) that Farrell might criticise.
Accuracy with Details: Pay close attention to the names of the writers provided in the source material (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell). Using the correct names demonstrates careful reading.

Candidate 22289

Word Count: ~29 words

Evaluation Score: 2/12

I aggree agree with Sour A more because Our Law System is rapidly adapting to current times especially AI. I believe that the System is supported to it needs.

Quality of EvaluationBeginning. You have made a clear choice between the two writers, which is the first step in an evaluation question. However, your answer stays in Level 1 because it doesn't use specific arguments from either Professor Malik (Writer A) or Dr Farrell (Writer B). To reach the higher levels, you must explain what each writer argues and then compare their points directly to show why one is stronger than the other. Your reasoning is currently too simple and doesn't show an understanding of the sources.

Developing a Point: "I find Professor Malik more convincing because her argument about our legal system adapting to new challenges like AI is a strong example of its flexibility. This directly challenges Dr Farrell's view that..."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state which writer you find more convincing at the start. This provides a clear focus for your answer.
Attempted Justification: You tried to give a reason for your judgement by using the word "because", which is the right structure to build upon.

Targets

Use Both Sources: Your answer only mentions Writer A. To evaluate effectively, you *must* discuss the arguments of both writers. Explain a point from Professor Malik and a point from Dr Farrell.
Direct Comparison: Don't just list their points. Directly compare them. Use phrases like "Professor Malik's argument is more convincing than Dr Farrell's because...", or "While Dr Farrell makes a valid point about X, Professor Malik's evidence on Y is stronger."
Use Specific Evidence: Refer to the exact ideas or evidence the writers use in the source material. Instead of saying the law is "adapting," you should quote or paraphrase the specific example Professor Malik gave to prove this.
Develop Your Explanation: Expand on your points. After stating an argument from a source, explain *why* it is a strong or weak point. How does it convince you (or fail to convince you)?

Candidate 2310

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

In my opinion I agree with Dr. Sarah Jenkins due to the fact that she states that the flexibility of her uncodified constitution means parliment can pass new laws relatively quickly when urgent issues arise) Unlike Professor David Chen he states that the Legislative process is archaic which means old fashioned often requiring months or even years which isn't very flexible and accessible. Another reason why I agree with Dr. Sarah Jenkins is that when there is an issue arising with law making due to its flexibility it can work around certain families and due to ai laws and parliment can keep up to date with new changes thats happening in the world.

Quality of EvaluationPromising. You have made a solid start to your evaluation. You clearly state which writer you agree with and use evidence from both sources to support your judgment. Your first paragraph is effective because you directly compare the two writers' views on the speed of law-making. However, your second point is less clear and lacks the direct comparison seen in the first, which prevents your answer from reaching the top level. To improve, ensure every point you make is clearly explained and directly contrasts with an argument from the other writer.

Developing a Point with Direct Comparison: For example, Writer A's argument that Parliament can quickly create new laws for emerging issues like AI is far more convincing than Writer B's view. While Writer B is right that the process can be slow, this is often to ensure laws are fair. However, in a fast-changing world, Writer A's point about adaptability is more important.

Strengths

Clear Judgment: You start with a clear and direct statement of which writer you find more convincing.
Use of Both Sources: You have successfully selected relevant arguments from both Writer A and Writer B to build your answer.
Direct Comparison: In your first paragraph, you use the word "Unlike" to create a direct comparison between the two viewpoints, which is a key skill for evaluation.

Targets

Develop Your Points: Your second point about "certain families" was unclear. Always explain your points fully, perhaps with a specific example, to show the examiner you understand the argument.
Sustain the Comparison: After your first paragraph, you stopped directly comparing the two writers. Every point you make should ideally be a 'mini-conclusion' that weighs one writer's argument against the other's.
Accuracy with Details: You used the wrong names for the writers ("Jenkins" and "Chen" instead of Malik and Farrell). Pay close attention to the source material to ensure you are referencing it accurately.
Use Evaluative Language: Instead of just "I agree with," try using phrases like "Writer A presents a more compelling argument because..." or "While Writer B's point has merit, Writer A's view is more persuasive because...".

Candidate 4150

Word Count: ~232 words

Evaluation Score: 10/12

I agree with Dr. Sarah Jenkins because the law-system in the UK is arguably able to keep up with cultural and social changes in the world. However it could be argued that this not due to how long it takes for a law to be passed. Dr Sarah Jenkins argues that our system of law-making can keep up with scientific, cultural and social changes in the world. She argues this because of the flexibility of our uncodified constitution means that parliament can pass relatively quickly when urgent issues arrive. This is a strong point mainly because during COVID the parliament was able to enforce a lockdown which prevented alot more people from getting sick. This is proof that the law-making system can keep up with scientific, cultural and social changes in the world. Professor David Chen however fully disagrees with this point and argues that the law-making system cannot keep up with the changes in the world. Professor Chen argues this because of how dangerously slow and ill-equipped to keep pace with modern scientific and social changes. For example the legislative process having to go through many stages to pass a singular law. This points weighs alot and is to be highly considered as the process of making a law takes months sometimes maybe longer than a year. This makes our law making system as incompetent as it done to its slow efficiency. However this process is slow only because the if a law is not properly implimented then it could cause problems in society, hence why its a slow process. In conclusion I simply side with Dr Sarah Jencins more than professor David Chen because although professor David Chen is able to point out the slow process of our law system hes failed to identify how we dont have a codified constitution which negates the slow law making process but we also have the legislature and the Law commission which reforms laws to reflect modern societal values. This shows how our law making system is competent enough to protect modern day society despite changes.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a well-structured and convincing evaluation that firmly meets the Level 3 criteria. You establish a clear line of reasoning from the start and sustain it through to a powerful conclusion. You effectively use your own knowledge, such as the COVID lockdown laws and the role of the Law Commission, to support your judgment. The direct comparison in your conclusion is particularly strong.

Integrating Evaluation: Your weakest sentence was "This makes our law making system as incompetent as it done to its slow efficiency." A more integrated evaluation might sound like this: "While Dr Farrell's point about the slow pace is valid, he underestimates how the flexibility of our uncodified constitution, as shown during the COVID pandemic, can bypass this slowness in a crisis. This makes Professor Malik's argument more convincing overall."

Strengths

Clear & Sustained Judgement: You state which writer you find more convincing from the very beginning and maintain this argument throughout, leading to a strong, justified conclusion.
Effective Use of Own Knowledge: You brilliantly incorporate specific examples like the COVID-19 lockdown laws and the role of the Law Commission. This adds significant weight and detail to your arguments.
Direct Comparison: Your conclusion directly weighs the two arguments against each other ("although professor David Chen is able... he's failed to identify..."), which is a key feature of a top-level response.

Targets

Check Writer Names: Always double-check the names of the writers provided in the source material. In this case, you referred to "Dr. Sarah Jenkins" and "Professor David Chen" instead of Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell.
Integrate Evaluation Earlier: Your conclusion is excellent, but try to weave more direct comparison into your main body paragraphs. For example, when explaining Writer B's point, you could immediately contrast it with Writer A's argument about flexibility in a crisis.
Develop Key Points: Your point about the Law Commission is excellent. To improve further, you could briefly explain *how* it reforms laws (e.g., by researching, consulting, and drafting bills for Parliament to consider), making the link to modern values even clearer.
Refine Phrasing (SPaG): Read your work aloud to catch awkward phrases like "This points weighs alot" or "incompetent as it done to its slow efficiency". Improving sentence structure and checking for spelling/grammar will make your strong arguments even more impressive.

Candidate 4164

Word Count: ~218 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

Despite Dr Jenkins raising a valid arguement on Parliament having checks and balances, Professor Chen (DC) raises a strong arguement that aknowledges the longet process of making new laws. Both arguements explore a range of perspectives, including the credibility of the legisture. Both also critiques the "archaic" format of the legisture process. Dr SJ creates a credible arguement based around the debate of clements regarding law making, creating emotions on parliaments soverignty. SJ states that Parliament is able to adapt to cultural and social changes which is a consequence of our 'uncodified constitution'. By having an uncodified constitution, Parliament is able to adapt laws without restraint meaning our laws are able to complement new developments such as AI. Artifical intelligence a development that created based new threats which can cause harm to the general public. Contradicting to this Prof DC argus that despite having an uncodified constitution, the archaic prolonged process of the legisture is unable to conform to the changes within society. Prof DC states "law making is dangerously slow and seems ill-equiped to keep pace with modern developments" Dr SJ's view is somewhat credible as they highlight the soverignty of parliament, however fail to critique the legisture process as flawed which naively neglects the remaning long process and decision making that goes into law making. Likewise Prof DC raises the critique that law making is slow, which fully emphasizes aknowledge the p

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 2 response. You make a clear and consistent judgement, supporting it with relevant arguments from both sources. Your final paragraph is particularly strong, as you directly compare the two writers and explain why Professor Chen's argument is more persuasive. To improve, this high-quality evaluation needs to be sustained throughout the answer, not just saved for the conclusion. The incomplete final sentence and errors in naming the writers prevented you from reaching the top level.

Sustaining Evaluation: For example, a more developed concluding sentence could be: "Professor Chen's critique that law-making is 'dangerously slow' is more persuasive because it acknowledges the practical reality of parliamentary procedure, a key weakness that Dr Jenkins' more theoretical argument about sovereignty fails to address."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly in the first paragraph and maintain this focus throughout your answer. This provides a strong, coherent structure.
Use of Evidence: You have effectively selected key arguments from both writers, and your use of a direct quote from 'Professor Chen' was an excellent way to support your point.
Evaluative Language: Your final paragraph uses strong evaluative phrases like "somewhat credible", "fail to critique" and "naively neglects". This shows you are weighing up the arguments, not just describing them.

Targets

Check Writer Names: You referred to the writers as 'Dr Jenkins' and 'Professor Chen'. In an exam, always double-check the source for the correct names (in this case, Professor Malik and Dr Farrell) to ensure your referencing is accurate.
Sustain the Evaluation: Your evaluation is excellent in the conclusion. To reach Level 3, try to weave these comparisons throughout your answer. For example, when you explain Writer A's point, you could briefly contrast it with Writer B's view there and then.
Complete Your Answer: Your final sentence cuts off mid-thought. Be mindful of your time in an exam to ensure you can write a full, powerful concluding sentence that summarises your final judgement.
Proofread for Clarity: Several spelling errors (e.g., 'arguement', 'legisture', 'soverignty') slightly reduce the clarity of your work. A quick proofread at the end can fix these and make your excellent points even more impactful.

Candidate 4226

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I wholeheartedly agree with Professor David Chen whom says that he states our system of law - making is dangerously slow. The constitution is described as archaic mean that our decision making is slow and could be unreliable. We are a growing constitution and it often takes months or even years for a bill to pass through both houses of common and lords. Professor David also says 'by the time legislation regarding fast-moving technologies - such as artificial intelligence or social media regulation - finally existing' Boyd 'that it is frequently already out dated" This proves the Regards and Parliament are slow and unreliable. It takes a lot of time. - Ammending media moves faster than the people leading our country making them unreliable. Parliament is described that is reactive more than proactive meaning they only react to the issues but don't act on it and leave it as dismissed. For proposal David Chen since he ultimately concludes 'outdated procedures leave society vulnerable to emerging threats and fail to adequately reflect rapidly shifting cultural norms and technological fast realities. whereas you can also agree with Dr Sarah Jenkins as she expresses Parliament pass new laws relatively quickly when urgent issues arise, without navigating the complex amendment processes required in countries with out rigid constitutions. She says the system is supported by dedicated bodies like the law commission meaning its supported by and discussed by people whom have the best and understand the field of the law.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgment and explained relevant arguments from both writers, which is a solid foundation for a Level 2 answer. You use quotes effectively to support your points. To reach the top level, you need to move from explaining the two arguments separately to directly comparing them. Weigh them against each other to show why one is more convincing than the other.

Direct Comparison: "While Dr Farrell's point about the Law Commission ensuring expert input is valid, Professor Malik's argument is more convincing because the rapid evolution of technology, like AI, creates threats that the slow legislative process cannot keep up with, making society vulnerable *now*."

Strengths

Clear Judgment: You start your answer with a clear and direct judgment, stating which writer you find more convincing.
Good Use of Evidence: You effectively select and use direct quotes from both sources to support your explanations of their arguments.
Explaining Both Sides: You have clearly explained the main arguments from both Writer A (Malik) and Writer B (Farrell), showing you understand the debate.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of explaining Writer A and then Writer B, try to compare their points directly. For example, "While Writer B argues Parliament can be fast, Writer A's point about technology proves this is not always the case because..."
Sustained Argument: Build a 'line of reasoning'. After comparing a point, link it back to your main judgment. Use phrases like "This makes Malik's argument stronger because..." or "This weakens Farrell's claim that..."
Use Correct Names: Pay close attention to the names provided in the source material. In this case, the writers were Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell. Using the correct names shows attention to detail.
Develop Your Conclusion: A strong conclusion should briefly summarise *why* you found one argument more convincing than the other, recapping your main comparative point.

Candidate 4249

Word Count: ~158 words

Evaluation Score: 9/12

I agree with both sides and P.R Sarah Jenkins (SJ) makes a good argument but David Chen (DC) makes an overwhelmingly stronger argument with which I agree most with. SJ says "our law-making system is remarkably effective at adapting to the rapid pace of scientific, cultural and social change" and the one of the reason I side with DC so heavily is because her point is immediately refuted by him saying "our current system of law-making is dangerously slow and ill-equipped to keep pace with modern scientific and social advancements" - We know this is true as to make laws first a green paper has to be passed and then a white paper and so on and so forth making the legislative process a tedious venture. Another excellent point is made by DC when he says "lawmakers typically address issues only after significant public harm has occurred" and this shows we cannot keep up and instead of working in advance to prevent public harm we wait till harm is done.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a strong Level 3 response because you establish a clear and sustained argument. You don't just describe what each writer says; you actively pit their arguments against each other to prove why one is more convincing. Crucially, you bring in your own specific knowledge about Green and White Papers to substantiate your judgment, which is a key skill for top marks. To improve further, ensure you use the correct writer names and add a little more detail on both sides to create an even more balanced evaluation.

Improving Your Opening: "I agree with both sides and P.R Sarah Jenkins (SJ) makes a good argument but David Chen (DC) makes an overwhelmingly stronger argument with which I agree most with."
Could become: "While Professor Malik presents a valid point about the adaptability of UK law, Dr Farrell's argument that the system is dangerously slow is ultimately more convincing."

Strengths

Direct Comparison: You excel at pitting one writer's argument directly against the other's ("her point is immediately refuted by him"). This is a top-level evaluation skill.
Use of Own Knowledge: Your reference to the Green and White Paper process is a perfect example of using your own subject knowledge to add weight to your argument and justify your judgment.
Clear Judgment: Your response starts with a very clear and decisive judgment, which you then successfully support throughout your answer, creating a coherent line of reasoning.

Targets

Check Writer Names: Always double-check the names of the writers provided in the source material. In this case, they were Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell. Accuracy is important.
Develop Both Sides: To create a more balanced evaluation, you could briefly explain *why* Writer A's point might seem convincing at first before you explain why it's weak. For example, "While some laws do pass quickly in emergencies..."
Strengthen Conclusion: Your final sentence is good, but a dedicated conclusion that summarises your main points would strengthen the structure. E.g., "Therefore, due to the slow legislative process and its reactive nature, Farrell's argument is far more persuasive."
Formal Language: Aim for more formal academic language. For example, instead of "the one of the reason I side with DC so heavily," you could write "Dr Farrell's argument is significantly more persuasive because..."

Candidate 4267

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

Although David Chen makes a valid argument that the legislative process often takes months or years to pass, I still agree with Sarah Jenkins because the UK is a democratic country which means that laws get disscussed to be fair in any law case however the case having a case law contradicts this as laws should be disscussed between MP's House of Lords and House of Commons which shows how the UK isn't fully democratic always. However as Sarah Jenkins says that because of the UK unwritten constitution flexibility, laws can pass relatively quickly in urgent times like covid and people needed a lockdown. The parliment makes laws to fit in society by working jointly and not interveing in each other which makes laws for the upcoming challenges and changes for society. Having MP's that represent different areas improves the keep up with law making in the social changes in the UK as they know what is best for areas and how to counter any issues in the modern age. Overall I agree with Sarah Jenkins more because she explains how our legislation process leads to quick and effective law making that fit into todays society.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgement and used evidence from both sources to support it, which is the foundation of a good answer. You also use a relevant contemporary example (COVID-19) to strengthen a point. However, your evaluation is not yet 'sustained'. Some of your own knowledge is confused (e.g., the point on case law), which weakens your line of reasoning. To improve, focus on developing each point with more detail and directly comparing the two writers throughout your answer.

Clarity of Concepts: Your point on case law could be rewritten for clarity like this: "While Professor Malik praises the democratic process in Parliament, Dr Farrell might argue this is undermined by 'case law', where judges' decisions create law without public debate. This supports his view that the system is not as straightforwardly democratic as it appears."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start and end your answer with a very clear decision about which writer you agree with. This provides a strong focus for your evaluation.
Use of Both Sources: You have successfully identified arguments from both writers (even if the names were incorrect) to structure your response, which is essential for a 12-mark question.
Relevant Example: Your use of the COVID-19 lockdown as an example of fast-track legislation was an excellent way to support Professor Malik's argument about flexibility.

Targets

Develop Explanations: For each point you make, explain *why* it makes one writer more convincing than the other. For example, *why* does the ability to pass laws quickly in a crisis make the whole system effective, despite Farrell's point about slowness?
Sustain the Comparison: Instead of dealing with each writer separately, try to weave them together. Use phrases like "Malik's argument is stronger here because...", "In direct contrast to Farrell's view...", "While Farrell is right about..., Malik's point on... is more significant because...".
Accurate Use of Concepts: Your point about case law was confused and weakened your argument. Ensure you have a precise understanding of any key terms (like case law, parliamentary sovereignty) before using them to support your evaluation.
Attention to Detail: In the exam, always double-check the names of the writers in the source. Using the correct names (Professor Malik and Dr Farrell) shows you have read the source carefully.

Candidate 4283

Word Count: ~148 words

Evaluation Score: 3/12

I agree with David Chen. This is because he makes argument. For example, the house of commons and Lords. Even though they are bicameral passing laws take years to pass through the bill which links to why the system doesn't keep up especially when parliament is sovereignty and is also accountable. However the green paper plays a role, having ideas the government wants discussed before it develops a policy. But a problem with this is it is slow and can take time this goes for legislature, and again having the same problem it is slow. But government and governments may limit it to maintain public order and protect national security. However Sarah Jenkins makes a good point about the constitution being uncodified making it quicker. In conclusion I agree with David Chen.

Quality of EvaluationLimited. Your response makes a simple judgement and identifies a few points related to UK politics. However, it does not address the actual question about 'Collective Defence vs. Self-Reliance' and uses incorrect names for the writers. The explanation of the points is very limited and lacks a clear, developed line of reasoning, placing the answer in Level 1. To improve, you must focus on answering the specific question set.

Developing a Point: Instead of "This is because he makes argument", try: "I find Dr Farrell more convincing because his argument about the slow, bicameral nature of Parliament effectively demonstrates how our current system struggles to adapt. For instance, he points out that a bill can take years to pass, which is a significant weakness in a fast-moving world."

Strengths

Making a Judgement: You have made a clear decision on which writer you find more convincing and stated this at the beginning and end of your answer.
Using Both Sources: You have attempted to include points from both writers in your answer, which is a key requirement for evaluation questions.
Some Subject Knowledge: You have included some relevant concepts from UK politics, such as the bicameral system and Green Papers.

Targets

Answer the Set Question: Your number one priority is to read the question and sources carefully. Your answer was about the UK constitution, but the question was on a completely different topic ('Collective Defence vs. Self-Reliance'). All your analysis must relate to the provided sources.
Use Accurate Details: You must use the correct names for the writers as given in the exam paper (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell). Paying attention to detail shows the examiner you have engaged with the sources properly.
Develop Your Points (P.E.E.L.): Avoid just listing ideas. Use the P.E.E.L structure: make your Point, provide Evidence from the source, Explain how it supports your view, and Link it back to the question and your overall judgement.
Directly Compare Arguments: Instead of discussing the writers separately, compare their arguments directly. For example, "While Malik sees X as a strength, Farrell convincingly argues that this is actually a weakness because..." This creates a much stronger evaluation.

Candidate 4328

Word Count: ~278 words

Evaluation Score: 9/12

I agree with Dr Sarah Jenkins the most because I believe to a large extent that our system of law-making keeps up with the scientific, cultural and social changes in the world. Although like David Chen (DV) mentioned it is 'dangerously slow' ultimately laws are made to 'reflect modern societal values' as Jenkins mentioned. Dr Sarah Jenkins states that we ultimately have an uncodified constitution, which means it's unwritten in other words so we don't just have all our laws kept in one document. This allows parliament to adjust laws and create new ones relatively more smoothly. Furthermore P, DV states that there is also a severe lack of specialized technical expertise among politicians, leading to poorly drafted laws but DV fails to realise that these will sooner or later be picked up by the Judiciary. They play the role of being able to custom laws and make precedents and judiciary reviews which are appeals to laws which are seen to be unjust or breach another's rights. Therefore our law-system of law-making does keep up with social changes because they are constantly being tailored to peoples experiences with the law. Furthermore, DV comments on how it often requires months or even years for a bill to pass through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords but fails to mention that the bill being passed is a crucial basis of law making as the house of lords is made experts such as politicians who can input their opinions to ensure this bill is effective. Therefore without a basis the continuation of the law-making process is useless. As well as that similarly DV states believers' relying on unelected judges to update the law through precedent is personal and undemocratic but ultimately judges have much more knowledge and a far better understanding on peoples rights than the members of the House of Lords or anyone in parliament. As well as that parliament being sovereign means they act alone without influence from any other group or department and but both writers fail to mention how each departments check up on one another to keep checks and balances as no department has ultimate power.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a strong response that reaches Level 3. You make a clear, consistent judgment and repeatedly use your own knowledge to challenge the arguments made by Dr Owen Farrell (who you call David Chen). This skill of rebuttal is crucial for high marks. Your best points were explaining how the judiciary corrects poor laws and how judges' expertise outweighs their unelected status. To improve further, ensure your understanding of complex ideas like parliamentary sovereignty is precise and pay closer attention to details in the source, like the writers' names.

Refining Concepts: "While Parliament is sovereign, meaning it is the supreme law-making body, its power is not absolute in practice. Both writers could have explored the system of checks and balances, such as judicial review, which ensures laws are compatible with human rights, demonstrating another way the legal system adapts."

Strengths

Clear Judgement & Structure: You begin with a decisive judgement ("I agree with Dr Sarah Jenkins the most") and structure your entire answer around proving this point, creating a sustained line of reasoning.
Effective Rebuttal: Your best skill is using your own knowledge to directly challenge the arguments you disagree with. For example, you effectively countered the point about poorly drafted laws by explaining the role of the judiciary in reviewing and refining them.

Targets

Attention to Detail: Always double-check the source material for key details like the writers' names. You referred to Professor Malik as 'Dr Jenkins' and Dr Farrell as 'David Chen'. Using the correct names improves the academic precision of your answer.
Refine Key Concepts: Your point on parliamentary sovereignty was slightly confused. Revise this concept to understand that while Parliament is the supreme law-maker, its power is still scrutinised by other bodies like the judiciary (through judicial review).
Develop All Rebuttals: Your rebuttal on the speed of law-making was weaker than others. Instead of just saying the Lords add expertise, you could have acknowledged the slowness but argued it's a necessary part of democratic scrutiny to create effective, well-considered laws.
Use Surnames Consistently: Avoid using abbreviations like 'DV'. For a formal and clear response, consistently use the writers' surnames (e.g., "Malik argues..." and "Farrell counters...").

Candidate 4341

Word Count: ~237 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

I agree with Dr. Sarah Jenkins who says yes. this is due to her listing the ways in which our law making system keeps up with the changes of the world scientifically, culturally and socially. For example "... Swiftly update regulations in technical areas, such as medical advancements or environmental standards". Dr. Sarah Jenkins states that due to "delegated legislation" it empowers the government and the comittee to put more work into the social, cultural and environmental changes. ALSO "Overall, this combination of parliamentary sovereignty, expert consultation, and judicial flexibility ensures our legal framework remains dynamic, relevant and entirely fit for the modern age. Causing the law to meet every standard and point and to meet the citizens needs. However I could also see where professor David Chen is going while he says no. He says "our current system of law making is dangerously slow and entirely ill-equipped to keep pace with modern scientific and social advancements- this is very convincing because currently the government have difficulty in listen to the citizenships needs and ensuring our rights are respected by all. so thinking that the government would abide to our concerns and listen is beyond our imagination. ALSO "there is also a severe lack of specialized & technical expertise" which is agree with since most parliamentary members are old and aren't with modern dated media. So having young members are more better and would help the parliament.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 2 response. You make a clear judgment and effectively use evidence from both writers to explain their arguments. A real strength is how you bring in your own knowledge to support your evaluation, particularly for Dr Farrell's points. To reach Level 3, the next step is to move from explaining each writer separately to directly comparing their arguments against each other throughout your answer, leading to a more developed and sustained final judgment.

Sustained Judgment: Instead of ending with "So having young members are more better...", you could write a concluding sentence that directly compares the two views: "Therefore, while I accept Malik's point on the flexibility of delegated legislation, I find Farrell's argument about the lack of modern expertise more convincing. The speed of technological change seems to outpace the structural advantages of the current system, making Farrell's concerns more pressing."

Strengths

Clear Judgment & Structure: You begin with a clear judgment ("I agree with...") and structure your answer logically, addressing each writer in a separate paragraph. This makes your reasoning easy to follow.
Effective Use of Evidence: You have selected relevant and specific quotes from both sources to support your explanations. This shows you have a good understanding of the arguments presented.
Application of Own Knowledge: You successfully supported your evaluation of Dr Farrell's argument by linking his point on expertise to your own knowledge about the age and experience of MPs. This is a key skill for higher marks.

Targets

Develop Direct Comparison: Instead of just explaining each writer's view, directly compare them. For example, "While Malik argues the system is flexible, Farrell's point about a lack of expertise is more convincing because..." This creates a true evaluation.
Sustain Your Evaluation: Weave your judgment throughout the answer. Use evaluative language (e.g., 'a stronger argument', 'less persuasive because', 'a more significant factor') to constantly show the examiner you are weighing up the two views, not just describing them.
Write a Concluding Judgment: Your answer ends quite abruptly. Add a final, short paragraph to summarise why you chose one writer over the other. This reinforces your overall argument and makes your conclusion more powerful.
Check for Accuracy: Always double-check the names of the writers and key terms from the source. In your answer, you used 'Dr. Sarah Jenkins' and 'Professor David Chen' instead of 'Professor Sarah Malik' and 'Dr Owen Farrell'.

Candidate 4349

Word Count: ~380 words

Evaluation Score: 10/12

Despite Writer 1, Dr Sarah Jenkins proposing strong arguments about the benefits of a flexible constitution, I believe this argument lacks consideration of social "trends" and how they rapidly change, as well as the time taken for a parliamentary response being non-ideal. This leads me to agree more with writer 2's Professor David Allen as he counters writer 1 by explaining the reality of law-making and how the UK's constitution is challenged to respond to social, scientific & cultural changes rapidly. The first reason I disagree with writer 1 is because of their early statement, "Our law-making system is remarkably effective at adapting to the rapid pace of scientific, cultural and social change". Yes, this statement is partially true if we compare the UK's constitution and government to other non-democratic countries such as Afghanistan and North Korea who face strict rule, preventing social/cultural/scientific advancement. However, this is not the case, and this argument by writer 1 lacks judgement as it fails to consider the actual PROCESS of law-making which can take decades. This leads to my first reason as to why I agree with writer 2 who ~~responds by~~ when explaining about how our legislative process is "archaic, often requiring months or even years for a bill to pass through both the House of Commons and House of Lords". Now this argument is considerably strong as it reasons the difficult AND extremely long process of law making which must first pass through 6 stages (from Green paper to 3rd reading) before Royal Assent is granted. Additionally, writer 2 reasoning how it takes years for BOTH houses to agree is an exceptional point, as several stages of law-making such as the 2nd reading and committee stage involve large masses of MPs scrutinising a bill, often leading to long-processes of law-making which stretch across years, or bills being entirely scrapped. I further disagree with writer 1 because of their reference to Judicial Review and cultural shifts, "our tradition of common law allows judges to interpret and apply existing legal principles to novel situations, providing an immediate response to emerging cultural and technological challenges". The first part of this statement that I disagree with comes from writer 1's reference to Judicial review. They claim that it provides "immediate response" to emerging cultural and technological challenges. This is pretty incorrect due to their claim of an immediate response, when in actuality court cases extend across years due to other factors and evidence being revealed. This argument also misses out the fact that, Judges are NOT elected and therefore counter the UK's principles itself of democracy, as they are citizens ruling without being welected. Additionally, this argument mentions cultural changes yet extremely outdated conventions such as the Magna Carta & Bill of Rights still heavily influence our constitution when society has changed SIGNIFICANTLY - Writer 2 responds by stating that, "We are a law that frequently predates" and that "relying on unelected judges to update the law through presidential precedent is undemocratic". These are insanely strong points I agree with as it considers the rapid changing society through the advancement of trends and social media which aren't matched in speed by "adapting" laws from our constitution. Overall I agree more with writer 2 as I believe that their strong considerations of the management of democracy, unelected judges being able to rule is unfair, and how society is changing rapidly with emerging cultural & scientific changes (which is not met in response with a quick enough response) due to the long, difficult process of law making. I believe these arguments entirely outweigh the weak points from writer 1 about Judicial Review and the UK's flexible constitution, which don't consider societal needs, progression and democracy.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a high-level response that demonstrates all the skills required for Level 3. You establish a clear judgement from the outset and maintain a sustained line of reasoning, directly comparing the two writers' arguments throughout. Your use of specific, relevant own knowledge to support your evaluation of the sources is particularly impressive. To reach the very top marks, focus on using more formal academic language and ensuring complete accuracy with details like the writers' names.

Developing Arguments: Writer B's point about legislative delay is strong. You could make it even more impactful by writing: "Furthermore, Writer B correctly identifies that bills face intense scrutiny at multiple stages, like the Second Reading and Committee Stage. This often leads to lengthy delays or bills being abandoned entirely, directly challenging Writer A's claim of an 'effective' system."

Strengths

Sustained Argumentation: You maintain a clear and consistent argument throughout your response, always linking back to your main judgment that Writer B is more convincing.
Effective Use of Evidence: You skilfully select and embed quotes from both sources to directly support your points and create a point-by-point rebuttal of Writer A.
Integration of Own Knowledge: Your use of specific own knowledge, such as the stages of law-making and the undemocratic nature of unelected judges, adds significant weight and detail to your evaluation.

Targets

Formal Academic Tone: While your points are excellent, phrases like 'pretty incorrect' and 'insanely strong' are too informal. Aim to use more academic language (e.g., 'factually inaccurate', 'a compelling argument') to enhance the authority of your analysis.
Precision and Accuracy: Pay close attention to the details provided in the exam materials. You referred to the writers by incorrect names (Jenkins/Allen instead of Malik/Farrell). In an exam, this could suggest a lack of care.
Developing Counter-Arguments: Your comparison of the UK to non-democratic states is a valid point, but a stronger evaluation would compare it to similar democracies (e.g., the USA, France) to create a more nuanced and sophisticated argument.
Sentence Conciseness: Some of your sentences are very long and contain multiple clauses. Try to break these down into shorter, more direct sentences to improve clarity and impact. This will make your excellent points even easier for the examiner to follow.

Candidate 62017

Word Count: ~412 words

Evaluation Score: 9/12

I agree more with Dr. Sarah Jenkins (SJ) about our system of law-making keep up with scientific, culteral, and social changes in the world, and believe she gives well structured arguments with evidence and support. To an extent I agree with SJ, however some may argue that Professor David Chan (DC) and believe our law-making is small. For example, SJ argues that "the flexability of our uncodified constitution means parliament can pass new laws relatively quickly when urgent issues arise," this is a very strong point as I know that our constitution is unwritten/uncodified. This means that our constitution is flexable, which helps us avoid going through complex amendment processes required in countries with rigid constitutions. An example of this is the pandemic of covid-19, where laws where passed quickly to protect the health of our nation, compared to other countries such as USA, who struggled to defend against covid-19. This is a clear example of how our law making system keeps up with changes in the world. This portrays how SJ's arguments is thought through, an taking in account of situations where the law was changed quickly. On the other hand, professor David Chan (DC) says that our law-making system is slow and inefficient. He says, 'our law-making system often requires months or even years for a bill to pass through both the House of commons and the House of Lords.' I understand DC's points, on occasions such as petitions and bills, parliament does take time to process it, however what DC fails to mention is the necessity of laws taking time to be passed. For example, when a bill is presented in the house of commons, it is discussed and scrutinised, to ensure it doesn't interfere with any other laws. The bill is then also presented in the house of lords to be further discussed, evaluated, and changed. This ensures fairness of the possible new law, ensuring it is well though and doesnt go against other acts. This highlights how DC's argument is poorly structured and does not take in account of the possible danger of passing a law quickly. Another reason why I have to agree with SJ is he says "laws allow judges to interpret and apply existing legal principles to novel situations," this is a strong point as I know case laws such as the scottish drunk driver, who was forced to drive, and then arrested. However the law was changed to ensure fairness in our government. this is an example of how our law-making system is officially changing with the world. In conclusion, I agree more with SJ in their account due to their well structured points, taking in account of other effects, and examples.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a strong, well-argued response that comfortably reaches Level 3. You establish a clear judgement from the outset and sustain it with well-chosen evidence from both sources. Your real strength is in using your own knowledge not just to support Professor Malik's points (like with the COVID-19 laws), but to actively challenge and dismantle Dr Farrell's argument about the slowness of law-making. This direct refutation is a sophisticated evaluation skill.

Precision of Examples: Your example of the 'scottish drunk driver' was unclear. A better way to illustrate how judges adapt the law would be: "This is a strong point, as judges create 'common law' through their decisions. For example, in the famous case of *Donoghue v Stevenson* (the 'snail in the bottle' case), the court established the modern principle of negligence, creating a new legal duty of care where one didn't exist before. This shows how judge-made law can adapt to new social situations."

Strengths

Sustained Judgement: You maintain a clear and consistent line of argument throughout your answer, always focused on explaining why Professor Malik is more convincing.
Effective Counter-Argument: Your challenge to Dr Farrell's point about slow law-making was superb. You explained that the scrutiny stage is a necessary safeguard, effectively turning his criticism into a strength of the UK system.
Use of Own Knowledge: You integrated your own knowledge brilliantly, using the specific example of COVID-19 emergency legislation to give strong, relevant support to Professor Malik's argument about flexibility.

Targets

Accuracy of Names: In the exam, always use the exact names of the writers given in the sources (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell). Using incorrect names can suggest a lack of attention to detail.
Precision of Examples: Your 'scottish drunk driver' example was too vague to be effective. When discussing case law, aim to use a well-known and specific example, like *Donoghue v Stevenson*, to clearly illustrate how judges make and adapt law.
Develop All Points: While your analysis of the uncodified constitution was excellent, your point on judicial interpretation was less developed. Explain *how* judges interpreting laws (creating 'common law') is a form of flexible law-making that keeps up with social change.
Proofread for Clarity: Take 60 seconds at the end to read through your work. Correcting small errors like 'flexability' (flexibility), 'culteral' (cultural), and 'where' (were) will make your excellent arguments even more professional and impactful.

Candidate 72198

Word Count: ~418 words

Evaluation Score: 10/12

Despite the fact that David Chen (DC) - who says no - presents an evaluative answer on why the system of law making is weak due to its slow process and the lack of specialized technical expertise of politicians, I mostly agree with Sarah Jenkins (ST) who argues for this statement as they take into consideration of both the uncodified constitution and highlights the many ways the system of law making keeps up with changes in the world. One reason why I agree with ST is because they point out the "flexibility" of the uncodified constitution. This is a strong point as I know that having a constitution which isn't all documented on a single paper makes it easier to adapt laws based on changes in the world. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the unwritten constitution allowed the prime minister to mandate quarantine within the UK which protected the health of the public. Therefore I agree with ST because the use of an unwritten constitution not only speeds up law-making process, but in doing so adapts to societal changes for the public's safety. On the other hand one reason why someone may agree with the arguments of DC is because they say that there is a "severe lack of technical expertise among politicians." Although this is arguably correct a mistake DC fails to point out when they say that it leads to poorly drafted laws" is that there are many processes within law making which ensure that laws can be thoroughly checked and are scrutinised before they are passed. For example, the use of the house of commons and lords who both discuss a law before allowing it to recieve royal assent ensures that there are no flaws and issues within a law before it can be applied to the public. Therefore this allows me to conclude that DC has some flaws within their argument which although they make several strong points regarding the lack of expertise, they simply have more weaknesses within their argument such as when they say that poorly drafted laws are created which is false. In conclusion, despite although DC points out the weaknesses in our system of law such as the lack of expertise within politicians, I agree more with ST as they simply highlight stronger arguments such as the use of a uncodified constitution which allows laws to be made quickly which protects the public due to the speed at which laws do can be made to adapt to societal changes.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a very strong response that sits comfortably in Level 3. You establish a clear and consistent line of argument from the very beginning and sustain it throughout. Your great strength is using specific own knowledge (the COVID-19 pandemic and the stages of passing a bill) not just to explain the sources, but to actively evaluate them by supporting one writer and directly challenging the other. This direct rebuttal of Dr Farrell's argument is what elevates your answer to the top band. To improve further, focus on refining your academic language for even greater precision.

Refining Language: Instead of "...DC has some flaws... they simply have more weaknesses... which is false," you could write: "This reveals a significant oversight in Farrell's argument. While his point about expertise has merit, his conclusion that it leads to poorly drafted laws is questionable, as it ignores the robust scrutiny provided by the bicameral parliamentary system."

Strengths

Sustained Judgement: You made a clear decision in your introduction ("I mostly agree with Sarah Jenkins") and supported it consistently throughout your essay, leading to a logical and convincing conclusion.
Effective Use of Own Knowledge: Your examples of the COVID-19 pandemic to support flexibility, and the roles of the Commons and Lords to counter the "poorly drafted laws" claim, were specific, relevant, and expertly used to analyse the sources.
Direct Rebuttal: You didn't just explain Dr Farrell's (DC's) argument; you actively challenged it. By pointing out that the legislative process has built-in scrutiny, you demonstrated high-level evaluation.

Targets

Refine Academic Language: Avoid absolute or informal phrases like "which is false" or "simply have more weaknesses". Aim for more nuanced, analytical language, such as "This claim is unconvincing because..." or "This perspective overlooks the fact that...".
Check Source Details: You referred to the writers as 'David Chen' and 'Sarah Jenkins'. In the exam, always use the names provided in the source (in this case, Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell) to show close attention to detail.
Develop 'Mini-Conclusions': At the end of your main paragraphs, try to explicitly compare the two writers. For example, after rebutting Farrell, you could add: "This makes Malik's argument on the system's adaptability significantly more persuasive than Farrell's narrower focus on politician expertise."
Quote and Analyse: To deepen your analysis, you could select a short, specific quote from a writer and explain its significance. For example, what does Farrell mean by "political point-scoring" and how does that specifically weaken the law-making process?

Candidate 76928

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 9/12

Despite David Chen (DC) making some strong points like on how the law making process can be slow, I agree with Sarah Jenkins (SJ) the most as she makes strong points on how the law can adapt. One strong point that SJ makes is the law is 'remarkably effective at adapting' due to our 'uncodified constitution' which is true, as unlike written constitution like in the USA that prevent them on acting quickly on issues or new events that unwritten one allow government to act quickly on threats. For example during Covid-19 epidemic where the government were easily able to implement a country-wide lockdown. However DC directly challenges SJ belief that the government can act quickly saying that 'law-making is dangerously slow' which is true in some cases. However what DC's point failed to realise is that system in emergencies government can act quickly as mentioned with the government action against Covid-19 but also that things like case law and judicial review help clarify the law to include new scientific, cultural and social change allowing law to keep up as case law and judicial and relatively fast processes. On the other hand DC argues the slow law-making procedure is due to the 'legislative process' being 'archaic', which is some what true as bills can be rejected by the unelected House of Lords causing the process to restart, however I still agree more with SJ as DC does also make some weak points. For example, when he says parliament is 'reactive rather than proactive'. This is a weak point as reacting to an emergency might give the politicians less time to make a decision, however it also allows them to make better decisions based on what they have seen instead of guessing on how that emergency might play out.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a strong Level 3 response. You establish a clear judgment from the start and sustain it throughout your answer. You effectively use evidence from both Professor Malik and Dr Farrell, directly comparing their arguments to create a debate. Your use of specific own knowledge, like the Covid-19 lockdown and the role of case law, to test and challenge the writers' claims is a high-level evaluation skill that pushes your mark into the top band.

Developing Explanations: Your point on the House of Lords was good but could be more precise. Instead of "...bills can be rejected by the unelected House of Lords causing the process to restart...", a more detailed rewrite would be: "...bills can be delayed by the unelected House of Lords, who can suggest amendments. While the Parliament Acts limit their power to block bills, this 'parliamentary ping-pong' can significantly slow down the process, supporting Dr Farrell's point about it being 'archaic'."

Strengths

Sustained Judgment: You clearly state which writer you find more convincing at the start and consistently refer back to this judgment, creating a very strong and coherent line of reasoning.
Effective Use of Own Knowledge: You bring in excellent, relevant examples like the Covid-19 lockdown, the US constitution, and case law to support and challenge the writers' arguments. This shows deep understanding.
Direct Comparison: You don't just list the points; you actively compare them ("However DC directly challenges SJ..."). This creates a mini-debate and is the hallmark of high-level evaluation.

Targets

Use Correct Names: In the exam, ensure you use the names provided in the source (Professor Malik and Dr Farrell), not abbreviations you've created (SJ/DC), to maintain a formal academic tone.
Add Precision to Explanations: Your point about the House of Lords is good but could be more precise. Instead of saying it 'restarts' the process, explain its power to 'delay and amend' legislation. Using key terms like 'parliamentary ping-pong' would be even better.
Develop Counter-Arguments: When you evaluate a point as 'weak' (like the 'reactive' argument), try to explain your counter-argument in a little more detail. For instance, what are the specific benefits of a reactive approach in law-making?
Add a Concluding Sentence: To make your argument even stronger, end your answer with a final sentence that briefly summarises why you chose one writer over the other, reinforcing your overall judgment.

Candidate 82067

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

Despite both parties making multiple strong points on their opinion of our system of law making, I agree more with Dr Sarah Jenkins as her argument remains consistent throughout. First of all, Dr. Sarah Jenkins believes that our system of law making does keep up with the changes of the world and she mention how we have a 'uncodified constitution' this is a strong point as it emphasised the flexibility and how parliament can pass laws quickly to resolve any errors now rather than in a couple months. On the other hand, Proffessor David Chen talks about how slow the the system is and mentions "By the time legislation regarding fast moving technologies... it is frequently outdated." This is a weak point as although our science department is developing relatively quickly, it is not quicke enough for newly made laws to become outdated. However, Professor David Chen makes a strong point when he mentions "there is also a severe lack of specialized technical expertise among politicians" this is a strong point as it acknowledges the fact that in order to make a strong and suitable law it needs to be considered in every aspect and if not then the law making system can be seen as weak. Alternatively, Dr. Sarah Jenkins makes another strong point

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 2 response. You make a clear overall judgement and support it by explaining relevant arguments from both Professor Malik and Dr Farrell. You also attempt to weigh up the arguments by labelling them as 'strong' or 'weak'. To reach Level 3, you need to make your reasoning more sustained by directly comparing the arguments against each other, rather than discussing them separately. Your rebuttal of the technology point was a missed opportunity for this deeper comparison.

Rebuttal Skill: Instead of just disagreeing with Dr Farrell's point on technology, you could have used Professor Malik's argument to challenge it directly. For example: "Although Dr Farrell rightly highlights the risk of laws becoming outdated, his argument is weakened by Professor Malik's point about the uncodified constitution. This very flexibility is what allows Parliament to adapt and amend laws relating to technology far quicker than a more rigid system could."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a clear and confident judgement, stating which writer you find more convincing. This gives your answer a strong focus from the start.
Evidence Selection: You have effectively selected key arguments from both sources, such as the 'uncodified constitution' and the 'lack of expertise', to support your points.
Explanation of Points: For most of the evidence you selected, you successfully explained *why* it was a strong point, showing you understand the implications of the writers' arguments.

Targets

Develop Rebuttals: Your attempt to counter Dr Farrell's point on technology was a simple disagreement. A top-level technique is to use evidence from the *other* writer to challenge a point. This shows deeper critical thinking.
Sustain Your Argument: Your answer evaluates points one by one. To improve, link your points to build a single, flowing argument. Use phrases like "Malik's point on flexibility directly challenges Farrell's concern about..." to create a more sustained line of reasoning.
Use Direct Comparison: Instead of just calling a point 'strong' or 'weak', explicitly compare it to an opposing point. For example, "Malik's argument about flexibility is more convincing than Farrell's argument about speed because..."
Attention to Detail: In the exam, you used the names 'Dr Sarah Jenkins' and 'Professor David Chen'. The source material used 'Professor Sarah Malik' and 'Dr Owen Farrell'. Always use the names provided to show you are carefully reading the sources.

Candidate 86792

Word Count: ~191 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

Despite Sarah Jenkins providing a detailed sustained argument on law making being slow I agree with Sarah Jenkins more due to law changes being slow - sometimes to avoid any ambiguity or mistakes. One reason why I agree with Sarah Jenkins (SJ) is because it is a uncodifisd constitution this point is extremely strong having this type a unwritten constitution means that you may change and diverse ideas in the constitution effectively however with this point has a weakness as this may create ambiguity with knowing what is on the constitution. Conversely writer B thinks that law making is "unnecessarily slow" and that by the time royal assent is given it is already outdated this point is reinforced however what this point has failed to mention is that it must go through thorough checks and balance to maintain a stable society this is because if we do not adhere to this idea of going through checks and balances this could perhaps mean that there are faults in law this means that people may exploit this and perhaps could be dangerous for societye. Overall although David Chen says that it is slow it is purposefull to maintain peace

Quality of EvaluationGood. You have made a clear judgment and supported it by explaining arguments from both writers. Your best moment is when you directly challenge Writer B's view on slow law-making by introducing the crucial concept of 'checks and balances' to explain *why* the process needs to be thorough. This shows good evaluative thinking. However, your argument about the uncodified constitution is a little unclear, and you have confused the writers' names throughout, which affects the clarity of your response. To reach the top level, focus on developing each point with more specific detail and ensuring you use the correct names from the source material.

Developing a point: "Professor Malik's point about the uncodified constitution is strong because it allows laws to be flexible and adapt over time. However, a key weakness, which you start to identify, is that this flexibility can lead to uncertainty or 'ambiguity', as it's not all written in one single document."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state which writer you find more convincing at the very beginning and maintain this position throughout your answer.
Effective Counter-Argument: You successfully challenge Writer B's argument by explaining the importance of 'checks and balances' in preventing faulty or dangerous laws. This is a key evaluative skill.
Use of Evidence: You select relevant points from both sources to build your argument (e.g., the uncodified constitution, the idea of laws being 'outdated').

Targets

Accuracy with Names: You have referred to the writers as 'Sarah Jenkins' and 'David Chen' instead of Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell. Always use the names provided in the source material to ensure clarity.
Develop Your Points: Your point about the uncodified constitution was a bit confused. Explain *how* it allows for change but also *why* this creates ambiguity, perhaps with an example, to make your reasoning clearer.
Sustain the Comparison: Instead of dealing with each writer separately, try to directly compare their views throughout. For example: "While Farrell argues the process is slow, Malik would counter that this slowness is a necessary feature of our system to ensure stability."
Refine Terminology: To add more weight to your points, use more precise citizenship terms. When discussing 'checks and balances,' you could mention specific stages like the 'Green Paper,' 'White Paper,' or the roles of the House of Commons and House of Lords.

Candidate 87265

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 4/12

Our law-making system is remarkably effective at adapting to the rapid pace of scientific, cultural and social change. The flexibility of our uncodified constitution means parliament can pass new laws complex amendment processes required in countries with rigid constitutions. Furthermore, the system is supported by dedicated bodies like the Law Commission, which constantly reviews societal values. In addition we live as long I can't be asked to write anyone. Our current system of law-making is dangerously slow and entirely ill-equipped to keep pace with modern scientific and social advancements. The legislative process is archaic, often requiring months or even years. By itself, our cumbersome, traditional procedures leave society vulnerable to emerging threats and fail to adequately reflect rapidly shifting cultural norms and technologies realities.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have done a good job of explaining the key arguments from both Writer A and Writer B, showing you understand the two different perspectives. However, the response stops there. To evaluate, you must weigh these arguments against each other and make a supported judgment about which one is more convincing. Because there is no conclusion or comparison, your answer is descriptive rather than evaluative, which limits you to Level 1.

Making a Judgement: To improve, you could add a concluding sentence like: "Overall, Writer B is more convincing because while the Law Commission is important, the slow, 'archaic' legislative process he describes has a more significant real-world impact on society's ability to deal with new threats like AI or online crime."

Strengths

Clear Source Comprehension: You have accurately identified and explained the main arguments from both Writer A (effective, flexible system) and Writer B (slow, archaic system).
Use of Evidence: You have selected relevant details from the sources to support your points, such as the 'uncodified constitution' and the 'archaic' legislative process.

Targets

Make a Clear Judgment: Your top priority is to state which writer you find more convincing and why. Start your conclusion with a phrase like, "In conclusion, I find Writer B more persuasive because..."
Directly Compare Arguments: Instead of just listing the points from each writer separately, compare them. For example: "While Writer A argues the system is flexible, Writer B's point about laws taking months or years directly challenges this, making his argument stronger."
Develop a Line of Reasoning: Structure your answer so that it builds towards your final judgment. Each point you make should help to explain *why* you have reached your conclusion.
Ensure Completion: The answer ends abruptly. Always plan your time to ensure you can write a full, concluded response to access the higher marks.

Candidate 89670

Word Count: ~304 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

Whether or not our system of law-making can keep up with cultural, scientific and social changes is a question that has aroused discussion in the 21st Century. On one hand, the law-making may be seen as an effective way to deal with many modern issues however on the other hand, some see it as extremely outdated. Overall I do believe that to a certain extent, Parliament does need to have a few improvements to keep up with today's current affairs. Firstly, I agree with David Chan to a much larger extent than Sam Jenie as he mentions how it is dangerously slow and how it is entirely ill equipped to keep up with the pace of modern advancements. I agree to a large extent as some enough the social restrictions in 2020, while to an extent that may have been seen as 'swift', for a global pandemic it was extremely slow in the larger scheme of things and largely worked due to fear. Additionally, the slow nature of law making also makes it so that parliament is vulnerable due to being at an inherent risk of rapidly shifting views, cultural norms and emerging technologies that arise such as the ban on vapes that only occured a few years after the widespread of them amongst the youth. Sam Jenie however says that our Parliament is 'superbly well equipped' to due to their uncodified constitution which I do agree with to a larger extent as it allows laws to be changed far more quicker. Despite this, she fails to mention the lack of roles and royal assent required on MPs or judges in order to pass both laws and how delegated legislation may seem to empower governments but ultimately doesn't. Despite judicial flexibility many laws have little effect by the time they're passed due to the time it takes to be made. Ultimately, I agree with Chan to a larger extent as while yes, the uncodified constitution is significant in helping adapt to rapid cultural and technological shifts, there needs to be more changes in the pre-existing legal system that hasn't yet been addressed.

Quality of EvaluationGood. You have provided a clear and well-structured answer that directly addresses the question. You establish a clear judgment from the start and use arguments from both writers to support your reasoning with your own examples. To reach the top level, your evaluation needs to be more consistently developed and precise, particularly when you are challenging a writer's argument with technical knowledge of the legislative process.

Developing Your Counter-Argument: "However, Professor Malik's point about the uncodified constitution is weakened by the lengthy, formal stages of the legislative process, such as the multiple readings in both Houses and the requirement for Royal Assent, which can still significantly delay laws."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state which writer you agree with from the beginning and maintain this position throughout your answer, leading to a focused and coherent argument.
Use of Own Knowledge: You effectively support your points with relevant contemporary examples, such as the COVID-19 pandemic response and the ban on vapes. This demonstrates excellent application of your own knowledge.
Balanced Argument: You successfully engage with both sides of the debate, explaining the key arguments from both Professor Malik and Dr Farrell before reaching your final conclusion.

Targets

Precision with Terminology: Be careful with technical terms. For example, Royal Assent is a necessary final stage for a bill to become law, not something that is 'lacking'. Double-checking the key stages of the law-making process will strengthen your analysis.
Develop Counter-Arguments: When you challenge a writer (e.g., Professor Malik), try to be more specific. Instead of saying she 'fails to mention' things, explain *why* the things she focuses on (like the uncodified constitution) are less significant than the problems the other writer highlights (the slow process).
Sustained Comparison: To create a more 'sustained' line of reasoning (for Level 3), try to directly compare the writers' points throughout. For instance: "While Malik's point on constitutional flexibility is valid in theory, Farrell's evidence of real-world delays, like the vape ban, shows this flexibility doesn't always translate into timely action."
Attention to Detail: Always use the names of the writers provided in the source material. In this case, they were Professor Malik and Dr Farrell. This is a small but important detail for exam accuracy.

Candidate 91768

Word Count: ~390 words

Evaluation Score: 10/12

Although David Chen (DC) makes the argument that law making cannot keep up with scientific, cultural and social change due to the slow and elongated time that it takes to create new laws. I agree with Sarah Jenkins (SJ) to a large extent as she refers to the British Constitution and its flexibility. I agree with SJ because she refers to the British Constitution. For example, the British constitution is uncodified making it flexible for our Parliament to make laws to align with scientific, cultural, and social changes. This allows Judicial reviews to take place as a supreme court judge can flag a law as outdated during a case and that law can be changed according to the case. This has been demonstrated when supreme court judges had to redefine what being a man or a woman meant. It has also been demonstrated when supreme court judges had to re-evaluate laws around homophobia due to a case where two men were denied service at a wedding cake shop because the owners were homophobic. This shows that our law-making system can keep up with scientific, cultural, and social change as many laws have been successfully changed due to the problems that they served in today's society. I disagree with DC because of their idea that law making is extremely slow. For example, he says that the legislative process is archaic, this can be seen as an exaggeration although certain laws take a while to be passed but some laws are more urgent to be changed than others. Although some people may agree that law making is slow because if a law is changed it has to go through the supreme court who flag any problems with the law. This could take a while depending on the expected urgency of the issue in terms of its impact on society, science and culture. But DC also states that Parliament only focus on problems that involve harm. This isn't true because you can mention the law against homophobia that was introduced, the men weren't necessarily harmed but they were distinctively discriminated against due to their sexuality. Overall, I agree with SJ and her reference of the British Constitution as the fact that it is uncodified makes it more flexible compared to the US. Constitution which is written and makes it harder for laws in America to be altered and changed unlike the U.K.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a strong, well-structured evaluation that confidently reaches Level 3. You establish a clear judgment from the start and sustain it with well-chosen evidence from the sources and your own knowledge. You directly compare the writers' arguments and use specific examples, like the 'cake shop' case and the US Constitution, to great effect. To reach the very top marks, focus on refining your understanding of the precise role of the Supreme Court and ensuring all examples are as specific as possible.

Refining Knowledge: "Although some people may agree that law making is slow, the Supreme Court's role is not to 'flag problems' during the legislative process. Instead, Parliament passes laws, and the Supreme Court can later interpret them or, under the Human Rights Act 1998, issue a 'declaration of incompatibility', which strongly signals to Parliament that a law needs changing."

Strengths

Clear & Sustained Judgment: You state which writer you find more convincing at the very beginning and maintain this argument throughout your answer, which is a hallmark of a top-level response.
Effective Use of Evidence: You use specific examples (the 'cake shop' case) and your own knowledge (the uncodified constitution, US comparison) to effectively support your points and add weight to your evaluation.
Direct Rebuttal: You confidently challenge the arguments of Dr Farrell (who you call DC), for example by questioning his use of the word "archaic" and his claim about laws only addressing "harm".

Targets

Use Correct Writer Names: In the exam, the sources will have names. Make sure you use the names provided (e.g., Professor Malik and Dr Farrell) rather than creating your own abbreviations or getting them confused (e.g., David Chen/Sarah Jenkins).
Refine Understanding of the Supreme Court: Be more precise about the Supreme Court's role. It interprets law and rules on its application; it does not participate directly in the *making* of laws in Parliament. This will make your analysis more accurate.
Be Specific with All Examples: Your example of the 'cake shop' case was excellent. The one about "redefining what being a man or a woman meant" was too vague. Aim for the same level of detail in all your examples (e.g., you could have mentioned the Gender Recognition Act 2004).
Develop Counter-Arguments Further: When you disagree with Farrell's point about the process being slow, you could strengthen your argument by mentioning a specific law that was passed quickly in an emergency, such as the Coronavirus Act 2020.

Extended Writing Feedback

Teacher Access

Dashboard Unlocked

🧑‍🎓 Student Quick Access

📊 Data Export

⚠️ Safeguarding Alerts

Model Answer (Exemplar)

📄 Source Passages

Dr. Sarah Jenkins says YES

Professor David Chen says NO

💡 Own Knowledge You Could Have Used

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

Teacher Next Steps

Candidate 16927

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 19672

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 20179

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 21226

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 22289

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 2310

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4150

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4164

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4226

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4249

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4267

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4283

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4328

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4341

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4349

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 62017

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 72198

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 76928

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 82067

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 86792

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 87265

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 89670

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 91768

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback