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expertise," which means by the time a bill like the Online Safety Act passes through both Houses, it is often already outdated.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. Weak Comparative Analysis: The most common issue was discussing each writer's views in separate, isolated paragraphs. Essays lacked a direct 'clash' of ideas, failing to explain how one writer's point directly challenged or refuted the other's.
👉 Model: While Dr Owen Farrell champions self-reliance by pointing to the high financial cost of alliance membership, Professor Sarah Malik's argument that these costs are a worthwhile investment for guaranteed mutual protection is ultimately more persuasive.
2. Lack of Attention to Source Detail: Many students used incorrect names for the writers (e.g., Jenkins, Chen, SJ, DC) or misattributed their titles. This suggests a rushed reading of the source material and undermines the credibility of the analysis.
👉 Model: Professor Sarah Malik's argument for collective defence is based on shared intelligence, a point Dr Owen Farrell might counter by highlighting the risk of espionage within such alliances.
3. Superficial Explanation: Students often stated a point from a source without explaining why it was significant or how it supported the writer's overall argument. Points were asserted rather than developed with detailed reasoning.
👉 Model: Professor Sarah Malik's claim that alliances act as a 'powerful deterrent' is convincing because it suggests that the primary strength of collective defence lies not in winning wars, but in preventing them from starting in the first place.
4. Inconsistent Line of Reasoning: Many essays lacked a clear, sustained argument. Students would state a judgment in the introduction but then fail to link subsequent points back to it, creating a disjointed analysis rather than a coherent 'golden thread'.
👉 Model: This vulnerability to internal political disputes, as highlighted by Dr Owen Farrell, further reinforces my view that self-reliance is a more stable long-term strategy than relying on the unpredictable allegiances of other nations.

Teacher Next Steps

1. Argument Tennis: To fix weak comparison, divide the class in two (Team Malik vs. Team Farrell). The teacher 'serves' a theme (e.g., 'Economic Cost'). Team Malik makes a point. Team Farrell must directly counter it using a comparative phrase ("While Malik says..., Farrell would argue..."). Go back and forth for 5-10 minutes. This drills the skill of direct refutation.
2. Source Sleuths: To improve attention to detail, give students two new, short source texts. In pairs, they have 3 minutes to find and write down: the full name and title of each writer, one key quote from each, and the main argument of each. This trains them to actively scan for and record crucial details accurately from the start.
3. The 'So What?' Drill: To deepen explanations, project a simple point from a source (e.g., "Dr Farrell argues that self-reliance fosters technological innovation."). Pick a student to explain it. After their explanation, ask "So what?". The student must then elaborate on the significance (e.g., "...so a self-reliant nation is less likely to fall behind in military technology."). Repeat 3-4 times.
4. Golden Thread Weaving: To build sustained arguments, give students a pre-written, jumbled paragraph containing a main judgment and three supporting points. Their task is to rewrite it, adding linking phrases (e.g., "This further supports the view that...") to connect each point back to the main judgment, creating a clear and logical flow.

Candidate 12906

Word Count: ~304 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

Both Sarah Jenkins (SJ) and David Chen (DC) have valid points, however I agree with SJ. She states that the UK's "uncodified constitution means that parliament can pass new laws". This is a strong point as the UK's unwritten constitution does in fact increase flexibility and adaptation as it can be modified with ease due to how it is not set in stone. For example, when new technologies were introduced, such as the 'e-scooter' electric-powered bikes, parliament was swiftly able to restrict usage in order to protect society without any further harm being done, all due to the uncodified constitution. SJ also states that the UK's principle of parliamentary sovereignty aids with keeping up with the ever-changing world. This is a weak point as parliamentary sovereignty does the opposite of this. This is because, due to this principle means that no country other than the UK can change it's laws, meaning that if another country or organisation set the UK is in, makes a good law, that adapts to the new technology, the UK will not be affected by it, as it's parliament is sovereign. However, DC also made some strong points, such as how he stated that the "legislative process is archaic", which is a good point, as it correctly criticizes the UK's slow law making process, which often requires many years to pass a law, reducing the UK's adaptability, as by the time that the law is passed, it could be already outdated. However, this could also be seen as a weak point, as DC overlooked how judicial review can provide fast minute critique as well as ways to adapt the laws as well as parliament's decisions to the angry world and new technology. DC also states that Parliament reacts to problems instead of preparing for them. This is a strong point, as it further reinforces the fact that the UK has a slow law-making process, as when the UK's parliament is reactive rather than proactive, it decreases adaptability even more, as the UK is unable to pass laws with speed and efficiency. Overall, I agree with SJ, as she provided good critique and strong, well thought-out points which directly counter DC's argument.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 2 response. You establish a clear judgement from the outset and analyse arguments from both writers to support it. The use of the e-scooter example to illustrate flexibility was particularly effective. Your evaluation is clear, but it could be more sustained by directly comparing the writers' arguments against each other, rather than discussing them in separate paragraphs. A key area for improvement is ensuring your understanding of core concepts, like parliamentary sovereignty, is precise to avoid weakening your own arguments.

Developing Evaluation: You could challenge Malik's point on parliamentary sovereignty more effectively. For example: "While Malik sees parliamentary sovereignty as a strength, it could be argued it hinders adaptability. Because no parliament can bind its successor, long-term policies on issues like climate change can be easily overturned after an election, creating reactive rather than proactive governance, which supports Farrell's core argument."

Strengths

Clear Judgement & Structure: You state who you find more convincing at the very beginning and structure your essay logically, dealing with each writer in turn before concluding.
Application of Own Knowledge: Your use of the e-scooter example was excellent. It provided specific, relevant evidence to support Malik's point about the flexibility of the UK's uncodified constitution.
Evaluative Language: You consistently attempt to weigh up the arguments by labelling them as 'strong' or 'weak' and explaining your reasoning. This is the foundation of good evaluation.

Targets

Develop Direct Comparison: Instead of analysing each writer separately, try to directly compare their arguments. For example: "Farrell's claim that the process is 'archaic' is a direct challenge to Malik's point about 'flexibility' because..." This creates a more integrated and sustained evaluation (a 'running commentary').
Refine Key Term Knowledge: Your explanation of parliamentary sovereignty was inaccurate. Revisit this and other core concepts to ensure your understanding is precise. Parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK and can make or unmake any law.
Strengthen Counter-Arguments: Your point about judicial review was a good idea. To improve, explain its limitations. For example, while it can check government power, it cannot create new laws or force Parliament to act, so it doesn't fully solve the problem of a 'reactive' legislature that Farrell identifies.
Write a Developed Conclusion: Your conclusion restated your judgement. A top-level conclusion should briefly synthesise your main points. Summarise *why* Malik's arguments on flexibility ultimately outweigh Farrell's concerns about speed to create a final, powerful summary of your reasoning.

Candidate 20896

Word Count: ~353 words

Evaluation Score: 9/12

Overall, I agree with Dr Sarah Jenkins ideology saying that our system of lawmaking keeps up with strategic, cultural and social change. In the UK this is because of our unwritten constitution. The US runs on a written constitution. This means that our law is not confined and rigidly physically in say a book like in other nations such as the US. Having an unwritten constitution means that we can change and develop our law and that our law has flexibility. This makes it so in times of an emergency we can always change and or develop the law to best interest of our nation. The United States has a written constitution. Over several decades this has proven to be a source of division due to the concept that more than 100 years ago when the constitution was written there was a law that gave people legalised access to firearms. In order for the US to change or develop the constitution they have to get a vote with a 50% majority in the lower house and 75% in the upper. This makes alteration of the law literally impossible. Overall I think this is a great point as in the United States their constitution strictly embodies the views of itself hundreds of years ago and not that of now. Our unwritten constitution makes it so we can reflect in modern societal values like through the equality act 2010 giving protected characteristics such as disability and race that are free from discrimination. On the other hand one may agree with Dr Chen's point that our law making system doesn't review cultural, strategic and social change in the world. This can be seen through the steps in the law-making process. P2-> Our law making process involves various stages such as 3 readings in both houses, two paper crafts, house of lords and commons, like the Jucicial Review act, which is in both houses and finally gets a royal assent. This process is extremely long and tedious as we can see this through the 2023 online safety act. This bill was originally proposed in 2023 to the government in order to protect people from harmful information on the internet like making pornography age unspecific. This bill which is seemingly simple and fairly extremely usefull took over 2 years to sign. This is a great point as it highlights how long the law making process can be. However it doesn't take into account how the law making process is set out like this to stop extreme and dangerous acts from being made law. From a potential elective dictatorship which is why we have checks and balances like judicial review... Overall, I agree with Sarah Jenkins point as a thoughtful combination of parliamentary sovereignty, expert law-making and judicial flexibility ensures a dynamic, adaptive legal framework to help govern and to keep up with the views of today.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a strong evaluation that reaches a clear, well-supported judgment. You effectively use evidence like the Equality Act and the Online Safety Act to explore both sides of the argument. Your comparison between the UK's unwritten constitution and the US's written one is a particularly strong feature. The best part of your answer is where you evaluate Dr Farrell's point, explaining *why* the law-making process is slow (to prevent an 'elective dictatorship'). This shows you are weighing the arguments against each other, which is a top-level skill.

Clarity in Explanation: "A bill must pass through several stages in both the House of Commons and House of Lords, including First Reading, Second Reading, Committee Stage, Report Stage, and Third Reading, before receiving Royal Assent. This thorough process ensures scrutiny."

Strengths

Clear & Consistent Judgment: You state your view clearly at the start and maintain it throughout your response, leading to a persuasive and coherent conclusion.
Effective Use of Evidence: You support your points well with specific examples, such as the Equality Act 2010 to show flexibility and the Online Safety Act 2023 to show the slow process.
Direct Evaluation: Your rebuttal of Dr Farrell's argument (explaining that the slow process is a necessary safeguard) is a high-level skill. You don't just describe the arguments; you weigh them against each other.

Targets

Accuracy of Terminology: Be careful with the names of the writers (Malik and Farrell, not Jenkins and Chen) and key legal processes. For example, 'Judicial Review' is a court process for challenging government actions, not a stage in creating an Act of Parliament.
Precision of Knowledge: While your comparison to the US was a great idea, some facts were inaccurate (e.g., the process for amending the US Constitution). Double-checking key facts will make your excellent arguments even more convincing.
Clarity of Explanation: Your description of the UK law-making process was a little confused ('two paper crafts'). Aim to clearly and sequentially list the key stages (e.g., First Reading, Second Reading, Committee Stage etc.) to show precise understanding.

Candidate 21687

Word Count: ~360 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

In both sources both create a strong and asrechip or sumals which prove and back hui ponts, but if I had to agree with one person I would agree with Professor Demd Aan (PDC) as he states 'Our ancent system of law makis is den serouils and extrely ill-equipped to keep pace with modern sientific and social advancements", which I agree with because if we were to compare to our sientific advancements to places like China we would be our is very under developed when compared to China as China has developed its sientific and social advancements through new technologies. I furter agree as our legislative process is archaic and often requires months or even years for a bill to pass through both house of commons and House of Lords. This shows how slua our law makis system is. Finally I agree with PDC as 'Riealy ultimately states our cumbersome, traditional process leaves society vulnerable to emerging threats and fail to anquately reflect refidly shifting cultural norms and technological realities' this can be proven as the UK lacks some forms high tech advantages and also lacks a crist pace to adapt and operate laws to threats that impose of society. However I can also a Sye against PDC and agree with Dr. Sarah Jenkis (DSJ) as it is true our law-makis system is remarkably effective at adapting to the rapid pace of sientific, cultural, and social change. This is proven as the UK has a unwritten constitution which allows Parliament to abolish or create laws at a rapid rate. In addition our tradition to common law allows judges to interpret and apply existing principles to novel situations, which provides an immediate response to emerging cultural and nemlysil challenges. I agree with DSJ as over the years the UK's technology has improved vastly and helped not only the society, government but also the NHS as now people can book online check ups or see a GP rather than going to the place physically this decreases the rate of treatment and lowers the risk of outbreak. This shows our law-makis system has kept up as its constantly creates new laws to benefit society. Furthermore the number of Parliament members, local councillors, and judicial diversity ensures our local concerns versus domestic, national, and external can be moved also.

Quality of EvaluationGood. You have provided a clear judgment and supported it by explaining arguments from both writers. You use evidence from the sources and bring in your own knowledge, like the unwritten constitution, to back up your points. To reach the top level, you need to move beyond explaining each side separately. Try to directly compare their arguments, showing why one is more convincing than the other in a running commentary throughout your answer.

Direct Comparison: "However, Dr Farrell's argument that the system is 'archaic' is challenged by Professor Malik's point about the UK's unwritten constitution. This flexibility allows Parliament to pass laws rapidly when needed, such as emergency anti-terror legislation, which directly counters the idea that the system is always slow and 'ill-equipped' for modern threats."

Strengths

Clear Structure & Judgement: You start with a clear judgement ("I would agree with...") and structure your answer logically, dedicating a paragraph to each viewpoint.
Use of Evidence: You effectively select quotes from both sources to use as a foundation for your points, showing good engagement with the material.
Application of Own Knowledge: You bring in relevant own knowledge, particularly your points about the UK's unwritten constitution and the role of common law, to develop the arguments.

Targets

Develop Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing each writer in separate blocks, try to directly compare their arguments. For example, "While Farrell claims the system is slow, Malik's point about common law is more convincing because it shows how the judiciary can adapt without waiting for Parliament."
Sustain Your Argument: After explaining Professor Malik's view, link it back to why you still find Dr Farrell more convincing overall. This creates a more sustained line of reasoning that consistently reinforces your main judgment.
Strengthen Your Examples: Your example about the NHS app shows technological change, but doesn't strongly link to the *law-making process*. Use examples of specific laws that were passed quickly (e.g., Coronavirus Act 2020) or slowly (e.g., years of debate on a topic) to better support your points.
Check Writer Names: Always double-check the names of the writers in the source material. You referred to 'PDC' and 'DSJ', but the writers were Professor Malik and Dr Farrell. Accuracy is important for showing attention to detail.

Candidate 21770

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

Both Sarah Jenkins (SJ) and David Chen (DC) have actually arguments that have good ideas that you must reflect on.

One reason why I agree with JC is because of our uncodified constitution that allows Parliament to easily adapt to the modern society. This means our country unlike other can give society that means adaptation we can progress into the future quicker. However this would be seen as a bad thing in the public eyes as the unwritten constitution is hard to understand with their being no one, correct constitution what could hold us back as people would struggle understanding it means they would actually have to make more laws.

One reason why I agree DC is because in order to pass a bill it needs to go through the House of Commons and House of Lords what have to both agree on something to happen it is made a law what can take up to a year. For example with the assisted dying that took extremely to group out the at stated and serious and it what is a progressive society can't keep happening especially with larger topics as it can hinder our growth. However this would be seen as a good thing it shows that our government cares for our society and want us to experience and live in the best society even if it takes for ages to support it out.

In conclusion I agree with DC more as if we take too long on making a law we get to be left in the past.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have the right structure for a good evaluation. You explain points from both writers and attempt to weigh them up before giving a final, justified conclusion. This puts you in Level 2. To improve, you need to develop your explanations with more specific detail and focus on making your sentences clearer. Some of your points, particularly your example about assisted dying, are very difficult to understand due to phrasing.

Clarity: Your sentence "For example with the assisted dying that took extremely to group out the at stated and serious and it what is a progressive society can't keep happening..." could be rewritten as: "For example, the lengthy debates over complex issues like assisted dying show how our current system can hinder progress on important social topics."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have structured your answer well, dedicating a paragraph to each writer before reaching a conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Consistent Judgement: You state a clear judgement in your conclusion ("I agree with DC more") and effectively link it back to a point you made earlier in your answer.
Use of Counter-arguments: You attempt to show both the positive and negative sides of each writer's argument (e.g., a slow process is bad for progress but good for careful decision-making). This is a key evaluation skill.

Targets

Develop Explanations: Your points need more detail. Instead of just saying the constitution is "hard to understand," explain *why* this is a problem (e.g., it can lead to legal challenges, be manipulated by the government, or reduce public trust).
Improve Sentence Clarity: Some sentences are long and confusing. Read your work aloud to check it makes sense. Focus on using punctuation like commas and full stops to break up your ideas and ensure each sentence has a clear meaning.
Directly Compare Writers: Instead of discussing the writers in separate bubbles, try to make them 'argue' with each other. For example: "While Malik argues for speed and flexibility, Farrell would counter that this risks creating poorly thought-out laws. Farrell's view is more convincing because..."
Use Correct Names: In an exam, always use the names provided in the source material (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell, not Jenkins and Chen). This shows attention to detail.

Candidate 28160

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

Sarah Jenkins believes that our system of law making keep up with scientific cultural and social changes in the world. In her argument she mentioned how "the flexibility of the UK's uncodified constitution allows parliment to pass new laws quite quickly." this was a good point as SJ mentioned that the UK's constitution is not written unlike other countries. Sarah Jenkins also included in her argument "the use of delegated legislation" and how it "empowers Government ministers to swiftly update regulations in technical areas". SJ however didn't mention how the legislative process often requires months or even years for a bill to pass through both the House of Commons and House of Lords. Proffester David Chen disagrees that our system of law-making keeps up with scientific cultural, and social changes in the world. DC expressed that parliment are "less proactive and more inherently reactive" and how "lawmakers typically only [illegible] address issues after public harm has occurred". This is a great point as laws with for example nuts and allegies only really come up when a [illegible] public situation happens. DC also mentions that there are a "severe lack of specialized technical expertise among politicians" and that it "leads to poorly drafted laws". DC has however forgotten to mention expert consultation and parlimentary sovereignty.

Quality of EvaluationGood. You have clearly understood and explained the main arguments from both writers, using quotes effectively. Your use of own knowledge, especially the example about allergy laws, is a real strength and shows you are thinking like a Citizenship expert. However, your evaluation is not yet sustained. You evaluate each writer separately rather than directly comparing them to decide who is more convincing. A concluding sentence stating your overall judgment is missing, which keeps this in Level 2.

Comparative Judgment: While Sarah Malik's point about delegated legislation is valid for technical updates, Dr Farrell is more convincing overall. His argument that Parliament is 'reactive' is stronger because major social changes, like those surrounding online safety or AI, often take years of debate and public incidents before laws are passed, which supports his view more than Malik's.

Strengths

Clear Explanation: You accurately identify and explain the core arguments from both Professor Malik and Dr Farrell.
Use of Evidence: You effectively select and embed short quotes from the sources to support your points, which is a key skill.
Application of Own Knowledge: Your example about allergy laws to support Dr Farrell's 'reactive' point is excellent and demonstrates strong subject knowledge.

Targets

State a Clear Judgment: Start your answer with a clear sentence stating which writer you find more convincing and why (e.g., "Dr Farrell is more convincing because..."). This frames your entire answer.
Directly Compare Arguments: Instead of discussing the writers separately, compare their points head-to-head. For example: "Malik argues law-making is fast, *however*, Farrell's point that it is reactive is more persuasive because..."
Develop Your Evaluation: When you challenge a writer (e.g., "DC has forgotten to mention expert consultation"), explain *why* this omission makes their argument weaker. Does expert consultation fully solve the problem of MPs lacking expertise?
Proofread for SPaG: Pay close attention to the spelling of key terms like 'Parliament', 'Professor', and 'allergies' to ensure your work is presented professionally.

Candidate 4280

Word Count: ~391 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

Whether whether our law-making system keeps up with scientific, cultural and social changes in the world could be interpreted in many ways. For example Dr. Sarah Jenkins (S.J) believes that our uncodified constitution means we can keep up with change whilst professor David Chen (D.C) believes that it frequently remains outdated. However although both statements hold truth they both have flaws. On the one hand S.J says that parliament can provide an 'immediate response' to change in society. This is true as although there are many stages of law passing to ensure it is refined parliament can create immediate legislature. This means if something needs to change a law can be passed as early as a week. However this lacks credibility as for more important cases/laws it may need more time and cannot keep up with societies uphistory values and beliefs an example of the laws failing to keep up with society is the fact that same sex marriages weren't made legal but until 2015 which as well as the equality act 2010 this meant that many people who were part of the LGBTQ community were living in fear due to discrimination and homophobia. Contrastingly, D.C believes that the slow law-making system leaves society vulnerable. This is credible because it takes many months for laws to be created as a bill must go through first reading and several other stages before gaining Royal assent. D.C also gains credibility in his argument as for parliament to pass a law Royal assent must happen traditionally however the Monarch can choose to refuse Royal assent and the legislative branch must wait 1 year before they are able to pass the law which can cause many delays. However what D.C forgot to mention is that if there are outdated laws judicial review can overturn it if it isn't lawful. For example due to judicial Review an algorythm which generated peoples grades during the covid pandemic recieved critisism for not being accurate. In conclusion I agree more with D.C as it has been proven that the law dosent keep up with society as things are always changing whether its newly emerging believes or the idea that 16 year olds should be able to vote like the Scottish referendum in 2014. However things such as judicial review and immediate legislature ensure that the law isn't too behind.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a strong response that sits at the top of Level 2. You make a clear judgment and support it by explaining arguments from both writers. Your real strength is using your own knowledge (like the COVID algorithm and Equality Act) to effectively challenge the sources. To reach Level 3, focus on creating a more direct comparison between the writers throughout your essay, rather than discussing them in separate paragraphs. This will create a more sustained line of reasoning.

Sustaining a Line of Reasoning: "In conclusion, while Malik's point about 'immediate legislature' has some merit for emergencies, Farrell's argument is ultimately more convincing. The significant delays in major social reforms, such as marriage equality, demonstrate that the system's default pace leaves society vulnerable, proving Farrell's core point that our law-making system frequently remains outdated."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You consistently make your own view clear, especially in the conclusion where you state who you find more convincing and why.
Effective Use of Own Knowledge: Your use of specific, relevant examples like the COVID algorithm judicial review and the Equality Act to test the writers' arguments is a high-level skill.
Balanced Argument: You evaluate both sides of the debate, identifying flaws in both writers' arguments (e.g., challenging Malik with the slow pace of social change and challenging Farrell with the power of judicial review).

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of treating each writer in a separate 'silo', try to compare them directly. For example: "Malik argues Parliament can be fast, but Farrell's view of a slow, multi-stage process is more realistic for the complex social changes that truly matter, such as..."
Develop Explanations: When you use an example like the Equality Act 2010, briefly explain *why* it shows the law is slow. For instance, mention that the societal push for these rights existed for decades before the law was finally passed.
Precision of Knowledge: Your knowledge is good, but double-check specific details for maximum impact. The point about Royal Assent was slightly inaccurate (it's not been refused since 1708). Focusing on the Parliament Acts and the House of Lords' delaying power would be a more precise point to make.
Focus on the Source: In the exam, always use the names of the writers provided in the source material (in this case, Malik and Farrell). This shows the examiner you are directly engaging with the evidence given.

Candidate 4356

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I mostly agree with DO as he has very good points for example he states that our current system is a dangerously slow and ineffective process is correct. This is often required many or years for a bill to pass through the house of commons and the house of lords which is very bad for our modern day society. On the other hand SJ states that our law making system is remarkable, which is false as they do not have to go through the amendment amendment process within countries like the United States have to. Another point that DO makes is that case law is undemocratic due to the fact that judges are allow to make changes that and also make disruptive changes to the democracy. These procedures could leave our society very vulnerable to emerging threats and fail to adequately reflect rapidly shifting cultural norms and fresh rules required.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgment and supported it by explaining relevant arguments from both writers. You use your own knowledge effectively to develop Dr Farrell's points about the slowness of law-making and the risks of case law. However, to reach the top level, your evaluation needs to be more direct. Instead of just dismissing Professor Malik's view, try to weigh it directly against Dr Farrell's arguments to create a more sustained line of reasoning.

Direct Comparison: "For example, while Professor Malik finds the system 'remarkable', this view is less convincing when compared to Dr Farrell's point about its dangerous slowness. A system that takes years to pass a single bill cannot adequately protect a modern society, which makes Dr Farrell's argument stronger."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the start ("I mostly agree with DO"), which gives your answer a strong focus.
Good Use of Evidence: You select relevant arguments from both writers (the speed of law-making, the nature of case law) to build your answer.
Supporting Explanation: You use your own knowledge to explain and develop the points you agree with, particularly regarding the time it takes for bills to pass through Parliament.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing each writer separately, directly compare their arguments. Use phrases like "Writer A's point is less convincing than Writer B's because..." to create a direct clash between the ideas.
Engage with the Counter-Argument: Don't just dismiss the writer you disagree with as "false". Explain *why* their argument is weaker. For example, why might Professor Malik think the system is 'remarkable' despite its slowness? (e.g., stability, scrutiny). Then explain why you still find that unconvincing.
Use Correct Names: Pay close attention to the names of the writers provided in the source material (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell) to ensure accuracy and professionalism in your response.
Sustain Your Argument: Link your points together to build a continuous line of reasoning. Start your second paragraph by explicitly linking back to your main judgment to show how this new point further supports your view.

Candidate 4404

Word Count: ~110 words

Evaluation Score: 2/12

I partially agree with Sarah Jenkins (SJ) because it makes the passing of laws easier and can make a significant impact on society. The law making systems are effective in our UK unwritten constitution and law enforcement. Devolution can also improve scientific, cultural and social changes in the world because all the power goes to the central government who are the most dominant and can be urged into keeping up with scientific beliefs through their sovereignty. Others may argue that David Chen (DC) has a stronger point. For example he states that AI and other popular technologies could replace government & law passing processes.

Quality of EvaluationLimited. Your answer makes a simple judgement and identifies a point from each writer. However, the response shows significant misunderstanding of key concepts like 'devolution' and does not address the actual question about collective defence versus self-reliance. To improve, you must focus on directly answering the question set, using the correct names for the writers, and explaining their specific arguments before comparing them.

Using Concepts Accurately: You wrote: "Devolution... because all the power goes to the central government". A more accurate use of this concept would be: "Devolution, which gives power to regional governments like in Scotland, could be seen as a form of self-reliance, which supports Dr Farrell's argument."

Strengths

Attempts a Judgement: You start your answer by stating which writer you agree with, which is the first step in an evaluation question.
Uses Both Sources: You have tried to include ideas from both writers in your answer, which is essential for earning marks in evaluation.

Targets

Address the Question: Your answer discusses law-making and devolution but the question was about 'Collective Defence vs. Self-Reliance'. Always underline the key terms in the question to ensure your entire answer is focused on it.
Accurate Use of Concepts: Your explanation of devolution was incorrect. Devolution is when power is moved *from* central government *to* regional governments. Ensure you revise key terms so you can use them accurately to support your points.
Develop Your Points: You state that AI could "replace government". To improve, explain *why* Dr Farrell thinks this and *how* it connects to his main argument about self-reliance. For example, 'Farrell argues AI could make national decision-making faster, reducing the need to rely on other countries for defence.'
Check Writer Details: You referred to the writers as 'Sarah Jenkins' and 'David Chen'. Always use the names provided in the source material (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell) to show you have engaged with it carefully.

Candidate 4434

Word Count: ~375 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

Some may agree that our system of law-making keeps up with scientific, cultural, and social changes through various amount of ways, whereas some may disagree with this and argue otherwise, due to things like long processes of passing a bill, difficulty for your voice to be heard etc. I somewhat agree with Dr Sarah Jenkins (SJ), who agrees with our system of law-making does keep up with the changes. I partially agree with this as our system has many adaptations that help our laws keep up to date with the on-going changes in the world. For example, everyone has and can take up a political role, be its through voting, petitions etc. If there is an ongoing issue that has not been recognised by Parliament, and change needs to happen, an ordinary person can start a petition and get 100,000 signatures for it to be debated in Parliament. SJ also mentions a great and key point where she mentions our constitution, which is uncodified and unwritten, making it more flexible and easier to change. However, I also agree with Professor David Chen's view, who thinks that our system does not keep up with the ongoing changes, to an extent. I previously argued that things like petitions help our system be more updated and kept up with the world, however that can be argued otherwise. For your petition to even be heard, not followed, you need to get 100,000+ signatures which can be difficult and time consuming, which could also lead to more harm to the public. DC also contests SJ's point of laws being able to pass quickly due to our uncodified constitution, by mentioning how our legislative process is archaic, as it takes months, even years for a bill to pass through, which could be very inconvenient to the public. In conclusion, I agree more with SJ's idea that our system does keep up with the on-going changes of the world as there is many ways for our politicians to make up to date laws to the things that which can and eventually do, change the law to adapt to our changing society.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 2 response. You have a clear structure and make a definite judgement. The strongest part of your answer is the third paragraph, where you directly use Dr Farrell's arguments to challenge Professor Malik's points on petitions and the constitution – this is a high-level skill. To improve, your conclusion needs to be more developed. Instead of just restating your opinion, you should weigh the arguments against each other and explain precisely *why* Malik's view is more convincing despite the valid criticisms from Farrell.

Strengthening Your Conclusion: "In conclusion, while Dr Farrell's point about the archaic legislative process is valid, I find Professor Malik's argument more convincing. The flexibility of our uncodified constitution provides the fundamental mechanism for change, which is more significant than the procedural delays. Although petitions and bills can be slow, the *potential* for rapid adaptation, as argued by Malik, ultimately ensures our legal system can respond to societal shifts more effectively in the long term."

Strengths

Direct Comparison: You excelled at using one writer's arguments to directly challenge the other's (e.g., countering the point on petitions by highlighting the 100,000-signature hurdle). This shows strong analytical skill.
Clear Structure: Your essay is well-organised with an introduction, paragraphs for each viewpoint, and a conclusion. This makes your argument logical and easy to follow.
Understanding of Sources: You accurately identified and explained key arguments from both writers, such as the uncodified constitution and the slow legislative process, showing good comprehension.

Targets

Develop the Conclusion: Your conclusion states your judgement but doesn't fully explain *why* you find Malik's view more convincing. Aim to weigh the arguments against each other in your conclusion to justify your final decision.
Sustain the Argument: While you make excellent comparative points, try to link them back to your main judgement more consistently. Create a 'golden thread' that runs through the whole essay, building towards your final, justified conclusion.
Accuracy with Source Details: Be careful to use the correct names of the writers as provided in the exam paper (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell). Using the wrong names can suggest a lack of attention to detail.
Use Evaluative Language: Instead of "I agree with...", try using more analytical phrases like "Malik's argument is more compelling because...", "Farrell's point is significant, however, it overlooks...", or "The most convincing argument is...".

Candidate 4504

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

I highly agree with Dr. Sarah Jenkins. This is because our law system is very much effective at adapting and catching up to Scientific, cultural, and Social changes. Not only that but also our parliament is effectively fast at passing new laws and This is what makes our country highly democratic, as well as that in order to create new laws citizens have the right to vote through different places that would make it easier for them giving them the right to freedom of speech. However, others may disagree and say that law making is very archaic meaning that it would often require months or even years for a bill to pass through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Also things such as artificial intelligence are far more more ahead than the parliament. It is also thought that law makers address issues after a significant damages or harms. Public harm has occurred, which is highly dangerously flawed and undemocratic. Overall I mainly agree with Dr. Sarah Jenkins because the use of legislation gives the government power to update regulation in technical areas such as, medical advancements or environmental standards without having to wait for the parliament. Not only that but also law making keeps up with modern ages making our changes highly effective.

Quality of EvaluationClear. You have provided a well-structured response that makes a clear judgement and explains arguments from both writers. This is a solid Level 2 answer. To improve, you need to move from explaining the two sides separately to directly comparing their arguments. For example, instead of "Writer A says this... However, Writer B says that," try "While Writer B argues the system is slow, Writer A's point is more convincing because...". This shows a more sustained and developed line of reasoning.

Direct Comparison: "While Dr Farrell rightly argues that the formal bill process can be slow, Professor Malik's point about the effectiveness of delegated legislation is more convincing. This is because it allows the government to update technical laws on issues like AI far more quickly than Parliament could, directly addressing Farrell's concern about the law failing to keep pace with change."

Strengths

Clear Structure: Your answer is easy to follow, with a clear argument, counter-argument, and conclusion. This makes your reasoning logical.
Use of Both Sources: You have successfully identified and explained relevant arguments from both Professor Malik and Dr Farrell, which is essential for an evaluation question.
Consistent Judgement: You state which writer you find more convincing at the start and maintain this position throughout, leading to a clear and decisive conclusion.

Targets

Check for Accuracy: You referred to 'Dr. Sarah Jenkins' instead of 'Professor Sarah Malik'. Always use the names and details provided in the source material to ensure accuracy.
Develop Direct Comparison: Instead of explaining each writer's view in separate paragraphs, try to weave them together. Directly contrast their points to show why one is stronger than the other (e.g., "Although Farrell highlights..., Malik's counterpoint about... is more persuasive because...").
Use Specific Terminology: Your final point about updating regulations is good. To make it stronger, use the correct term: 'delegated legislation' or 'secondary legislation'. This demonstrates more precise subject knowledge.
Focus Your Explanation: Your point about the "right to vote" and "freedom of speech" is too general. Ensure every point you make is directly linked to the specific debate in the sources – in this case, the speed and effectiveness of the UK's law-making process.

Candidate 4510

Word Count: ~319 words

Evaluation Score: 10/12

This topic has been a continuing debate, Both Sarah Jenkins (SJ) and David Chan (DC) make good points, however SJ argues that are law-making system is effective at adapting to change, while DC argues that our law-making system is slow and inefficient. On one hand, SJ argues that 'Our law-making system is remarkably effective at adapting to the rapid pace of scientific, cultural and social change'. SJ reinforces this statement when she adds 'the flexibility of our uncodified constitution means parliament can pass laws relatively quickly when urgent issues arise'. This is a strong point because not only does SJ make a point, she backs it up by stating the fact that our unwritten constitution is quickly responsive to changing public opinion. Furthermore, the existence of crucial checks and balances on parliaments' power such as select-committees, judicial review and parliamentary inquiries help to ensure that our laws are made fairly, lawfully and fit in with the constitution. However, SJ neglects to mention the fact that having a bicameral parliament (such as the one we have in the UK) can greatly slow down the process of legislation and make it take longer for our law-making system to keep up with changing beliefs. On the other hand, DC argues that 'our current law-making is a system is dangerously slow and entirely ill-equipped to keep pace with modern scientific and social advancements'. DC reinforces this statement when he adds 'the legislative process is archaic, often requiring months or even a year for a bill to pass through both houses'. This is a strong point because DC not only identifies and issue with our law-making system but provides evidence to back it up. In addition he mentions the fact that our bicameral parliament can sometimes be a weakness because it slows down the process of legislation. However, he neglects to mention the fact that although legislation takes longer, this slow process allows for the creation of stronger, fairer laws through scrutiny and debate; such as parliamentary 'ping-pong'. Ultimately, while it is true that our law-making system may take longer occasionally due to the application of checks and balances, this helps to result in fairer, more democratic laws through scrutiny and debate. Furthermore our unwritten constitution allows for adaptability and flexibility. Therefore, I agree more with SJ.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a well-structured and highly effective evaluation. You consistently use evidence from both writers, support their points with your own detailed knowledge (like 'parliamentary ping-pong' and select committees), and then critically evaluate the weaknesses in their arguments. Your final judgment is clear, decisive, and directly supported by the reasoning in your essay. This is a strong Level 3 response.

Integrating Judgment: Instead of just stating a point is strong, try to weave your judgment into the analysis. For example: "Dr Farrell's point about the archaic legislative process is compelling, as bills can indeed take months to pass. However, this argument is weakened by the fact that he overlooks the democratic value of this slowness, which allows for crucial scrutiny and debate through processes like parliamentary 'ping-pong'."

Strengths

Use of Own Knowledge: You brilliantly incorporate specific concepts like 'select committees', 'judicial review', and 'parliamentary ping-pong' to support and challenge the writers' arguments.
Direct Evaluation: You don't just summarise the sources. You actively challenge them by pointing out what each writer "neglects to mention," which is a key skill for achieving top marks.
Clear Structure: Your essay is logically structured with an introduction, balanced paragraphs on each writer, and a well-supported conclusion, creating a clear and sustained line of reasoning.

Targets

Use Writer Names: In the exam, always use the names provided in the source material (e.g., Professor Malik and Dr Farrell) rather than creating abbreviations like 'SJ' and 'DC'. This maintains a formal academic tone.
Integrate Judgment: While your evaluation is strong, you can make it even more seamless. Try to embed your judgment within your analysis of a point, rather than stating "This is a strong point because...". (See the RAG rewrite example).
Use Comparative Language: To make your comparison even more direct, use phrases like "In direct contrast to Malik's view...", "Farrell's argument is less convincing here because...", or "While both writers acknowledge the bicameral system, they interpret its impact differently...".
Refine Your Conclusion: Your conclusion is good, but it could be even stronger by briefly summarising *why* Malik's argument ultimately outweighs Farrell's, perhaps by restating your point about scrutiny being a benefit, not a drawback.

Candidate 4511

Word Count: ~258 words

Evaluation Score: 9/12

Although both Sarah Jenkins (SJ) and David Chen (DC) makes substantial points I partially agree with DC. DC says that the law making system is dangerously slow. This is a good point due to the fact that if a conflict were to break out parliament wouldn't be able to create laws fast enough as the bill would go through three readings; the green and white paper; the house of lord and commons an finally royal assent. This process could takes months, and in some cases even a whole year making parliament unable to respond to the public's needs in a urgent scenario. However a good counter SJ makes to this point is that the UK has an unwritten constitution meaning that the process is shorter since they don't have to go through the whole amendment process countries like with written constitutions like the United States have to. Another noteworthy point that DC makes is that common law is undemocratic due to the fact that unelected judges are allowed to make changes and edits to the law in some sense some form of democracy since the judges don't represent the people. The fact that some laws are reliant on unelected judges means that laws cannot keep up with social and cultural changes as one person from one background can create laws without challenge which could cause unrest as the UK is a diverse place potentially making the people feel unheard. On the other hand SJ counters with the argument that common law allows for judges to interpret and change current laws for the benefit of the people which could help prevent similar situations from occuring again at some point in the future. Overall I mainly agree with DC, although SJ makes some noteworthy points, as ultimately our traditional procedures leave society vulnerable to emerging threats and fail to adequately reflect rapidly shifting technological and cultural advancements.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a strong, well-structured evaluation that reaches Level 3. You establish a clear line of argument from the beginning and sustain it through to a powerful conclusion. You effectively select arguments from both writers and, crucially, you directly compare them to weigh up their strengths. Your use of specific own knowledge about the legislative process to develop Dr Farrell's point was particularly impressive.

Deepening Analysis: Your point about a judge's background was good. To make it even better, you could add specific detail. Instead of "...one person from one background can create laws without challenge...", try: "For example, the judiciary historically lacks diversity. This means a judge's interpretation of law, while legally sound, might not reflect the values of a multicultural society, potentially leading to laws that feel outdated or out of touch with modern Britain."

Strengths

Clear & Sustained Judgement: You state who you agree with at the start and maintain this argument throughout, leading to a strong, justified conclusion.
Direct Comparison: You consistently use phrases like "However, a good counter SJ makes..." which directly pits the two writers against each other. This is a key skill for top-level evaluation.
Use of Own Knowledge: Your explanation of the UK's legislative process (Green/White papers, Royal Assent etc.) to support Dr Farrell's point was detailed and accurate, adding significant weight to your analysis.

Targets

Writer Attribution: Be careful to use the writers' correct names (Professor Malik and Dr Farrell) as provided in the exam paper. Using incorrect names (Sarah Jenkins, David Chen) can seem careless.
Develop Explanations Further: When you discuss common law, you say judges can create laws "without challenge". Push this further: who could challenge them? How does judicial review or the Supreme Court fit in? Adding this layer of detail would make your points even more convincing.
Refine Terminology: The phrase "in some sense some form of democracy" is a little confusing. Aim for precise language. You could say: "...this challenges democratic principles because judges are appointed, not elected, and therefore are not directly accountable to the public."
Engage with Specifics: While you correctly identify the arguments, try to quote or paraphrase a specific, short phrase from the source text to show you are closely engaged with the material. For example, "Farrell argues the system is 'dangerously slow', a point I find convincing because..."

Candidate 4540

Word Count: ~301 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

So far I agree with Sarah Jenkins (SJ) because she explains and shows how the law actually adapts to it. for example "Parliament can pass new laws relatively quickly" This means instead of having to go for weeks the parliament is there to help and strengthen the law quicker to protect everyone as a whole. Another is our checks and balances that explains that with that everyone voice is heard socially and cultured eg "Constituency review legislation" This means that no peace of idea is lost and people that have different of problems can say. However Professor David Chen (DC) argues that that we don't do enough as a whole. for example "dangerously and entirely ill-equipped" This means that instead of them taking action to reassure people they don't have the right mindset as this can effect people in the long run. Another point he makes is it doesn't keep with the scientific, cultural and social changes "frequently archaic and outdated" This means people are more at risk than they should be which shouldn't be the case and can seem of looking undemocratic. However some may argue with DC and say no his points are instead invalided because just because "Process is archaic" doesn't mean it's not good. If we didn't have a plan we stick to normally we wouldn't be where we are today. And I strongly disagree with this point because a lot of significant public harm has occurred. Yes many people could be effected by it but the Parliament and governments have ways to resolve it. In conclusion I agree with SJ as her reasons have up to date reasons and less er.. something eg "providing an immediate response to emerging cultural and technological challenges" This is understanding because if the Parliament didn't things like that the UK would not be as good and also it has different types of laws so it's not just baised to one type of law changes "Law Commission" So her points are very good that they should be good because she shows how to think about it in the long run and how it can be great as a whole and better of England.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have provided a clear judgment and supported it by explaining relevant arguments from both writers. This is a solid foundation for a good answer. To reach the next level, your reasoning needs to be more developed and sustained. Instead of just summarising each writer's points separately, you need to directly compare them to show *why* one is more convincing than the other. Your third paragraph attempts this, but the argument becomes a little confused and contradicts itself.

Sustained Evaluation: A more developed evaluation might look like this: "While Dr Farrell is right to call the legal process 'archaic', this does not automatically make it ineffective. Professor Malik's argument that Parliament can 'pass new laws relatively quickly' provides a powerful counterpoint. It suggests that although the traditions are old, the system is still capable of the 'immediate response' needed for modern challenges. Therefore, Malik's view is more convincing because it focuses on the practical outcomes of the legal system, rather than just its historical origins."

Strengths

Evidence-Based Points: You consistently select relevant quotes from both sources to back up your points. This is a crucial skill for showing you have understood the arguments.
Clear Structure: Your answer is well-structured with an introduction stating your view, paragraphs for each writer, and a conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Clear Judgment: You state which writer you find more convincing at the beginning and the end. This provides a clear focus for your entire response.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of just explaining Writer A and then Writer B, try to compare their arguments directly. Use phrases like: "Malik's point about X is more convincing than Farrell's point about Y because..."
Develop Your Evaluation: When you explain a quote, go one step further. Explain *why* this point makes the writer's overall argument strong or weak. How does it challenge the other writer's view?
Sustain Your Reasoning: Your third paragraph became a little confused by arguing against a point you had just made. Plan your argument so that each point builds on the last, leading logically to your conclusion without contradiction.
Check for Accuracy: Always double-check the names of the writers in the source material (e.g., Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell). Using the correct names shows attention to detail.

Candidate 4552

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

The two sources & they provide a strong point for both sides of the argument. However I believe the law-making is capable of adapting to changes however how it often does so slowly. Professor David Chen says our law-making is dangerously slow which I agree with as first intentions like Parliament go through careful processes of debates, surpting and amendments ensuring decisions are well thought through and democratic. However these changes usually happen after public harm has been done and after long periods of time including public pressure. which is a good point however he it does also have that an uncodified constitution letting our changes be flexible. In addition the parliament can configure laws through case laws helping us conspire current societal problems. Also despite strengths the system often struggles to keep up with technological advancements and scientific progress especially artificial intelligence which now has farme num againstu processes. In addition political processes priorities and complex legal modern issues could also slow down the development of laws. As a result the system often becomes behind the changes in society. This causes major problems as cultural changes carry on. In conclusion I agree with Proffessor David Chen not however Dr. Sarah Jenkins also provides good points about our uncodified constitution and its benefits.

Quality of EvaluationClear. You have provided a clear judgement and supported it by explaining arguments from both sources, which is the core of a Level 2 answer. You also successfully integrated your own knowledge to strengthen your points. To improve, you must use the correct writer names from the source material, as this is a fundamental skill. Furthermore, try to compare the two arguments directly against each other throughout your answer, rather than just dealing with them separately, to create a more 'sustained' line of reasoning for Level 3.

Sustained Judgement: "In conclusion, while Professor Malik's points about the flexibility of our uncodified constitution are valid, Dr Farrell's argument that the system is 'dangerously slow' is ultimately more convincing. The delays caused by parliamentary procedure, as he suggests, often mean that laws are passed only after significant public harm has occurred, a problem made worse by rapid technological change."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state a clear opinion at the start and end of your answer, showing the examiner which writer you find more convincing.
Source Explanation: You have a good understanding of the key arguments, explaining why Parliament's processes are slow and democratic, but also how an uncodified constitution allows for flexibility.
Use of Own Knowledge: Your reference to technological advancements like AI is a great way to support the argument that the law-making process is too slow for the modern world.

Targets

Accurate Source Referencing: It is critical to use the correct names of the writers provided (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell). Using incorrect names suggests you have not engaged carefully with the source material.
Sustained Comparison: Instead of explaining one writer's points and then the other's, try to compare them directly. For example, "While Malik argues the system is flexible, Farrell convincingly counters that this flexibility doesn't translate into speed..."
Develop Your Points: Your point about AI is good, but could be stronger. Briefly explain *how* AI challenges the law (e.g., deepfakes, autonomous vehicle accidents) to show the urgent need for faster legislation.
Clarity and Precision: Proofread your work to correct spelling ('scrutiny', 'Professor') and replace imprecise words (e.g., use 'address' instead of 'conspire') to make your argument more powerful and professional.

Candidate 4581

Word Count: ~281 words

Evaluation Score: 5/12

I for Agree More with Sarah Jenkins views. There problems around Chris Jacksons at how Sarah Jenkins makes good points on how live the law is changing in countries as she said that most countries have to get uncodified constitution however Professor Davis also agrees saying we do provide for law to suit our legislative process as ordered. The reason why i agree with Sarah Jenkins the more is that she says that our constitution is uncodified this means that parliament can react quickly to any changes in society as to opposed with countries with a codified constitution where it makes it harder to change laws this shows how our system of law making can be up to date. Secondly Jenkins also says that changes are made with a detailed investigation they are closely always up to date with society regarding changing attitudes. However, the problem with Chris Jacksons challenges this view by saying that procedures are only address because of a significant public crisis like the war. This is a good point as he says changes are extremely slow and that the majority of new acts have little to no impact. Also another problem with her views is that she says that it is always the best to better the not always the case. Another reason why i agree with Sarah Jenkins is that she explains that support is big political parties view the law making a process in society. Chris Jacksons response to this is that it remains closed and proposes necessary reforms to reflect modern executive practices. In addition to the executive institution this further shows how our system of law making keeps up with societal cultural and social changes in the world. However Professor Davis also disagrees and makes a point on how our system is outrun and it takes a lot of time to pass laws. He states that laws making can take up to months or years for a law to be pass. However the result at last and overall. This is a good point because he makes that

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a good start by stating a clear judgement and using evidence from both sources to build your argument. You attempt to compare their views by using counter-arguments. However, your reasoning is not yet sustained, as you tend to list points from each writer rather than weaving them into a coherent argument. Significant issues with accuracy (using the wrong names) and grammatical clarity prevent the answer from reaching a higher level.

Sustained Comparison: Instead of "she explains that support is big political parties... Chris Jacksons response to this is that it remains closed...", try integrating the points more directly: "While Malik argues our law-making process is strengthened by the involvement of major political parties, Farrell's counter-argument that this system is actually 'closed' and resistant to reform is more convincing, as it suggests party politics can prevent, rather than help, our constitution from adapting."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start your answer with a clear and direct judgement, stating which writer you find more convincing. This is a great way to structure your evaluation.
Use of Both Sources: You have successfully selected relevant arguments from both writers to support your points. For example, you use Malik's point about the uncodified constitution and contrast it with Farrell's point about slow change.

Targets

Develop Your Explanation: Your points are good, but they need more detailed explanation. Instead of just stating a point (e.g., 'changes are extremely slow'), explain *why* this makes Farrell's argument stronger or Malik's weaker in your opinion.
Sustain Your Argument: Try to directly compare the writers' arguments within the same chain of reasoning. For example: "Malik claims X, which seems strong, *however*, Farrell's argument Y is more convincing *because*..." This is more effective than listing points separately.
Check for Accuracy: You have used the wrong names for the writers (e.g., Jenkins, Jackson, Davis instead of Malik and Farrell). Always double-check the source material for key details to ensure your answer is accurate.
Proofread for Clarity: Some sentences were difficult to understand or were incomplete. Reading your work aloud before finishing helps you catch mistakes and ensures your argument is as clear and persuasive as possible.

Candidate 60179

Word Count: ~296 words

Evaluation Score: 5/12

I agree with Dr Sarah Jenkins, because when she says our law making system is remarkably effective at adapting to the rapid pace of scientific, cultural, and social change. This statement show us how they law making system works and how its social. However I believed her when she says the flexibility of our uncodified constitution means parliament can pass new laws relatively quickly when urgent issues arise, that means how quickly they works like for example when there is urgent issues they answers quick quickly. 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 social values. in addition to statutory law, our tradition to common law allows judges to interpret and apply existing legal principle to novel situations. The use of delegated legislation also empowers government ministers to modify update regulations in technical areas, such as medical advancement or environmental standards, without waiting for full parliamentary time. I believe this is the exiting and good law making because they showing us how it works and how they it developed. However I disagree with professor David Chen when he said our current system of law making is dangerously slow and entirely ill equipped to keep pace with modern scientific and social advancement. 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. However, this statement show us how dangerous and slow they system of law making is. 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 expertize among politicians, while common law can adapt, relying on unelected judges to update the law through precedents piecemeal and undemocratic.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have done a good job of understanding and explaining the key arguments from both Professor Malik and Dr Farrell. You make a clear judgment at the start and select relevant evidence from the text to back up your points. To move into the higher levels, you must go beyond summarising each writer separately. The next step is to directly compare their arguments. For example, you could state that while Dr Farrell claims the system is slow, Professor Malik's point about delegated legislation offers a convincing counter-argument for how speed is achieved in technical areas. This direct comparison is the key to a sustained evaluation.

Evaluation Skill: Your sentence "I believe this is the exiting and good law making because they showing us how it works" could be rewritten to be more analytical: "Professor Malik's argument is more convincing because her specific examples, like the Law Commission and delegated legislation, provide strong evidence of an adaptive system. This directly challenges Dr Farrell's generalisation that the process is 'entirely ill-equipped' to deal with modern change."

Strengths

Good Source Comprehension: You have clearly understood the main arguments from both writers and have selected a good range of points to discuss, such as the uncodified constitution, the Law Commission, and the slowness of the legislative process.
Clear Structure: Your answer is well-organised. You address each writer one by one and state your agreement or disagreement clearly, which makes your initial judgment easy to follow.

Targets

Directly Compare Arguments: Instead of just explaining what each writer says, pit their arguments against each other. For example, "Malik argues the system is flexible, but Farrell's point about the archaic legislative process suggests this flexibility has limits. I find Farrell's view more persuasive here because..."
Develop Your Judgment: Move beyond "I agree/disagree." Use more analytical language like "Malik presents a more compelling case," "Farrell's argument is weakened by...," or "The strongest point is..." Explain *why* one argument is better than the other.
Attention to Detail: In an exam, always double-check key information from the sources, such as the writers' correct names (Professor Malik and Dr Farrell). This improves the accuracy and professionalism of your response.
Proofread Your Work: Reread your answer to catch spelling and grammar errors (e.g., "exiting" instead of "exciting", "they works"). Clear, formal language makes your arguments more persuasive.

Candidate 67029

Word Count: ~330 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

Although both Dr. Sarah Jenkins and Professor David Chen makes strong valid points. I agree more with Dr Sarah Jenkins saying yes, our system of law-making keeps up with scientific cultural and social changes. Dr Sarah states that our law making is remarkably effective at adapting. Our uncodified constitution means Parliament can pass new laws relatively quickly when urgent issues arise, creating security within the citizens and providing effectiveness. For example, if an issue were to arise with the p- within the environment parliament can effectively pass laws deeming useful on protecting the environment. The system is supported by dedicated bodies like the law commission, which constantly reviews legislation to ensure it remains relevant having the system supported by the law commission means more quick adaptations to scientific cultural and social changes in the world and quick law-passing. Our common law allows judges to apply existing legal practices to situations, providing an immediate response to emerging cultural and technological challenges deeming helpful. This also empowers government to swiftly update regulations in technical areas. This ensures our legal framework remains dynamic, relevant and fitting for modern age. However Professor David Chen argues that our system is not keeping up claiming it is dangerously slow and ill-equipped to keep pace with modern scientific and social advancements. David Chen say our legislative process is old fashioned, often requiring time such as months or even years for a bill to be passed through the House of commons and the House of Lords, by the time this does end up happening it is already outdated. David eh I agree with David Chen when he states that there are a severe lack of specialized technical expertise among politicians, leading to poor judgement and poorly drafted laws that fail to comprehend scientific developments leading to bad decisions that will not help adapt further to modern scientific cultural and social changes, relying on unelected judges to pass laws take time and leaves society vulnerable to emerge. While both arguments state reasonable and valid points. I agree more with Dr Sarah Jenkins as our legal framework remains dynamic and open to more adaptations, bettering our system and taking in social changes in the world.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 2 response. You have a clear structure, explaining the arguments from both writers before reaching a well-supported final judgment. You have correctly identified several key points from each source. To reach Level 3, you need to move from explaining the two arguments separately to comparing them directly, point-by-point, throughout your answer.

Direct Comparison: While Dr Farrell's argument that the legislative process is dangerously slow has merit, Professor Malik's point about the uncodified constitution is more convincing. It allows for rapid responses in crises, such as the Coronavirus Act 2020, demonstrating a flexibility that directly counters the claim of an outdated system. Therefore, Malik's view on the system's adaptability holds more weight in practice.

Strengths

Clear Structure: You effectively structured your answer by introducing the debate, explaining each writer's view, and then concluding with your judgment.
Good Source Use: You accurately identified and explained several key arguments from both sources, such as the role of the Law Commission and the slowness of the legislative process.
Clear Judgment: Your own opinion is stated clearly at the beginning and reinforced at the end, providing a consistent line of reasoning.

Targets

Develop Direct Comparison: Instead of 'Writer A says this, but Writer B says that', try to directly compare their points. For example: "While Farrell argues the process is slow, Malik provides a stronger counter-argument by highlighting the flexibility of our uncodified constitution."
Integrate Evaluation: Weave your judgment throughout the essay. Use phrases like "Malik's point is more persuasive because..." or "Farrell's argument is weakened by..." This shows sustained evaluation.
Use Specific Own Knowledge: Your example about an environmental law was good but hypothetical. To strengthen your points, use a real-world example, like the 'Online Safety Act' to discuss slow law-making, or the 'Coronavirus Act 2020' to show how quickly laws can be passed.
Attention to Detail: 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.

Candidate 68791

Word Count: ~198 words

Evaluation Score: 4/12

I agree mostly with Sarah Jenkins Because with an uncodified Constitution this could mean that parliament could pass laws very quickly. However with an unwritten Constitution we could easily make changes to our laws without any issues. Our system has dedicated bodies e.g. Law Commission which reviews legislation and it remains relevant and proposes necessary reforms to reflect our societal values. However, the combination of parliamentary sovereignty and judicial flexibility ensures our legal framework remains dynamic, relevant, and entirely fit for the modern age. However, I disagree with professor David Chen as our 'current system of law making is dangerously slow'. However, he fails to realise the fact that we adapt to the rapid pace of cultural, and social change, he also fails to realise that without our Constitution being unwritten we can easily change them. He also fails to realise the fact that if the legislative process takes years months, for a bill to pass through the House of Commons and the House of Lords, is that it takes a lot of time and you need everyone to agree with you. In conclusion, I agree with this (SJ) statement as we are adapting at a rapid pace.

Quality of EvaluationCareful. Your response contains a critical error: you have discussed the UK constitution and writers named 'Jenkins' and 'Chen', but the question was about defence policy and writers named 'Malik' and 'Farrell'. In an exam, this would score 0 marks. The mark of 4/12 is awarded for your attempt to structure an evaluation, but you must answer the question set. Your argument also contains a major contradiction, stating that laws can be passed both 'very quickly' and that the process 'takes a lot of time'. A good evaluation needs a consistent and logical line of reasoning.

Building a Nuanced Argument: Instead of your contradictory point, you could write: "While the UK's uncodified constitution allows for flexibility and rapid change when political will exists, the legislative process itself is often deliberately slow to ensure proper scrutiny. Professor Malik might argue this flexibility is a key strength for adapting to modern challenges, whereas Dr Farrell could counter that this very flexibility, without rigid checks, could be dangerous."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a decisive and clear judgement ("I agree mostly with..."), which is an excellent way to start an evaluation. This immediately tells the examiner your line of argument.
Use of Own Knowledge: You have attempted to bring in your own specific knowledge by mentioning the Law Commission. Using relevant examples to support your points is a key skill for reaching the higher levels.

Targets

Answer the Question Set: CRITICAL: You must answer the specific question asked. Your response discusses the wrong topic (constitutions vs. defence) and uses the wrong writer names. Always double-check you have understood the question and sources before you start writing.
Avoid Contradictions: Your argument is logically inconsistent. You claim law-making is both 'very quickly' and 'takes a lot of time'. Plan your points to ensure they form a coherent line of reasoning. Acknowledge complexity rather than contradicting yourself.
Directly Compare Writers: Instead of discussing each writer in a separate paragraph, integrate them. For example: "Malik's point about flexibility directly challenges Farrell's concern for stability because..." This shows a higher level of analytical skill.
Develop Your Points: Add depth to your arguments. When you mention the Law Commission, explain *how* its work shows the constitution is adaptable. Give a specific example of a reform it proposed to make your point more convincing.

Candidate 78910

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 11/12

This is a very complex argument that has been undergoing generational tug of war due to the beliefs of our UK constitution however my personal discretion leads me to agree with Sarah Jenkins (SJ) who believes that our law making system is best equipped to keep up with societal, scientific and cultural changes taking place as time moves on. SJ states that the plausibility of our uncodified constitution allows Parliament to pass laws extremely quickly when urgent issues arise compared to other countries that have a codified constitution. This is a valid point as when the constitution is uncodified, law making processes are quicker as modern issues and needs to do not have to rebuke the constitution which is set in a time of old contemporary needs that do not align with modern society. This means that processes to pass bills are swift and MP's look towards the logical, ethical and truth-blazing aspect of the bill rather than considering what the constitution says and how it goes against it. This puts us in a better position to adapt to societal changes with time. David Chen (DC) however states that the system of law-making is slow and our legislative process causes bills to take months to years to be passed and because of this it becomes no longer relevant, however this point fails to consider that the "archaic" process is what makes sure that laws passed do not later become a problem for the public as it has gone through intense logical deliberation. The system is equipped with bodies like the Law commission which reviews legislation and ensures that bills are relevant to necessary reforms and societal values. Aiming to speed up this process would cause laws to become undemocratic, unrepresentative and unsafe. DC also states that relying on unelected judges to update law through precedent is piecemeal, however this completely goes against his other arguments as the system being slow. Case law is actually a part of our system that plays a huge role in creating an adaptable system that tracks chronological changes in society. Case law means that when a law proves to be delayed or unreliable in a court's discussion, measures are taken to change that law in order to make sure that the law is adapted to any recent changes in society making a fairer citizen experience. Without case law we would be attached to laws that reflect an older society whereas with it and aiming to change these laws would go "take years" in the same "slow" system that DC describes it to be. Our system is best equipped for adaptability to scientific, cultural and social changes.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a top-level response that demonstrates a sustained and coherent line of reasoning. You establish a clear judgment from the outset and skilfully use the arguments from both sources to support it. Your technique of directly rebutting Dr Farrell's (DC's) points, and even highlighting contradictions within his own argument, is particularly sophisticated and shows a high level of analytical skill. You also successfully integrated your own knowledge to strengthen your evaluation.

Refining Expression: Your sentence "this completely goes against his other arguments as the system being slow" could be sharpened. Try: "This point seems to contradict his primary argument; if the legislative process is too slow, then the adaptability offered by case law is surely a strength, not a weakness."

Strengths

Sophisticated Evaluation: You don't just describe the arguments; you actively dismantle the opposing view. Highlighting the internal contradiction in Dr Farrell's (DC's) reasoning about slowness vs. case law was an outstanding piece of analysis.
Clear, Supported Judgment: Your argument is focused and powerful. You state your view at the start and every point you make, from explaining Prof Malik's (SJ's) view to refuting Dr Farrell's, directly supports this initial judgment.
Effective Use of Own Knowledge: Referencing the Law Commission was an excellent way to bring in specific subject knowledge to support your evaluation and make your argument more authoritative.

Targets

Use Precise Source Details: In the exam, you must use the exact names given in the source (e.g., Professor Sarah Malik, Dr Owen Farrell). Using abbreviations (SJ, DC) or incorrect names can lose marks for accuracy and direct engagement with the provided material.
Balance Your Analysis: Your evaluation of Dr Farrell's points was incredibly detailed. To elevate this further, try to analyse two distinct points from Professor Malik with the same depth before you move on to your rebuttal. This creates a more balanced structure.
Incorporate Specific Examples: You mentioned the Law Commission, which was great. To secure top marks, try adding a real-world example. For instance, you could mention rapid Covid-19 legislation to support Malik's point on speed, or a long-debated bill to illustrate Farrell's.
Refine Sentence Structure: Some of your sentences are long and contain multiple clauses. Practice breaking these down into shorter, more direct sentences. This will make your powerful arguments even clearer and more impactful for the examiner.

Candidate 81926

Word Count: ~240 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

So far I agree the most with Sarah Jenkins (SJ). This is because I agree with the point where she spoke about the unwritten constitution. She stated: "The flexibility of our uncodified constitution means parliament can pass new laws relatively quickly when urgent issues arise." I think that is a really strong point because if anything does change in the modern world it will be very easy to update new laws and anything else needed with an unwritten constitution. Whereas if we had a written one things would be alot more complicated. However, on the other hand, I slightly agree with David Chen (DC). This is because I agree with the point where he said: "the legislative process is archaic often requiring months or even years to pass through both Houses". This was a good point because it does take really long to pass a law and if a citizen suggested it they could get impatient. There is also alot of technology and there have been big advancements so they may not be keeping up with the modern society. Lastly back to why I agree with SJ is because if parliament were to make changes straight away to keep up with modern society people may not like or agree with that as it has been a tradition the way they do things for a long time. The combination of judical review, parliamentary soverignty all fit for the modern world. In conclusion I agree with SJ the most as she also has stronger points.

Quality of EvaluationGood. You have made a clear judgment and supported it by explaining points from both writers. You use quotes effectively to introduce the arguments you are discussing, which is a key skill. To improve, you need to directly compare the two arguments against each other more often. For example, how does Malik's point about flexibility directly challenge or outweigh Farrell's point about the slow legislative process? Your final point for Malik was also a little confused and seemed to contradict your earlier argument.

Developing Comparison: While Farrell is right that the process can be slow, Malik's argument about flexibility is more convincing. This is because the ability to adapt to major crises, like a pandemic or financial crash, is more important for a modern society than the speed of every single law. The 'tradition' Farrell worries about is less important than the government's ability to act decisively when it matters most.

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state which writer you find more convincing at the start and end of your answer, which gives your writing a clear focus.
Use of Evidence: You effectively select and use direct quotes from both sources to support your points.
Balanced Structure: You consider both sides of the argument by explaining a point from each writer, which is a key feature of evaluation.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of explaining each writer's point separately, try to directly compare them. Use phrases like "Malik's argument is stronger because...", "While Farrell makes a valid point about X, Malik's view on Y is more significant because...".
Develop Your Reasoning: Your final point for Malik was a little confused. You argued that people might not like rapid change, which contradicts your main reason for supporting her (that flexibility allows for quick changes). Ensure every point you make clearly supports your overall judgment.
Explain Key Terms: You mention "judicial review" and "parliamentary sovereignty" but don't explain how they connect to the argument. When you use key terms, briefly explain their relevance to make your point stronger.
Check Writer Names: In an exam, always double-check the names of the writers in the source material. You referred to them as 'Sarah Jenkins' and 'David Chen' instead of Professor Malik and Dr Farrell.

Candidate 86291

Word Count: ~396 words

Evaluation Score: 10/12

The question of whether the UK's law-making system keeps up with scientific, cultural and societal change is nuanced. One may say that it being flexible and scrutinised is a good thing for democracy, but those same reasons make it slow and archaic. I agree more with David Chen (DC) on that the system is outdated and too slow. Particularly when DC says "The 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", he makes a good point as he is saying that due to the length of the democratic process and the bureaucracy and pedanticism involved, many bills which are given Royal Assent are already outdated. However, the length of the process and the steps involved are there to ensure that the bill is refined and above all, democratically and fairly passed, to avoid doubts about its legitimacy. Secondly, when DC says "Parliament is inherently reactive rather than proactive; lawmakers typically only address issues after significant public harm has occured" he makes another good point as he points out that Parliament often only acts on laws and bills after the problems have arisen, not before them in hopes of preventing them. However, Sarah Jenkins (SJ) also makes a good point when she says "our tradition of common law allows judges to interpret and apply existing legal principles to novel situations", because she is explaining that allowing judges to determine case law allows for fast adaptability to modern situations. However, as DC says, "relying on unelected judges to update the law through precedent is undemocratic", which calls into question the fairness and legitimacy of case law. Secondly, SJ makes another good point when she says "the system is supported by dedicated bodies like the Law Commission, which constantly reviews legislation" as she points out that groups constantly scrutinise legislation, making sure it is adaptable to the modern circumstances. However, as DC pointed out, the democratic process for making and changing laws takes months, meaning any changes suggested would likely be outdated by the time they receive Royal Assent. In conclusion, I agree more with DC because he makes strong points, saying and explaining how the UK legal system is slow and undemocratic, but SJ still has a solid case, saying how the system is adaptable and flexible.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a strong Level 3 response. You establish a clear and consistent line of argument from the very beginning and sustain it throughout. Your great strength is the direct comparison of the two writers, using Dr Farrell's points to effectively challenge and critique Professor Malik's arguments. This shows a detailed understanding and a high level of analytical skill. To improve further, focus on developing your conclusion and integrating your own specific knowledge.

Sustained Judgement: "Ultimately, while Malik's arguments for flexibility via common law and the Law Commission have merit, Farrell's critique is more convincing. The fundamental, systemic issue of a slow and reactive legislative process, which he highlights, undermines the very mechanisms Malik praises. Any proposals from the Law Commission or adaptations by judges are ultimately constrained by a parliamentary system that struggles to keep pace, making Farrell's view of an outdated system the more compelling one."

Strengths

Clear & Consistent Judgement: You state your view clearly in the introduction ("I agree more with DC") and maintain this focus throughout your answer, leading to a coherent argument.
Effective Use of Evidence: You select relevant quotes and information from both writers and, crucially, explain their meaning accurately in your own words to support your points.
Direct Comparison of Sources: You excel at using one writer's arguments to directly challenge the other's (e.g., using the 'undemocratic judges' point against the 'common law' point). This is a high-level evaluation skill.

Targets

Develop the Conclusion: Your conclusion summarises your points but could be more powerful. Try to synthesise your main arguments into a final, decisive statement that explains *why* one writer is fundamentally *more* convincing than the other.
Use Correct Source Names: A minor but important point for accuracy: pay close attention to the source material to ensure you use the correct names for the writers (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell, not Jenkins/Chen).
Introduce Your Own Knowledge: To reach the very top marks (11-12), try to bring in a brief, relevant piece of your own knowledge. For example, you could mention a specific slow-moving bill (like the Online Safety Bill) or a specific case of judicial precedent to illustrate the points being made.
Refine Evaluative Language: Instead of writing "he makes a good point," use more analytical language like "Farrell's argument is compelling because..." or "Malik's perspective, while valid, overlooks the issue of..." This makes your analysis sound more authoritative.

Candidate 98726

Word Count: ~310 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

Sarah Jenkins makes a good point in saying that the UK's system of law making is able to keep up with cultural, social & scientific changes in the world due to our uncodified constitution, this means that parliament can pass laws relatively quickly to when urgent issues such as the COVID 19 lockdown arise, unlike countries such as the USA where issues have to pass through multiple stages of congress to see change due to their codified constitution. However David Chen makes a good argument in disagreeing with this as despite the UK's uncodified constitution being more flexible than a codified one, the legislative process is archaic & often requires months or years of discussion for a bill to go from a green paper to a white paper & go through several readings in the House of Lords & House of Commons. Sarah Jenkins also makes a good point in stating how the UK's tradition of common law allows judges to interpret & apply existing legal principles to matter novel situations, providing an immediate response to existing challenges. However David Chen makes a good point in challenging this as he says whilst he acknowledges that common law can adapt, relying on unelected judges to update law through precedent is undemocratic & undermines the values of the UK, leaving society vulnerable to the threat emerging threats by failing to adequately reflect rapidly changing cultural, social & technological norms. Sarah Jenkins makes a valuable point in saying that the use delegated legislature empowers government ministers to swiftly update regulations in technical areas such as medical advancements or environmental regulations. However, what this argument doesn't consider is that community backlash can also effect the ability to change certain regulations, for example the assisted dying act & the moral issues surrounding it were split between members of the public, creating pressure on government officials. David Chen also counters this point by saying that government officials typically only address issues that cause major public harm, leaving smaller issues behind. Overall, I am more inclined to side with David Chen as he criticises the way that methods such as common law undermine the UK's key value of democracy while also acknowledging their potential to adapt to upcoming issues. He also makes several good points on the weaknesses of the legislative process & its slow decision making process.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a well-structured response that clearly explains arguments from both writers and consistently compares them. You reach a clear and well-supported final judgment in your conclusion, which is excellent. To move into the top level, try to vary your language beyond "makes a good point" and integrate the arguments more thematically, rather than treating each point in isolation. This will create a more sustained and sophisticated line of reasoning.

Developing Evaluation: Instead of introducing an external point about 'community backlash', you could evaluate the two writers' points on delegated legislation against each other more directly. For example: "While Malik's point on delegated legislation highlights its speed, Farrell's counter-argument is more convincing because it exposes a fundamental weakness: this speed is often reserved for major crises, leaving many evolving social and technological issues unaddressed. This suggests the system is more reactive than proactive, undermining Malik's overall claim."

Strengths

Structured Comparison: You have used a clear point-counterpoint structure in each paragraph. This allows you to directly compare the arguments of both writers effectively.
Well-Justified Conclusion: Your final paragraph makes a decisive judgment and successfully uses evidence from the text (Farrell's points on democracy and the slow process) to justify your choice. This is a key skill in evaluation.

Targets

Develop Evaluative Language: Try to move beyond phrases like "makes a good point". Use more analytical language such as "convincingly argues," "effectively counters," "this argument is limited because..." or "Farrell's criticism is more significant as..." to show a deeper level of analysis.
Integrate Arguments Thematically: To create a more 'sustained' argument for Level 3, try grouping the points by theme. For example, you could have one paragraph on the 'speed' of law-making (comparing Malik's uncodified/delegated points vs Farrell's slow process point) and another on 'democratic legitimacy' (Malik's common law vs Farrell's unelected judges point).
Focus Evaluation on the Sources: Your point about "community backlash" was thoughtful. However, in this type of question, the highest marks are for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the two writers' arguments *against each other*, rather than bringing in new information.
Attention to Detail: In an exam, always double-check the names provided in the source material (in this case, Professor Malik and Dr Farrell). Using the correct names demonstrates care and attention.

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 12906

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 20896

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 21687

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 21770

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 28160

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4280

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4356

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4404

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4434

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4504

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4510

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4511

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4540

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4552

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4581

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 60179

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 67029

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 68791

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 78910

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 81926

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 86291

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 98726

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback