Feedback Focussing on Evaluation

Model Answer (Exemplar)

Evaluation Score: 12/12

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

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expertise," which means by the time a bill like the Online Safety Act passes through both Houses, it is often already outdated.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

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

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

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

Strengths

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

Targets

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

📄 Source Passages

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

Dr. Sarah Jenkins says YES

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

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

Professor David Chen says NO

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

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

💡 Own Knowledge You Could Have Used

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

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

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

1. Lack of Direct Comparison: Students tended to describe Professor Malik's views in one paragraph and Dr Farrell's in another, rather than creating a direct debate between them. Top-level answers use one writer's point to directly challenge the other's.
👉 Model: While Dr Farrell argues that self-reliance ensures a nation's sovereignty is never compromised, Professor Malik's point about the economic burden-sharing within alliances presents a more pragmatic approach for most modern states.
2. Inaccurate Source Referencing: A significant number of students failed to use the correct names for the writers (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell), often using generic terms or incorrect names found in other practice papers. This undermines the academic tone and accuracy of the response.
👉 Model: Professor Sarah Malik's argument regarding the deterrent effect of collective security is a direct challenge to the isolationist stance implied by Dr Owen Farrell.
3. Undeveloped Reasoning: Many essays stated a preference for one argument without fully explaining the underlying reasons. Simply saying one point is 'better' or 'more convincing' is an assertion; it must be justified with a clear 'because...' statement that links back to the evidence.
👉 Model: I find Professor Malik's argument on shared intelligence more convincing because, in an age of globalised threats like cyber-warfare, no single nation can realistically gather all the necessary information for its own defence, a limitation Dr Farrell's self-reliance model fails to address.
4. Weak or Missing Conclusions: Several responses lacked a proper conclusion, ending abruptly or with a simple one-sentence statement. A strong conclusion should briefly summarise the debate and decisively state the final, justified judgement, explaining *why* one side outweighs the other.
👉 Model: In conclusion, although Dr Farrell's emphasis on national autonomy is compelling, Professor Malik's evidence on the military and economic benefits of collective defence is ultimately more persuasive, as the interconnected nature of modern security threats makes pure self-reliance an increasingly unviable strategy.

Teacher Next Steps

1. Argument Tennis Drill: To fix the lack of direct comparison, put a key argument from Professor Malik on the board (e.g., "Alliances provide a vital security guarantee"). In pairs, students have 2 minutes to find the best counter-point from Dr Farrell and write a single sentence that directly compares them using a phrase like "While Malik argues..., Farrell counters that...". Pairs read out their sentences. Repeat with a point from Farrell to practice building evaluative links.
2. Source Sleuths Drill: To improve source accuracy, provide a short paragraph riddled with errors (wrong names, incorrect titles, misquoted ideas). In pairs, students have 5 minutes to act as 'examiners', using a red pen to identify and correct every mistake by referencing the original source material. This turns a proofreading task into an active, critical exercise.
3. The 'Because' Chain Drill: To develop reasoning, write an assertive statement on the board, e.g., "Malik's argument about shared intelligence is stronger." The first student must complete the sentence starting with "because...". The next student must add another link to the explanation, starting their contribution with "because...". Continue the chain for 3-4 links to model how to build a deep, multi-layered justification.
4. Conclusion Distillation Drill: To strengthen conclusions, display a model paragraph comparing Malik and Farrell. In small groups, students have 5 minutes to write a perfect, 3-sentence conclusion that: (1) restates the main tension, (2) delivers a final judgement, and (3) provides the single most important reason for that judgement. This forces them to practice summarising and justifying their overall view concisely.

Candidate 10629

Word Count: ~311 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

Personally, I agree with Dr Sarah Jenkins. The reason why I agree with Sarah Jenkins is because of her strong argument on the flexibility of the law. Adding on to that, the reason why I know she is correct is because the united Kingdom has no uncodified constitution allowing laws to be passed a lot easier and quicker. Also, the united kingdoms un-codified constitution allows for laws to be passed rela-tively quickly in case of emergency or urgent issues. Another reason why I agree with Dr Sarah Jenkins is because she mentions that our system of law allows for immediate response to emerging cultural and technological changes. For example, if a cultural discrimination problem occured, our law system could quickly and swiftly deal with it. Lastly, she states that our law system has individual flexibility and ensures legal framework remains dynamic and fit for our age. This is useful as it strengthens our country as a whole and provides benefits for instance, if a bigger issue occurs a law could emerge urging us to stay indoors (for example). On the other hand, David Chen makes strong arguments along with Dr Jenkins. For example, he believes that it is dangerous slow as laws could take months, if not years to be passed through both House of Commons and House of Lords. He also believes that by the time legislation regarding fast-moving technology (such as artificial intelligence) receives Royal assent, it will most likely be outdated which is crucial to have the public's opinions, beliefs and ethos. Also, he believes that parliament is inherently reactive than proactive which could be a backlash of parliament hence making it slow to make laws. Overall, David Chen had some strong points but I agree more with Dr Sarah Jenkins due to her strong reasoning.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 2 response. You have a very clear structure, making a consistent judgement at the start and end. You successfully explain multiple arguments from both writers and use your own knowledge effectively to support your points, particularly regarding the UK's uncodified constitution. To reach the top level, you need to move from explaining the arguments separately to directly comparing them. Pit them against each other to show why one is more convincing than the other in a specific context.

Direct Comparison: While Dr Farrell makes a valid point that the legislative process can be slow for complex issues like AI, Professor Malik's argument about the flexibility of our uncodified constitution is more convincing. This flexibility allows for rapid responses to urgent national crises, such as passing emergency health legislation, which demonstrates that the system is not inherently slow, but rather adaptable to the situation at hand.

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You consistently state which writer you find more convincing and maintain this position throughout your answer.
Good Use of Sources: You accurately identify and explain several key arguments from both Professor Malik and Dr Farrell, showing good comprehension.
Application of Knowledge: You effectively used your own knowledge of the UK's uncodified constitution and real-world events (like pandemic lockdowns) to support and develop the arguments from the text.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of explaining each writer's points in separate paragraphs, try to compare them directly. For example, "While Dr Farrell argues the system is slow, Professor Malik's point about emergency laws is more persuasive because...". This is the key to a Level 3 'sustained evaluation'.
Develop a Sustained Argument: Link your points together to build a continuous line of reasoning. Each point should build on the last to strengthen your overall judgement, rather than feeling like a separate piece of information.
Check Writer Names: Be careful to use the exact names of the writers given in the source material (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell). Using incorrect names can suggest a lack of attention to detail.
Deeper Explanation: When you use own knowledge, briefly explain *why* it's relevant. For example, when mentioning the uncodified constitution, you could add that this speed is possible due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

Candidate 10869

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 5/12

I agree with source A because Parliament can change and adapt to how quick scientific, cultural and social chane when its urgent and new issues arrive and the system is dedicated by law commissions. the common laws allows existing legal principles and it often happens which has turned into a culture tradition. Since parliament can pick up the new laws quickly and new cultural or scientific change that shows how our law-making can quickly change. They could also upgrade and on some areas such as 3 things for your health or for the environment. I dissagrep with source A because the current system needs to keep pace because is going slow and could effect some things like changes that are told to parliament or the law-making. parliament are recieving harmful threaghts maybe because of months and years that it takes to pass a bill through both house of commons and house of lords. Also some files could be corrupt and fail and so they rely on judges that are not even elected and this could harm their reputation and could get replaced for not being faster at processing changes and they try to keep pace with social advancements.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. Your response shows a developing ability to evaluate sources. You have successfully identified relevant arguments from both Professor Malik (Source A) and Dr Farrell (Source B), such as Parliament's adaptability and the issue of unelected judges. However, your overall judgement is unclear because you state you agree with A and then immediately say you disagree with A. To reach the higher levels, you need to directly compare the arguments and explain *why* one is more convincing than the other, creating a sustained line of reasoning.

Creating a Clear Judgement: Instead of "I agree with source A because... I dissagrep with source A because...", try: "Although Dr Farrell makes a valid point about the slow pace of passing bills, I find Professor Malik's argument more convincing overall. This is because the adaptability of common law means the system can respond to urgent social changes, which is more significant than the procedural delays for some legislation."

Strengths

Good Source Selection: You successfully identified multiple, distinct arguments from both Writer A (adaptability, Law Commissions) and Writer B (slowness, unelected judges).
Clear Starting Point: You began your answer with a clear judgement ("I agree with source A"), which is the correct way to start an evaluation question.
Use of Specific Detail: You included specific details like the "months and years" it takes to pass a bill, which shows you have read and understood the sources carefully.

Targets

Develop a Sustained Argument: Instead of saying "I agree with A" then "I disagree with A", structure your answer as a comparison. For example: "Writer A argues X, but Writer B counters this with Y. I find B more convincing here because..."
Use Comparative Language: Integrate words like 'however', 'whereas', 'on the other hand', and 'more convincingly' to directly compare the two viewpoints throughout your answer.
Explain *Why* You Agree: Don't just state the points from the sources. Explain why you think one argument is stronger or more important than the other. For instance, is the adaptability of common law more important than the slowness of passing bills? Why?
Write a Concluding Statement: End your answer with a short summary that re-states your overall judgement and briefly explains your main reason for it.

Candidate 16079

Word Count: ~328 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I mostly agree with Dr. Sarah Jenkins who belives Our law-making system keeps up with too Scientific, cultural and Societal changes in the world. One point Dr. Sarah had that I strongly agreed with was that the flexibility of our uncodified constitution means Parliment can pass new laws relatively quickly when urgent issues arise and I agree because since the UKs constitution is unwritten and is very flexible because it can be well altered very and easily which means if there needs to be a law put in place to keep people safe it wont take long for that law to be published for an example when dangerous dogs were here were being breeded and hurt people the goverment changed the law to protect people from those dogs and it ever made them those dogs all illegal it made sure that thoughs those dogs always had to wear a mussel. Another good point Dr. Sarah made was that common law allows judges to interpret and apply existing legal principle in a situation and this is a good p to make because count many times judges have changed the law to protect the so people for example the law about descrimination to a man or women in the eyes of the the law and also the judges altered the drink driving law so it was more clear and safer which just shows how fast and efficient our law making system is, is it adapting to Society and culture. Professor David Chen does not agree with it that our law-making system is good at adapting to Society, culture and Scientific and technological advancements. He believes that our making laws is dangerously slow and I think that is a good point for a law even a simple one to get past it takes months or years which it has to go through the house of commons and lords which is very time consuming. He also Said that Scine and and technological technology are very fast moving and the world changes faster than our law making system can keep up with and I also agree the world is very fast paced and it has rapid development but our law making system still does catches up as is very flexible and can adapt. In conclusion I mostly agree with Dr. Sarah Jenkins because she had Strong points and was very clear. David Chen was also very strong in his argument but was disapointed in some areas.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 2 response. You have a clear structure, explaining arguments from both writers and using your own knowledge effectively to support your points. Your judgment is stated at the start and end. To improve, you need to make your evaluation more sustained by directly comparing the writers' arguments and avoiding contradictions, especially when discussing the writer you disagree with.

Sustained Evaluation: Instead of "David Chen was also very strong in his argument but was disapointed in some areas," try something more specific like: "While Dr Farrell's point about the slow parliamentary process is valid, he overlooks how mechanisms like common law allow for rapid adaptation, making Professor Malik's argument about flexibility ultimately more convincing."

Strengths

Clear Structure: Your answer is well-organised with a clear introduction stating your judgment, separate paragraphs for each writer, and a conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Good Use of Own Knowledge: You effectively used specific examples like the Dangerous Dogs Act, discrimination law, and drink-driving regulations to support the points made by Professor Malik. This shows excellent understanding and application skills.
Explanation of Arguments: You don't just state what the writers believe; you explain their arguments clearly, for example by referencing the uncodified constitution and the role of the House of Commons and Lords.

Targets

Develop Sustained Evaluation: When you discuss Dr Farrell's points, you agree with them but then immediately dismiss them. A better evaluation would explain *why* Professor Malik's counter-arguments are stronger (e.g., "While it's true that Parliament can be slow, Malik's point about common law shows a different, faster route for legal change that Farrell ignores.").
Use Comparative Language: To create a more direct evaluation, use phrases that explicitly compare the two writers. For example: "Professor Malik's argument is more convincing than Dr Farrell's because...", or "In contrast to Farrell's view on parliamentary delay, Malik highlights...".
Refer to Writers Accurately: A small but important detail is to use the correct names provided in the source material (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell). This shows you are paying close attention to the evidence.
Proofread for Clarity: Several spelling and grammar errors (e.g., 'belives', 'Parliment', 'mussel', 'disapointed') slightly weaken the clarity of your excellent points. Reading your work aloud before finishing can help you catch these.

Candidate 19678

Word Count: ~234 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

I personally agree with Dr Sarah Jenkins the most however Professor David Chen does state some valid points. One reason I choose to agree with Dr. Sarah Jenkins the most is because of her point "Our law-making system is remarkably effective at adapting to the rapid pace of scientific, cultural, and social change." I believe this is very true as we have a non-written consitition mean when choosing and making laws the process would be fairly quick as the government isn't taking its time to write the whole constitution again just for that particular law. An another reason why I agree with Dr Sarah is when she states "The system is supported by dedicated bodies like the Law Commission, which is constantly reviews legislation to ensure it remains revelant and proposes necessary reforms to reflect modern societal values". The point she has made is very understandable as since we have lots of usefull people to help with legislation it will first speed up the process but also provide many different views from other people which contributes to the social change category. The last reason I dont quite fully agree with Professor David Chen is because when he states "Our current system of law making is dangerously slow and entirely ill-equipped to keep pace with modern scientific and social advancements." I dont agree with this point as I believe we have a fast law-making system however someone else may dis agree with him based on their overall opinion. Now the reason I do agree with Professor David Chen is because when he states "Further more, Parliament is inherently reactive rather than proactive; law makers typically only adress issues after significant public harm has occurred. The reason I agree with this statement as its very realistic because most of the time the government doesnt make a change untill the actual change is done and that impacts our area and the world negatively

Quality of EvaluationGood. You have made a clear judgment and supported it by explaining points from both sources. You explain Professor Malik's arguments well, particularly regarding the Law Commission. However, your evaluation is not yet 'sustained'. You tend to evaluate each point in isolation rather than directly comparing them to build a consistent argument. Your dismissal of Dr Farrell's point about the speed of law-making was asserted rather than proven with evidence.

Sustained Comparative Evaluation: "I disagree with Dr Farrell's claim that our system is 'dangerously slow'. While some complex laws can take time, Professor Malik's point about the Law Commission is more convincing. The Commission's role is to proactively review and propose reforms, which directly counters the idea that the system is *always* slow and ill-equipped, ensuring it can adapt to modern values."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a clear and decisive judgement, stating which writer you find more convincing. This provides a strong focus for your answer.
Good Use of Evidence: You select relevant quotes and points from both writers to build your argument, showing good comprehension of the sources.
Developed Explanation: Your explanation of why the Law Commission is effective is a high point. You successfully link its work to both speed and reflecting social change.

Targets

Use Correct Names: In the exam, ensure you use the exact names provided in the source material (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell) to show attention to detail.
Sustain Your Argument: Instead of agreeing/disagreeing with points one by one, try to use one writer's argument to directly challenge the other's. For example: "Farrell claims the system is slow, but this is challenged by Malik's point about..." This creates a 'dialogue' between the sources.
Evidence Your Claims: When you disagree with a point (like Farrell's on the speed of law-making), you must provide a reason or evidence. Simply stating "I believe we have a fast system" is an assertion, not an argument.
Use Specific Examples: To strengthen your points, especially when agreeing with Farrell's 'reactive' argument, use a real-world example of a law passed in response to an event (e.g., the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 after a series of attacks).

Candidate 19726

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I disagree with some of Dr Sarah Jenkins arguments as she says 'Our law-making system is remarkably effective at adapting to the rapid pace of scientific, cultural, and social change.' I believe this is false as it usually takes parliament up to a year to pass law to the public as they have to go through processes such as the detail checks, the first hurdles and final commons vote before it is passed on to the House of Lords to decide whether it becomes a law or not. I somewhat agree with Professor David Chen as he says there is also a severe lack of specialised technical expertise among politicians, this leads to poorly drafted laws that fail to comprehend the nuance of complex scientific developments. On top of this law-making doesn't keep up with social change as there are laws that protect characteristics such as race, gender and sexual orientation there are still biased towards rejecting people that somewhat like them. Overall I agree most with Professor David Chen as he brings up solid and valid points and backs it up with evidence. However Dr. Sarah Jenkins brings up false points and can't even back it with some sort of evidence.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgement and supported it by explaining points from both writers. The best part of your answer is how you used your own knowledge of the law-making process to effectively challenge Professor Malik's argument. However, your evaluation is not yet 'sustained'. You tend to describe each argument separately and then make a judgement at the end, rather than comparing them directly throughout. Using more nuanced language and checking details like the writers' names will help you move into the next level.

Sustained Evaluation: "Overall, I find Dr Farrell's argument more convincing. Although Professor Malik correctly identifies that laws are eventually made, Farrell's point about the lack of specialist expertise among politicians provides a more compelling reason for why these laws are often poorly drafted and fail to keep up with complex social change."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You make a clear and consistent decision about which writer you find more convincing, which is the main task of an evaluation question.
Good Use of Own Knowledge: You effectively used your own detailed knowledge of the UK legislative process to challenge the argument made by Professor Malik. This is a high-level skill.

Targets

Accurate Referencing: Always double-check the names of the writers in the source material. You referred to them as 'Jenkins' and 'Chen' instead of the correct names, 'Malik' and 'Farrell', which affects the accuracy of your answer.
Develop Your Comparison: Instead of just describing each writer's view and then judging at the end, try to compare them directly throughout your answer. Use phrases like: "While Malik argues X, Farrell provides a more convincing counter-argument that Y, because..."
Use Nuanced Language: Avoid simple, absolute statements like "false points". Use more analytical language like "less convincing," "overlooks the issue of," or "presents a stronger case because...". This demonstrates a more sophisticated evaluation.
Explain Your Reasoning Fully: When you state a writer "backs it up with evidence," you must explain *what* that evidence is and *why* it makes their point strong. Be specific to show the examiner you understand the argument in depth.

Candidate 20967

Word Count: ~178 words

Evaluation Score: 4/12

People may agree with Dr. Sarah Jenkins as she says the system is effective at adapting to the rapid pace of scientific, cultural and social change. She also says the system is supported by dedicated bodies like the Law Commission which reviews regulation to ensure it remains relevant and proposes necessary reform to reflect modern societal values. However, people may agree with Professor David Chen as he says the system of law-making is dangerously slow and entirely ill-equipped to keep pace with modern scientific and social advancements. He also says there is a severe lack of technical expertise among politicians, leading to poorly drafted laws that fail to comprehend scientific development. In my opinion I agree with Professor David as it shows how modern advancements. B.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have done a great job of explaining the key arguments from both Professor Malik and Dr Farrell, which is a crucial first step. However, the mark is limited because your own evaluation is a simple, incomplete sentence. To achieve a higher level, you must provide a reasoned judgement that explains *why* one writer's view is more convincing than the other, using the evidence you have already identified.

Developing your judgement: "In my opinion, I agree more with Dr Farrell. While Professor Malik correctly notes the role of the Law Commission, Dr Farrell's point about the lack of technical expertise among politicians is more convincing because this expertise is essential for making effective laws about complex modern issues like AI or genetic engineering, which are developing faster than the law can keep up."

Strengths

Accurate Source Use: You have correctly identified and clearly explained two distinct arguments from each of the writers in the source material.
Clear Structure: Your answer is logically structured, dealing with Writer A, then Writer B, before attempting a conclusion. This makes your points easy to follow.

Targets

Develop Your Judgement: Your conclusion needs to be a detailed paragraph, not a single sentence. After stating who you agree with, you must use "because..." and explain your reasoning.
Explain 'Why': To evaluate, you must explain *why* one argument is stronger than the other. For example, is the lack of expertise (Farrell) a more significant problem than the benefit of the Law Commission (Malik)? Explain your thinking.
Use Comparative Language: Directly compare the two arguments using phrases like "While Malik argues..., Farrell's point is more convincing because..." or "Farrell's argument outweighs Malik's because...".
Proofread for Clarity: Your final sentence was incomplete. Always leave time to read through your answer to check for clarity and fix any errors.

Candidate 26817

Word Count: ~212 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

Will First of All, Dr Jenkins Says yes to the pace of law making. I Belive that She may Be corect with her Anwer Because She sad that Parement could pass laws in theres issues. She Also stated that the lawmaking is efectivly keeping its pace with Sientific and techologed advanses. Well I Disagree with her statement Because laws take A long time to Be made, And once it has Been made there could Be lots of Advansed tech in this world today. The next thing she was talking About is was that the parement could provide an imediate response to the emage of technologys and sientific Break throughs. I Also Disagree with this statement Because the govement couldn't Just make A law straight Away. to make a law it Require the kings signature, votes, and compaigns. so A law must go through 5 stages to Be complete. THE next person is Professor David Chen. Professor Chen Says no to the law making process. This is Because he said that the law making is Dangerous Slow and ill equiped to keep pace with modern sientific and social Advansment. Well I Agree with Chen Because A law takes time to Be made, And in that time All types of things could Be discoverd. HE Also says that A law is A legaslive process is Alwas, often, Requiring months, years or even years to Be passed through Both, the house of commons and house of lords. this tells me that A law could take way longer than your life. So in conclusion I Belive that I fully Agree on Professor Chen. this is due to him mentioning the fact that A law takes time And how is ill equiped to do so. he also says that by the time A law is made AI would be to Advansed By then.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 2 response. You make a clear and consistent judgment, supporting it with relevant points from both sources. A real strength is how you use your own knowledge of the law-making stages to challenge Writer A. To reach the top level, you need to move from discussing each writer separately to directly comparing their arguments against each other throughout your answer.

Developing Evaluation: Instead of just disagreeing with Writer A, you could directly use Writer B's point to challenge them. For example: "While Dr Jenkins suggests Parliament can respond effectively, her argument is weakened by the reality of the legislative process, which Professor Chen correctly identifies as 'dangerously slow'. A complex bill on AI, for instance, must pass through several stages in both the Commons and Lords, a process that can take over a year. By then, the technology would have changed, proving Chen's point that the system is 'ill-equipped' to keep pace."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You make a clear and consistent decision on which writer you find more convincing and state this confidently in your conclusion.
Use of Evidence: You have successfully selected relevant ideas and quotes from both sources to explain the core arguments of each writer.
Application of Own Knowledge: Your best point was using your own knowledge about the "5 stages" and the King's signature to effectively challenge Writer A's claim of an "imediate response". This is a key skill for evaluation.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing Writer A then Writer B, try to compare them directly. Use phrases like: "Writer A claims X, however, this is challenged by Writer B who argues Y, which is more convincing because..."
Develop Your Reasoning: When you make a point like "laws take A long time to Be made", develop it further. Explain *why* the stages (e.g., First Reading, Committee Stage) make it slow and link this specifically to the problem of fast-moving technology.
Use Evaluative Language: Integrate more evaluative words throughout your answer, not just at the start or end of a paragraph. For example: "Writer B provides a more realistic argument," or "Writer A's view is less persuasive because it overlooks..."
Check Source Details: In an exam, always double-check the names of the writers provided in the sources to ensure you are referring to them accurately.

Candidate 28691

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I agree with S.J's argument that the law is 'adapting to the rapid pace of scientific, cultural, and social change'. This is because this has happened before. Look at covid, where laws to protect people were enacted swiftly. So if it meant, 'an event like covid were to happen again, these protective laws can't be put in place quickly again'. I agree with S.J's argument that 'delegated legislation also empowers government ministers to quickly update regulations in technical areas'. I agree with this argument because there are people who live and breathe these different subjects, meaning that any changes that may need to be made can happen quickly. An example of this could be the education sector, as this is experienced in the field of education, changing the way schools are run to find a solution to a problem. I agree with D.C's argument that parliament 'by law only address issues after something bad or against an unthought of idea has happened'. But I also disagree with this argument because parliament by being so big find laws that should be in place but aren't yet, that is what they do, so they try their hardest to stop things from happening, but unfortunately there are 'held a couple' who by so find loopholes around the law. I disagree with the argument made that there are a 'lack of specialised expertise'. This is so untrue because, like I said earlier are people who live and breathe certain subjects who follow the law and try their hardest to solve loopholes around the law. To conclude, I mainly agree with S.J's argument because myself and many others believe that they have great points.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You make a clear judgment on which writer is more convincing and you support this by explaining relevant arguments from both sources. Using your own examples, like the Covid-19 pandemic, is a real strength. To reach the top marks, you need to move beyond explaining each writer's points separately and start directly comparing them to build a more sustained line of reasoning.

Developing a Conclusion: "To conclude, I mainly agree with Professor Malik's argument. While Dr Farrell's concern that Parliament often acts too late is valid, the need for speed and expert knowledge in a fast-moving world, proven during the Covid crisis, makes delegated legislation a more effective tool for modern governance."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You consistently state which writer you agree with throughout your answer, which makes your position clear.
Use of Evidence: You effectively select key arguments and quotes from both sources to build your answer around.
Relevant Examples: Your use of the Covid-19 pandemic and the education sector as examples to support Professor Malik's points is excellent and shows good application of your own knowledge.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing the writers one by one, try to compare their arguments directly. For example, "Malik's point about speed is more convincing than Farrell's point about scrutiny because..." This shows a higher level of analysis.
Develop Reasoning: When you agree or disagree, explain *why* in more detail. Your conclusion that you agree because "they have great points" needs more substance. Explain *what* makes the points great.
Formal Language: In an exam, it is better to use the writers' full names (Professor Malik, Dr Farrell) rather than initials (S.J, D.C) or 'the writer'. This makes your response more formal and academic.
Refine Your Conclusion: Your conclusion should be a mini-summary of your main argument, weighing up the evidence and giving a final, justified judgment. Avoid phrases like "myself and many others believe".

Candidate 60982

Word Count: ~200 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I agree with proffesor David chen because I think that our system of law making is slow while science culture and society are changing much quicker. them law making because law-making takes months, maybe even years with through both the House of commons and House of lords. Also things like AI is moving fast. Also. Parliament don't make laws before something happens, they do it after it happens making them proactive instead of active and there is also lack of expertise among politicians. This affects citizens because our law-making system is not quick enough to proceed and act beforehand while society have already thought about it. On the other hand people would agree with Dr Sarah Jenkins because the flexibility of our uncodified constitution means parliament can pass new laws quickly when urgent issues arrive. Also that they are supported by the law comission which constantly reviews legislation to ensure it remains relevant. Also that tradition law of common law allows judges to interpret and apply existing legal principles to novel situations. Finally Dr Sarah Jenkins also believes that overall with all the combinations of parliamentary sovereignty, expert consultation make our system of law-making keep up with scientific, cultural and social changes in the world.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have provided a well-structured answer that explains the key arguments from both Professor Malik and Dr Farrell clearly. You make a judgement at the start and select relevant evidence. However, the response does not directly compare the two viewpoints to build a sustained argument. Instead of weighing the arguments against each other, you present them separately, which keeps your answer in Level 2.

Comparative Evaluation: To reach the top level, you need to directly compare the arguments. For example: "While Dr Farrell rightly points out that the Law Commission helps keep laws relevant, Professor Malik's argument that Parliament is often *reactive* is more convincing, especially with fast-moving issues like AI where a slow, after-the-fact response can be dangerous."

Strengths

Clear Structure: Your answer is logically organised into three paragraphs, addressing Writer A, Writer B, and a conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Good Knowledge: You have successfully identified and explained several key arguments from both sources, such as the slowness of the legislative process (Malik) and the flexibility of the uncodified constitution (Farrell).
Clear Initial Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the very beginning of your answer ("I agree with..."), which is a great way to start an evaluative piece.

Targets

Develop Your Evaluation: Instead of just listing the arguments for each side, you need to directly compare them. Use phrases like "Malik's point is more convincing than Farrell's because..." or "While Farrell argues..., this is weakened by the point made by Malik that...".
Sustain Your Judgement: Your final paragraph summarises Dr Farrell's view but doesn't return to your own judgement. Your conclusion should be *your* final verdict, weighing up the evidence and explaining why you find one writer more persuasive.
Use Correct Terminology: You wrote that Parliament is "proactive instead of active". The correct term for making laws *after* an event is **reactive**. Proactive means acting beforehand. Using precise keywords is crucial for top marks.
Check Writer Names: In an exam, ensure you use the names provided in the source material (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell). Using the correct names shows good attention to detail.

Candidate 67012

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I agree with Sarah Jenkins to some extent as she believes that the UK are good at adapting new laws to fit current societies changes. This can be done easily as the UK has an unwritten constitution that makes it easy to pass and remove any laws they want. It also allows judges to interpret legal principles to provide imediate responses to issues or problems. Also, it can make rules that are fit for whats currently happening in society for example, the law during covid that said you must stay indoors, was made to fit current issues in society and keep everyone safe. On the other hand, I somewhat agree with professor David Chen as he things the system of law making is dangerously slow and could make matters often worse in some scenarios for example, when two ten year olds killed a young boy, the law was only changed after the crime meaning that the young boy was failed to be protected and other crimes may've happend before and the children weren't prosecuted for their actions. He also says that the amount of time taken to change the law, makes the topic outdated by the time they can pass it. Page 1 In conclusion I agree that with Sarah Jenkins point that the UK are good at passing laws, but David Chens argument also was good and showed how the may've both been as great at passing laws. Page 2

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. This is a good Level 2 response because you clearly explain the arguments from both sources and use your own knowledge (like the COVID-19 laws) to support them. However, your evaluation is not sustained. You state a preference for one writer but your conclusion becomes confused and indecisive, stating that both arguments were equally good. To reach the top level, you must weigh the arguments against each other throughout and come to a firm, well-supported final judgement.

Crafting a Clear Conclusion: "In conclusion, while Dr Farrell's argument about the slow pace of law-making has merit, Professor Malik's view is more convincing. Her point about the flexibility of the UK's unwritten constitution, proven by the rapid implementation of laws during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrates a powerful ability to respond to immediate national crises, which is ultimately a more significant feature of the UK's legal system than the delays in other areas."

Strengths

Effective Use of Evidence: You successfully used a specific and relevant example (COVID-19 lockdown laws) to support Professor Malik's argument. This shows you can connect the sources to real-world events.
Clear Understanding of Sources: You have accurately identified and explained the main points made by both writers, demonstrating good comprehension skills.

Targets

Develop a Sustained Judgment: Your conclusion was unclear and weakened your overall argument. Decide which writer is *more* convincing and explain exactly why their argument outweighs the other. Avoid sitting on the fence.
Use Direct Comparison: To create a stronger evaluation, directly compare the two arguments. Use phrases like, "While Farrell's point about speed is valid, Malik's argument is more significant because..." to show you are weighing them against each other.
Pay Attention to Detail: You used incorrect names for both writers ('Sarah Jenkins' and 'David Chen'). Always double-check the source material for key details like names to ensure your answer is accurate and professional.

Candidate 67801

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 1/12

Overall, I agree more with David Chen as although there are many strengths regarding our current law making system, the biggest problem is how slowly the process is, which put us behind the worldly changes

Quality of EvaluationBeginning. This response attempts to make a judgment, which is the right skill for this question. However, the entire answer is focused on the wrong topic (law-making) and refers to a writer who was not in the sources. You must carefully read the question and the sources to ensure your answer is relevant. Because the response does not address the arguments of Professor Malik or Dr Farrell on collective defence, it cannot score above the lowest level.

Making a Relevant Judgment: A better start would be: "Overall, I find Professor Malik's argument for collective defence more convincing than Dr Farrell's. Although Farrell rightly points out the high cost of international commitments, Malik's view that shared security provides a stronger deterrent is more persuasive because..."

Strengths

Clear Judgment Structure: You begin with a clear statement of which view you support ("Overall, I agree more with..."). This is the correct way to start an evaluation.
Attempt at Justification: You try to give a reason for your judgment ("...the biggest problem is..."). Linking your opinion to a reason is a key evaluative skill.

Targets

Read the Question Carefully: Your top priority must be to answer the specific question asked. Your answer discussed law-making, but the question was about 'Collective Defence vs. Self-Reliance'. Always underline keywords in the question and sources.
Use Both Sources: A good evaluation must analyse and compare arguments from *both* writers provided (Professor Malik and Dr Farrell). You did not mention either of them or their ideas.
Refer to the Correct Writers: You mentioned 'David Chen', who was not one of the writers. Always use the names provided in the source material to show you are engaging with it directly.
Develop Your Points: Instead of one simple reason, aim to explain *why* one writer's argument is stronger than the other's. For example, explain *why* shared security is more effective, using evidence from the source to support your reasoning.

Candidate 67892

Word Count: ~385 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

Dr. Sarah Fred Jenkins has some good points like "remarkably effective at adapting to the rapid pace of scientific, cultural and social change." This is a good point because as we can see during covid, lockdown laws were fairly quick to pass, but in America it took really long and many people suffered from it. Another of her point is good, when she says "our tradition of common law allows judges to interpret and apply legal principles to novel situation providing an immediate response. This is a good point as it's true, parliamentary laws don't think about everyday situations in reasons why a law might be broken. While judges fix that and sort of have more leniancy. Take this for example, during the Irish terrorist attacks a taxi driver was relaxing and drinking at home, but then a terrorist came and forced him to drive at gunpoint. Eventually he got caught driving back home and was sent to a judge. With the law he would've been sent to jail but because it wasn't his will he didn't go to jail. Overall Jenkins has some good points but her main argument is speed and where as that may be true in some cases it's not, which makes her argument one sided and pretty much a weak argument. Professor David Chen also has good points as when he says "often requiring months or even years for a bill to pass through." This is true because in a normal process (excluding emergency laws) it has many different stages to go through and by the time it's passed the country might not need the law anymore so it'll be either wasted time and taxpayers money or unbeneficiary for the country. anymore. However he also he also makes points like "judges aren't democratic." This is really true because the judges aren't chosen by anyone but calling them a piecemeal is too much as they have also undergone training to be one and have checks of power. The same can go for when he talks about MPs talking expertise they have jobs that have technical expertise. However he finishes off with a really true statement "traditional procedures leave society vulnerable" especially with a ever growing multi-cultural society. Therefore I side with Dr David Chen.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a strong response that sits at the top of Level 2. You show a very good understanding of the arguments from both sources and support your points effectively with your own knowledge, such as the COVID laws and the taxi driver case study. Your evaluation of Writer B's "piecemeal" comment is particularly strong as you weigh the evidence rather than just accepting it. To reach Level 3, you need to make your evaluation more sustained by directly comparing the writers' arguments throughout your answer, rather than dealing with them in separate paragraphs. This creates a more developed and coherent line of reasoning.

Comparative Judgment: Your sentence "Overall Jenkins has some good points but... it's not, which makes her argument one sided and pretty much a weak argument" could be improved. A top-level version would be: "While Malik's point about the speed of common law is valid in emergencies, Farrell's argument that this system is undemocratic is more convincing overall. The lack of public accountability for unelected judges presents a greater long-term risk to justice than the slow, yet democratic, process of creating statute law."

Strengths

Effective Use of Own Knowledge: You support points from the text with excellent, specific examples like the COVID-19 laws and the case of the taxi driver under duress. This demonstrates detailed understanding.
Weighing Up Evidence: You don't just accept what the writers say. For example, you challenged Writer B's claim about judges being "piecemeal" by referring to their training and the checks on their power. This is a high-level evaluation skill.
Clear Structure: Your answer is well-organised, dealing with each writer in turn before reaching a final, clear judgment. This makes your reasoning easy to follow.

Targets

Sustain Your Evaluation: Instead of evaluating each writer separately, try to compare them directly throughout your answer. Use phrases like "In contrast...", "While Writer A argues..., Writer B provides a more convincing counterpoint that..." to create a direct debate between the two sources.
Develop Your Final Judgment: Your conclusion is clear but brief. Expand on it by summarising in 1-2 sentences *why* Writer B's arguments (e.g., about democracy and procedure) are more convincing to you than Writer A's arguments (e.g., about speed and adaptability).
Use Formal Language: Avoid informal phrases like "pretty much a weak argument" or "sort of have more leniancy". Use more precise, academic language such as "this presents a significant weakness in her argument" or "judges can apply the law with more discretion".
Check Writer Names: You referred to the writers as 'Jenkins' and 'Chen', but the source material names them as Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell. Always double-check the names provided in the exam paper to ensure accuracy.

Candidate 68170

Word Count: ~125 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

I agree most with Dr Sarah Jenkins for the point she makes saying that our law making System is remarkably effective at adapting to the rapid pace of scientific, cultural and social change. This is because parliament uses advanced technology and research to ensure youth adapt laws. This is evident because the system is supported by dedicated bodies like the law commission, wich constantly reviews legislation to ensure that it remains at relevant and necessary levels. On the other hand, David Chun argues that the current system of law making is dangerously slow. I partially agree with this as the legislative process often takes months or even years to pass a bill through the house of commons and the house of lords.

Quality of EvaluationClear. Your evaluation is clear and well-structured. You start with a direct judgement, support it with evidence from Professor Malik's text, and then consider the counter-argument from Dr Farrell. This demonstrates good exam technique. However, to reach the top level, you need to directly compare the two arguments. Instead of just explaining both sides, you should explain *why* Malik's point about the Law Commission is more convincing to you than Farrell's point about the slow legislative process.

Direct Comparison: "While Dr Farrell is right that the legislative process can be slow, Professor Malik's argument is more convincing because bodies like the Law Commission show the system has a built-in mechanism for proactive change, which is more significant than the time taken for individual bills to pass."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a decisive statement ("I agree most with..."), which immediately answers the question and provides a clear focus for your response.
Use of Evidence: You effectively selected a key piece of evidence from the source text (the Law Commission) to support your main point about Writer A.
Balanced Structure: You considered both sides of the argument using "On the other hand," showing you understand the need for a balanced evaluation.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of just explaining each writer's view one after the other, directly compare them. Use phrases like "Malik's point is more convincing because..." to explain *why* one argument outweighs the other.
Develop Your Reasoning: Expand on your points. For example, explain *how* the work of the Law Commission makes the system "remarkably effective" and why this is more important than the slowness that Farrell points out.
Accuracy with Sources: Always double-check the names of the writers in the source material to ensure accuracy. In this case, they were Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell.
Proofreading: A quick read-through of your answer can help you catch small errors like "wich" or "youth adapt laws," which improves the overall clarity and quality of your writing.

Candidate 71689

Word Count: ~66 words

Evaluation Score: 3/12

I Agree with Professor David then because he, mention how long the legislation process is (goes back 30 months on Sexist) while also mentioning the fact that Law makers only address issues after significant public harm has occurred, that simply shouldn't happen as the Law makers should focus on, the justice rather than publicity. On the other hand the other person says lawmaker constitutions pass new laws with pace

Quality of EvaluationLimited. Your response makes a clear judgement and identifies simple points from both writers, which is a solid start. This places you in Level 1. You have begun to evaluate by explaining why you agree with one writer's point. However, to reach a higher level, you need to develop this into a direct comparison, explaining why one writer's argument is *more* convincing than the other's, rather than just stating their different views.

Developing a comparative point: "While Professor Malik suggests laws are passed with pace, Dr Farrell's evidence of a 30-month delay on a single issue is more convincing because it uses a specific, real-world example to challenge her more general claim."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start your answer with a clear decision on which writer you find more convincing ("I Agree with..."). This gives your answer immediate focus.
Use of Evidence: You have successfully selected relevant points from both sources to support your argument, such as the '30 months' delay and the idea of laws being passed 'with pace'.

Targets

Develop Comparisons: Instead of just stating what the other writer says ('On the other hand...'), directly compare the arguments. For example, 'Professor Malik's point is less convincing because...'. This shows you are weighing them against each other.
Explain Your Reasoning: After making an evaluative comment (e.g., 'this shouldn't happen'), explain how this makes the writer's argument stronger or more persuasive than the other writer's. Link it back to the comparison.
Use Evaluative Language: To make your judgement clear throughout, use words like 'more convincing', 'stronger argument', 'less persuasive', 'limited evidence' when you are discussing the writers' points.
Check Source Details: Make sure you use the correct names for the writers (Professor Malik and Dr Farrell) to show careful reading of the source material.

Candidate 72916

Word Count: ~187 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I agree with writer Dr Sarah Jenkins the most. This is due to the fact that she states, "Parliament can pass new laws relatively quickly when urgent issues arise" which is factual based on previous events (e.g. Covid-19 regulations made law). This is very efficient as it helps us to adapt to ongoing situations or a rapid spreading health emergency where lifes are in danger. I mostly disagree with writer David Chen however he does make a great point saying "By the time legislation regarding... such as AI or social media regulation receives Royal Assent, it is already outdated." This is also factual especially regarding social media bans for Under-16s as it was a hot topic in Government. Another reason why I agree with Dr Sarah Jenkins is because she mentions how judges are allowed to intervene and review laws if thought to be processed incorrectly or unfairly. In conclusion, I believe Dr Sarah Jenkins is correct and our system of lawmaking does keep up with scientific, cultural and social changes however Professor David Chen argues no which I disagree with but he does make some great points in his explanation.

Quality of EvaluationClear. You have provided a clear and well-structured answer. You establish a judgement from the start, support your points with evidence from both sources, and use your own knowledge effectively to illustrate these points. This is a solid Level 2 response. To reach Level 3, you need to move from explaining the arguments separately to directly comparing them. Weigh them against each other and explain *why* one argument is more convincing or significant than the other.

Direct Comparison: In conclusion, while Dr Farrell's point about outdated technology laws is valid, Professor Malik's argument is more convincing. The ability to pass urgent laws for national emergencies like the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrates a flexibility that is more crucial for protecting citizens' lives than the challenge of keeping up with every social media trend.

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state which writer you find more convincing at the very beginning and maintain this position throughout your answer. This creates a clear line of reasoning.
Use of Own Knowledge: Your examples of Covid-19 regulations and social media bans are specific, relevant, and effectively support the arguments you are discussing from the sources.
Balanced Argument: You engage with both writers, explaining points from the writer you agree with and acknowledging a "great point" from the one you disagree with. This shows you have understood the complexity of the issue.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing each writer's points in separate paragraphs, try to compare them directly. Ask yourself: which issue is more significant? Is the speed of emergency lawmaking *more important* than the problem of outdated tech laws? Use comparative words like "however," "more convincingly," or "while this is a valid point, it is less significant because...".
Develop Your Points: Your explanation is good, but could be more detailed. For example, when you mention judges can intervene, explain *why* this helps the law keep up with social changes (e.g., it allows laws to be interpreted in line with modern values of fairness and human rights).
Use Correct Writer Names: In the exam, ensure you use the names provided in the sources (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell). Using incorrect names ("Jenkins", "Chen") can be distracting for the examiner.
Strengthen Conclusion: Your conclusion summarises your view well. To elevate it, use it to make your final comparative judgement clear. Briefly explain *why* Malik's evidence outweighs Farrell's, providing a final, decisive reason for your choice.

Candidate 76921

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I mostly agree with Professor David Chen because the process of making new laws is slow and in urgent matters like the corona virus pandemic, laws took a long time being passed. Another downside of the current system of law making is that if stealing was never a law, then people would do it and by the time the law would be passed, it would be too late as passing a law could take months, or even years. On the other hand, Sarah Jenkins argues that our law-making system is good as she focuses more on tradition. But, if we keep focusing on tradition, then scientific, cultural and social changes in the world will change even faster and leave us in the past.

Quality of EvaluationClear. You have made a confident judgment and supported it by explaining arguments from both writers. You use your own knowledge effectively, for example with the COVID-19 pandemic, to support one writer's view. To improve, you need to make your evaluation more direct and sustained by comparing the two arguments against each other throughout, rather than dealing with them separately.

Developing Evaluation: "While Dr Farrell's argument for tradition has some merit, it is a much weaker argument than Professor Malik's. The recent pandemic proves that the world can change rapidly, making the law-making process's slowness a significant danger that tradition alone cannot solve."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state which writer you find more convincing at the very start of your answer, which provides excellent focus.
Good Use of Evidence: You effectively use a contemporary example (the pandemic) to support the argument you agree with, showing strong analytical skills.
Direct Rebuttal: You directly challenge the opposing view with your own reasoning about social change, which is a key feature of high-level evaluation.

Targets

Use Correct Names: Always double-check the names of the writers in the source material. In this exam, they were Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell. Using the wrong names can suggest a lack of care.
Sustain Your Argument: Instead of dealing with each writer separately, try to weave them together. For example, "Malik's point about speed is more convincing than Farrell's point about tradition because..." This creates a more sustained line of reasoning.
Develop Your Points: Add more detail to your explanations. *Why* did laws take a long time to pass during the pandemic? What specific 'traditions' might Farrell be referring to and why are they now outdated?
Write a Conclusion: End your answer with a short concluding sentence that summarises your overall judgment and reinforces your main reason. This neatly finishes your argument.

Candidate 78962

Word Count: ~319 words

Evaluation Score: 5/12

I agree with Dr Sarah Jenkins because our law making adopts laws quickly and it is very effective and it keeps the citizens under control and our uncodified constitution means parliament can pass new laws very quick meaning we can adapt quicker to... I agree with that she said our tradition of common law allows judges to interpret and apply existing legal principles and also to the can make laws easier since the people have access to justice and since the crime the government can make laws better and adapt to real life situations situations I disagree with professor David Clark since she said our current system of law making is very slow and I disagree with that because it really isn't and the system is really effective and again we have access to justice and we have civil laws for a reason and another point I disagree with is that she said there is a severe lack of specialized technical expertise among politicians and I disagree with that since the person voted to be one and they know the legal stuff and the problems been solved and we have for our prime minister and party like how we voted for Labour party and I disagree with one point is that is law makers only address issues after significant public harm has been caused since they do it to keep ones us well to protect our citizens and so they can adapt and change we have criminal law which is when it deals with offences that are considered crimes against humanity for example mass murder So overall I agree with Sarah Jenkins because she has good points and has good political views and how she thinks it is very quick to adapt to society and culture like the 2010 equality act how it protected certain characteristics like religion and race and age so overall I agree with doctor Sarah Jenkins

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgment and selected relevant points from both writers to support your view. You have also used a good specific example (the Equality Act 2010) which strengthens your argument. However, your evaluation is not yet sustained. To improve, you need to move beyond simple disagreement and directly compare the writers' arguments, explaining *why* one is more convincing than the other using more detailed reasoning and evidence. Your counter-arguments are currently based on assertion rather than explanation.

Developing an Argument: Your rebuttal of Dr Farrell's point on expertise was, "I disagree with that since the person voted to be one and they know the legal stuff." A more developed version would be: "Dr Farrell argues politicians lack expertise, but this overlooks the fact that Parliament has systems to address this. For example, Select Committees scrutinise laws using expert witnesses, and the civil service provides impartial, specialist advice to ministers before a bill is even drafted."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the start ("I agree with...") and maintain this position throughout your answer, leading to a consistent line of reasoning.
Use of Specific Evidence: Your use of the Equality Act 2010 is an excellent way to support Professor Malik's point about the law adapting to societal change. Using your own knowledge like this is a high-level skill.
Selection of Arguments: You have successfully identified key arguments from both sources to discuss, such as the speed of law-making, common law, and the expertise of politicians.

Targets

Develop Counter-Arguments: Instead of just disagreeing (e.g., "it really isn't slow"), explain *why* the writer is wrong. Use evidence or logical reasoning to challenge their point directly. For example, how does the parliamentary process itself ensure speed?
Directly Compare Writers: Don't just discuss one writer and then the other. Compare their arguments head-to-head. For instance, "Malik argues the system is fast, *whereas* Farrell claims it is slow. Malik's view is more convincing *because*..."
Avoid Assumptions: Be careful about making unsupported claims. The idea that politicians "know the legal stuff" just because they are elected is a weak argument. A better approach is to discuss the systems in place that provide expertise (like civil servants or expert committees).
Accuracy and Precision: Always use the names provided in the source material (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell). This shows you have engaged carefully with the evidence provided.

Candidate 79180

Word Count: ~387 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

I personally agree with David Chen opinion, where he claims it is a slow process and undemocratic. However, Dr. Sarah Jenkins also makes some strong points. Firstly, one reason why I agree with ~~David Chen's~~ argument is because he says, 'lawmakers typically only address issues after significant public harm has occurred'. The UK is an ageing population (less kids and more people living longer). Typically, crime rates are a lot more common in younger people, which make up a minority of the information. If we follow Chen's ideology that lawmakers only look at a significant number of people affected by crimes. The minorities will be ignored and the public doesn't become any safer. Therefore, one reason why I agree with David Chen is because of his criticism towards the decisions made by lawmakers. However, one reason why ~~I disagree with the statement~~ you could disagree with this point is because it's not just young people committing crimes. There are also elders who commit civil laws and deserve their punishment too. On the other hand, one reason why you could agree with Dr. Sarah Jenkins is because he claims that, 'Parliament can pass new laws relatively quickly when urgent issues arise'. The UK has an unwritten, coded constitution. This means new laws are easier to pass through. Also, the UK is currently being governed by the labour party, so taxes are higher and invested more in services. Social protection is also the factor where the most money goes, so better Police services are put in place. If we also get new laws via an unwritten constitution, the public will become much safer. Therefore, one reason why you could argue that Sarah Jenkins is correct is because of the UK's convenience of an unwritten constitution and it's investment in Social Protection. However, a problem with this is that too much investment is being put into safety. Others may need the money more than others and will decrease in quality if not invested. Finally, one another reason why I agree with David Chen is because of the time length of the process. For instance, he claims that, 'the lengthy legislative process is archaic, often requiring months or even years.' The UK's system of law-making is outdated and slow. Many more crimes correlating to the issue they could be addressing could have already happened. Not to mention it has to pass through Royal Assent first. If we had an up-to-date system, this wouldn't happen. Therefore, I agree with David Chen because he criticises the length of the process, highlighting the problems that could happen. However, a problem with this is that Parliament would be making the law into detail, attempting to achieve more safety.

Quality of EvaluationSolid. This is a good response that clearly explains arguments from both writers and supports them with evidence and your own knowledge. You have a clear judgement and you attempt to evaluate the points you make. To reach the top level, focus on making direct comparisons between the two writers' arguments (e.g. "Malik's point about speed is less convincing than Farrell's point about the archaic process because...") and ensure your own knowledge is always accurate.

Direct Comparison: Although Professor Malik is correct that Parliament *can* act quickly in emergencies, Dr Farrell's argument that the overall process is 'archaic' and slow is more convincing for day-to-day law-making. Emergency legislation is the exception, not the rule, and Farrell's point better reflects the reality of the detailed, multi-stage process, including Royal Assent, that most bills must go through to ensure they are effective.

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state which writer you find more convincing at the very start and maintain this position throughout your answer, which is excellent practice.
Good Use of Sources: You effectively select and embed quotes from both writers to act as the foundation for your paragraphs.
Developing Arguments: You don't just state the writers' points; you try to develop them with your own knowledge, such as mentioning the uncodified constitution and the stages of law-making.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing each writer in a separate block, try to directly compare their arguments. Use phrases like, "While Malik argues X, Farrell's point Y is more convincing because..." This is the key skill for Level 3 evaluation.
Accuracy of Own Knowledge: Be careful with the facts you use. The claim that the Labour party is in government is a significant error that weakens your argument. Always double-check your contextual knowledge.
Strengthen Counter-Arguments: Some of your mini-evaluations are excellent (like noting that a slow process allows for detail). Aim for this quality consistently. Ensure your counter-points directly challenge the argument you've just explained.
Attention to Detail: In an exam, ensure you use the correct names for the writers as given in the source booklet (Professor Malik and Dr Farrell). Using the wrong names can suggest a lack of care.

Candidate 82790

Word Count: ~476 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

In this extract, Sarah Jenkins agrees that the law making system keeps up with scientific, cultural and social changes. However David Chen completely disagrees with this system. These can be viewed as polar opposites. However I believe Jenkins has a more reasonable and valid argument, so therefore, I agree with Jenkins. A reason why I agree with this statement is due to the flexibility of having an unwritten constitution as Jenkins stated. This is because we can pass laws in the state of an emergency and so Jenkins states that "Parliament can pass new laws relatively quickly when urgent issues arrive". Looking to what we have said, an example of this taking effect was the COVID-19 lockdown that took place and was created in a matter of a couple of days in order to protect the public from imminent danger. Showing in urgent situations that by-laws can move quickly and stay updated with changes. Another reason I agree is due to the strict law checks. Jenkins states that our government is constantly looked at by committed bodies to constantly ensure laws are constantly changing with our society. I agree with this because by making sure that our laws are relavent within our current beliefs and changes we have a government that can create a civilised society. An example of this is same sex marriage. Decades ago, it was completely impermissable to marry someone of your sex. However due to our beliefs changing and LGBTQ+ becoming more accepted we changed it so that it was allowed, giving people freedom to express their beliefs. However, someone supporting Chen would argue that actually Parliament isn't good at creating laws up to date and Chen even says its 'dangerously slow'. A reason why someone may argue this argument is better is due to the sheer length and process of passing a law. For example, when you make a bill, you need the House of Commons to agree on it (majority) and even then you still have to tweak the law, pass it on to the House of Lords for inspection, try to get the majority of votes from them and then if its not perfect for both sides you have to continue constantly tweaking the law and debating it until both sides finally agree. This was also shown that Chen said laws would be far too outdated by the time it is published. This can be seen when XL Bullys were banned yet dangerous breeds that were very new came up meaning there was still danger. Another reason someone may agree is because of Judicial reviews. This is a very good argument because Judicial reviews actually cont-challenge much, just how the law was made and the process, meaning that if they saw an unfair law they couldn't argue about the fairness just how it was made. An example of this is the A law where if you had 3 kids you would need to buy a house for the 3 kids for them 3 beds, 1 for you and 2 for the kids. But some people had empty extra rooms yet the government said if they didn't need extra beds they didn't deserve a house and had to pay extra. The only reason this law was taken down, due to the unfair process it was made in. In conclusion I believe that Jenkins has a better point because of the fairness.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 2 response. You have a clear structure, starting with a definite judgment and then exploring arguments from both sides. Your use of evidence to support Professor Malik's (Jenkins') view is particularly strong, with well-chosen and explained examples like the COVID-19 laws and same-sex marriage. However, your argument for Dr Farrell (Chen) is weakened by a confused example, and your conclusion is too brief to be effective. To reach the top level, you need to develop your conclusion and ensure all your examples are precise and accurate.

Concluding an Argument: Your conclusion was "In conclusion I believe that Jenkins has a better point because of the fairness." A Level 3 conclusion would look more like this: "In conclusion, while Dr Farrell rightly highlights that the standard legislative process can be 'dangerously slow', Professor Malik presents a more convincing case. Her argument is stronger because the system's flexibility, proven by the rapid creation of COVID-19 laws, acts as a vital countermeasure to this slowness in times of crisis. Furthermore, the successful evolution of laws on issues like same-sex marriage demonstrates a system that, despite its flaws, does ultimately adapt to societal change, making Malik's perspective the more realistic and valid of the two."

Strengths

Clear Structure and Judgement: You began with a clear decision on which writer you agreed with and structured your essay logically, looking at one side and then the other. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Strong Supporting Evidence (Writer A): Your use of the COVID-19 lockdown and the legalisation of same-sex marriage were excellent, relevant examples that powerfully supported Professor Malik's arguments.
Understanding of Both Sides: You successfully explained key arguments from both sources, demonstrating that you understood the core of the debate about the speed and responsiveness of UK law-making.

Targets

Develop Your Conclusion: Your one-sentence conclusion was too brief. A conclusion must summarise the key arguments you have discussed and then powerfully reaffirm your final judgement, explaining *why* one side is more convincing than the other.
Ensure Accuracy of Examples: The example about the housing law for three children was unclear and factually inaccurate, which weakened your argument for Dr Farrell. Always use specific, accurate case studies you are confident in, such as the 'Bedroom Tax' (Spare Room Subsidy) if that is what you meant.
Use Direct Comparison: To create a 'sustained' argument for Level 3, directly compare the writers' points. For instance, you could state: "Farrell's claim of a 'dangerously slow' system is directly challenged by Malik's point on emergency powers, which shows the system can be rapid when required."
Attention to Detail: The writers in the source were named Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell. Using the correct names shows you are carefully reading and referencing the source material provided.

Candidate 86120

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 9/12

I mostly agree with Dr. Sarah Jenkins (DSJ) that our law-making system keeps up with scientific, cultural and social changes in the world. This is because DSJ argues that our flexibility based solely on our uncodified constitution means that changing certain aspects of our law is quicker and adaptive. For example during the Covid 19 pandemic the law, due to its adaptability, was able to initiate a lockdown keeping multiple individuals and families safe. On the other hand, Professor David Chen says otherwise, arguing that the legislative process requires months and even years to pass a bill. Whilst this might be true in some instances, our unwritten constitution enables us to easily amend laws, furthermore, the legislation process ensures that the law follows the right process in order to increase fairness and democracy. In my opinion the only possible way to ensure it is quicker is to skip appropriate steps plunging the country into a state of unfairness and injustice. DSJ continues that the use of delegated legislation empowers the government to update regulations in technical areas. This is key as technological advances are quite rapid as of right now meaning that whilst the government must keep amending our laws, the speed in which these advances are happening means that the government focus on key areas whilst trying their best to keep changing and adapting to new discoveries and advancements. Professor Chen then says that the government is more reactive than proactive, in order to counter Page 1 of 2

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. You have produced a sustained and well-reasoned evaluation that sits comfortably in Level 3. You establish a clear judgment from the outset and consistently use evidence from both sources to support it. Your real strength is in directly comparing the two viewpoints, using one writer's argument to rebut the other's, and adding your own developed reasoning about 'fairness' and 'injustice'. To reach the very top marks, ensure you fully complete your thoughts and perhaps introduce one more counter-argument to show even deeper analysis.

Sustaining the Argument: "Professor Chen then says that the government is more reactive than proactive. However, this criticism could be countered by arguing that being 'reactive' is exactly what is needed in a fast-changing world, as shown by the quick response to the pandemic, which a slow, 'proactive' long-term plan might have missed."

Strengths

Clear Judgment: You state which writer you find more convincing at the very start and maintain this position throughout your response.
Effective Use of Evidence: You select relevant arguments from both writers and use a strong real-world example (Covid-19) to illustrate and support your points effectively.
Direct Comparison: You excel at putting the two arguments into a direct debate, using phrases like "Whilst this might be true..." to create a clear and sustained line of reasoning.

Targets

Acknowledge Writer Names: In the exam, the writers were Professor Malik and Dr Farrell. Always use the names provided in the source material to show you've read it carefully.
Develop All Points: Your final sentence was cut short. Plan your time to ensure every point you start is fully explained and linked back to your main judgment to maintain a sustained argument.
Explore Counter-Argument Nuance: To show top-level critical thinking, you could briefly acknowledge a potential weakness in Malik's argument. For example, could delegated legislation sometimes be seen as undemocratic? This adds balance.
Use Evaluative Language: Continue to build on phrases like "In my opinion..." and "This is key...". Also try using words like 'convincing', 'persuasive', 'limited', or 'overlooks' to signpost your evaluation more explicitly.

Candidate 89721

Word Count: ~298 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

To a bigger extent I agree with Professor David Chen as he talks about how our current system is dangerously slow and ineffective. This is because our legislative process often requires months possibly years for a bill to pass through both the House of commons and the House of Lords. This causes fast-moving technologies for example Artificial Intelligence, social media platforms like instagram and tiktok when finally getting Royal Assent frequently outdates legislation. Additionally Parliament tends to be slow to react and laws are typically made after significant harm poses and unelected judges updating the law through precedent is un-democratic as it presents a lack of specialised technical expertise, ultimately leaving society open to big threats and failure to anticipate or solve problems. Although Professor David Chen has a lot of points, Dr Sarah Jenkins also has a point. This is because passing laws quickly without furthermore, laws that have taken long to be perfected, changes will also delay causing an ineffect in the system. Although Professor David Chen shows numerous reasons to how our law-making is ineffective and slow, Dr. Sarah Jenkins also has a point as he talks about the flexibility of an uncodified constitution meaning Parliament can pass new laws quickly when urgent issues arises without navigating the complex processes. This shows good law-making as we can adapt to issues quicker and solve it with more ease. Also, our system is supported by dedicated bodies like the Law Commission which constantly reviews legislation which ensures a democratic and non-bias system. Our tradition allows judges to apply existing legal principles to new situations, providing immediate responses to challenges. This ensures quicker and easier judgements and encourages a democratic system. The use of judicial review helps us to swiftly update regulations in certain areas like crimes and punishments, environmental standards without wasting time.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid response that clearly explains arguments from both writers and comes to a justified conclusion. You have used your own knowledge effectively to support the points made in the sources, particularly with examples like AI and the Law Commission. However, the evaluation is not yet 'sustained'. You tend to explain one writer's view, then the other's, rather than directly comparing them. To reach the top level, you need to create a 'dialogue' between the two views throughout your answer. The essay also ends quite abruptly without a concluding sentence.

Developing Counter-Arguments: Your weakest sentence was: "This is because passing laws quickly without furthermore, laws that have taken long to be perfected, changes will also delay causing an ineffect in the system." A clearer version would be: "However, Professor Malik's argument for flexibility has its own weaknesses. Rushing legislation to respond to urgent issues, without the detailed scrutiny that takes time, could lead to poorly-drafted laws that are ineffective or have unintended negative consequences."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin your essay with a clear, decisive judgement ("To a bigger extent I agree..."). This immediately tells the examiner your line of argument and is a feature of high-level responses.
Effective Use of Evidence: You have selected relevant arguments from both writers and, crucially, supported them with your own specific knowledge (e.g., Artificial Intelligence, the Law Commission, judicial review). This demonstrates a detailed understanding of the topic.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of explaining each writer's view in separate blocks, try to compare them directly. Use phrases like: "While Professor Malik's point about flexibility is valid, it is outweighed by Dr Farrell's concern regarding...", or "Dr Farrell's argument about outdated laws is more convincing than..."
Write a Conclusion: Your essay ends suddenly. Add a concluding sentence that summarises your main points and reaffirms your overall judgement. For example: "In conclusion, while the UK system has some flexibility, Dr Farrell is more convincing because the slow pace of primary legislation leaves society vulnerable to rapid technological and social change."
Improve Clarity: Some sentences were long and confusing (e.g., the end of the first paragraph). Read your work aloud to check that it makes sense and is easy to follow. Break down complex ideas into shorter, clearer sentences.
Check for Accuracy: You referred to the writers as 'Chen' and 'Jenkins' when the source material used 'Farrell' and 'Malik'. Always double-check names and key terms to ensure accuracy.

Candidate 90128

Word Count: ~349 words

Evaluation Score: 10/12

In the passage both Sarah Jenkins and David Chen can be seen as polar opposites with Jenkins arguing that although the law making process can be legnthy, through first and second readings/rebuttals, this process is remarkable effective and efficent at adapting to the rapid pace of scientific and cultural as well as social changes, however David Chen can be seen to disagree and in a way believe that because of how over the top and how carefully laws are made, that because of Parliamentary ping pong it is bad and ill equipped, were I mainly agree with Sarah Jenkins view. Firstly Sarah Jenkins argues that our law-making system and how its inner intricacies unwritten constitution is remarkable effective and understanding as, our system is cleverly designed to uphold checks and balances giving a safety net with stages such as the Comittee stage and report stage allowing line by line scrutiny so that laws are strong and effective for the future. This insures the well being of the interier/majority of the committee and by engaging in parliamentary ping pong between the commons and the lords, laws are refined and strong like the equality act 2010 and the smoking ban 2007 which were presented prepared the society for the future, and this process prevents the government from making significante errors that could negatively impact society. However on the other hand David Chen disagrees with Jenkins arguing that because of all these checks and balances the law is laws produced come to late and intirely ill equipped due to the pace they are made, As government needs the power to pass laws quickly to respond to emmergences or rapid technological shifts, as a law may go through 'parliamentary ping pong'. However critics argue that rushed legislation is dangerous it often may lack the second pairs of eyes but the bicameral parliament and laws become legally inadequate like with the criticised Dangerous Dogs act. Both views have distinct disadvantages. The Jenkins idea of efficiency view risks Executive Dominance, where the government ignores the concerns of minority, on the flip side scrutiny from Jenkins can cause parliamentary gridlock were virtual social or economic reforms are stalled in the house of lords for years. To improve this the UK uses 'fast fast track producers for national crises, attempting to find the middle ground. In conclusion the debate is a balance of 'fairness' versus 'functionality' while the process is very consuming - the benefits of having multiples checks - consolidation by Royal Consolidated by Royal assent ensure a more secure and understanding democracy. Ultimately a slower pace is a necessary trade of to make sure the rule of law is upheld.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a high-level response that clearly understands the core tension between legislative speed and scrutiny. You establish a clear judgment from the start and sustain it throughout your answer, creating a coherent and convincing argument. You effectively use evidence from both sources and your own knowledge (e.g., Dangerous Dogs Act) to support your points. The direct comparison of the risks of each approach—'Executive Dominance' versus 'parliamentary gridlock'—is a hallmark of a top-level response. To reach full marks, focus on precision with key terms and proofreading.

Developing a Point with Precision: "The Jenkins idea...risks Executive Dominance...on the flip side scrutiny...can cause parliamentary gridlock..." could be refined to: "For example, while Malik's thorough process prevents rushed laws, it can risk 'parliamentary gridlock'. This is where crucial social or economic reforms, which may have majority support in the Commons, are deliberately stalled by the unelected House of Lords, delaying progress for years."

Strengths

Clear & Sustained Judgement: You state your view in the introduction ("I mainly agree with Sarah Jenkins") and consistently argue towards it, culminating in a well-supported conclusion. This creates a very coherent and persuasive essay.
Effective Use of Evidence: You successfully select key arguments from both writers (e.g., 'parliamentary ping pong', Committee Stage) and support them with your own relevant examples like the Equality Act and the Dangerous Dogs Act.
Direct Comparison: You don't just describe the two views; you actively weigh them against each other by comparing their potential negative outcomes ('Executive Dominance' vs. 'parliamentary gridlock'). This is a key skill for top marks.

Targets

Attention to Detail: Be careful with the names of the writers provided in the source material (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell, not Jenkins and Chen). This small error can distract the examiner from your excellent points.
Refine Terminology: Some terms are slightly confused. For example, Royal Assent is the final approval from the monarch that turns a Bill into an Act, not a 'consolidation'. Using precise language will elevate your analysis.
Develop Evaluative Language: Instead of stating a view is "bad" or "ill equipped," use more analytical phrases. For example, "Farrell convincingly argues that this process is fundamentally misaligned with the pace of modern challenges..."
Proofreading: Several spelling and grammar errors (e.g., "legnthy", "efficent", "interier", "emmergences") slightly reduce the clarity of your argument. A quick proofread can fix these and improve the overall quality of your work.

Candidate 91708

Word Count: ~35 words

Evaluation Score: 1/12

law comissions which review leg's lations to ensure it remains sett relivent and propose neccisary reforms to reflect modern society values which I think is wrong due to certain peoples ideas of what necissary causing uncertanty

Quality of EvaluationLimited. Your answer provides a simple judgment but does not address the specific question about collective defence vs. self-reliance. The points you make seem to be about a different topic and do not mention the arguments from Professor Malik or Dr Owen Farrell. To score marks in an evaluation question, you must directly compare the arguments made by the two named writers. Your response currently does not show any engagement with the provided sources.

Developing a Judgment: Instead of a general statement, link your judgment to a specific writer. For example: "I find Writer B's argument for self-reliance less convincing because it could lead to 'uncertainty' and isolation, making the country more vulnerable, which is a point Writer A makes effectively."

Strengths

Attempted Judgment: You have tried to make a judgment by stating "I think is wrong". This is the first step in any evaluation, showing you are thinking critically.
Providing a Reason: You have attempted to support your judgment with a reason ("causing uncertanty"), which is a key skill. The next step is to make that reason specific and developed.

Targets

Address the Question (ATQ): Your top priority is to read the question and sources carefully. Your answer must focus on the specific topic (collective defence vs. self-reliance) and the arguments of the named writers (Malik and Farrell).
Use the Sources: You must directly refer to arguments from both Writer A and Writer B. Show the examiner you understand their viewpoints by quoting or paraphrasing them, e.g., "Writer A argues that..."
Develop Your Evaluation: Move beyond simple statements like "I think is wrong". Explain *why* one argument is more convincing than the other, using evidence from the sources and comparative language (e.g., "more convincing," "stronger argument," "in contrast").
Structure Your Answer: Start with a clear judgment stating which writer you find more convincing. Then, explain and compare their arguments in the main body of your answer before writing a conclusion.

Candidate 91826

Word Count: ~332 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

I agree with Sarah Jenkins as she argues 'our law-making system is remarkably effective at adapting rapidly to socialcultural and scientific and social changes'. One example of this was is when that many people of muslim or the mo- have moved to the UK bringing in many traditions with them the UK law quickly ad-apted by letting them have their own religious council/courts under also giving them the right to leave work or school without any for religious events. This shows that the UK's law syst-em is fast, reliable and efficient allowing for quick adaptation. Furthermore, Sa-rah says, 'The system is supported by dedicated bodies like the Law Commission which constantly review legislature to ensure it remains relevant to modern societal values.' One example that backs this was the bill that was proposed by the applt Rwanda Policy proposal by the conservatives during their most recent reign. The law A judicial review was used and investigated the policy and fou-nd that the process of implementation wasn't done properly which voided the law. This shows that the UK's law system has framework in place to provide dynamic and relevant laws. However even Professor David the Chen argues, 'Our current pure system of law-making is dangerously slow and entirely ill-equipped to keep pace with modern scientific and social adv-ancements.' This is because the legislative process is both slow and archaic often req-uiring months or years for a bill to be pas-sed and by the time it is passed, many social and technological advances have happened. For example, the UK only recently have star-ted to discuss AI legislations even though it has al-been around for many years. This shows that the UK lag behind many countries bec-ause of their system of law making. Overall, considering both although the UK has shown the ability to quickly adapt to world changes. I now agree with the professor David Chen as the legislative process takes too long and causes laws to be outdated by the time they pass.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a well-structured response that clearly explains arguments from both writers using relevant, contemporary evidence. You provide a clear line of reasoning and, crucially, a well-supported final judgment that weighs up the evidence. To reach the highest level, your evaluation needs to be more sustained throughout the essay. Instead of just presenting one side and then the other, try to directly compare their arguments as you go.

Sustained Evaluation: For example, when introducing the second argument, you could write: "However, while the judicial review of the Rwanda policy demonstrates a reactive strength of the UK legal system, Dr Farrell's argument that the proactive legislative process is 'dangerously slow' is more convincing. This is because..."

Strengths

Clear Structure & Judgment: Your essay is easy to follow, moving from one writer to the next and finishing with a decisive conclusion. This final judgment is well-reasoned and directly answers the question.
Use of Specific Evidence: You have used strong, contemporary examples to support your points, particularly the judicial review of the Rwanda policy and the slow progress of AI legislation. This shows excellent awareness of current affairs.

Targets

Develop Direct Comparison: Instead of explaining each writer's view in separate blocks, try to compare them directly. For instance, you could say, "While Malik is right that judicial review can act as a check, Farrell's point about the initial law-making being slow is more significant because..."
Check Factual Accuracy: Your example about Muslim communities was a good attempt to link to social change, but be precise. Sharia councils are not official UK courts and their rulings are not legally binding in family or criminal law. Using a more accurate example, like laws on religious discrimination, would strengthen your point.
Use Correct Writer Names: In an exam, always use the names provided in the source material (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell). Using the wrong names (Jenkins/Chen) can suggest a lack of attention to detail.
Sustain Your Evaluation: Weave your evaluative language (e.g., "more convincing," "a stronger point," "less significant") throughout the essay, not just in the introduction and conclusion. This makes your argument a running commentary rather than two separate reports.

Candidate 96120

Word Count: ~102 words

Evaluation Score: 1/12

This argument, I will say that a lot of meeting in Parliament for amendments take place even before any negative occurence take place. Whilst certain areas of our lives might have an increase in problems based on something, the government immediately react to those and amend other laws based on possible future events that might affect the life of citizens. In conclusion, I believe that the government does the best to keep up with advancements and discoveries making changes long before negative events Page 2 of 2

Quality of EvaluationLimited. Your answer provides a personal opinion on the government's general effectiveness. However, it does not address the specific question about whether Professor Malik or Dr Owen Farrell is more convincing on the topic of collective defence vs. self-reliance. To score marks, you must directly engage with, analyse, and compare the arguments presented in the two sources provided.

Engaging with the Source Material: A Level 3 response might start by saying, "I find Writer A more convincing because her argument for collective defence is better supported. For example, she states that alliances 'provide a deterrent to potential aggressors,' which is a stronger point than Writer B's claim that self-reliance 'ensures national sovereignty' without explaining how a nation could afford to defend itself alone."

Strengths

Clear Conclusion: You end your response with a clear concluding sentence ("In conclusion, I believe...") which shows you understand how to structure a judgment.
Essay Structure: You have attempted to structure your answer with an opening, a developing point, and a conclusion. This is a good foundation to build upon.

Targets

Address the Question: Your top priority must be to answer the specific question asked. Read it carefully and ensure your entire response is focused on comparing Writer A (Malik) and Writer B (Farrell) on their specific arguments.
Use the Sources: You must explicitly refer to the arguments made by Professor Malik and Dr Farrell. Quote or paraphrase their key points to show you have understood them and to use as evidence for your judgment.
Direct Comparison: Don't just describe what each writer says. Directly compare their arguments. Use phrases like "Writer A's point is stronger than Writer B's because..." or "While Writer B argues..., Writer A provides a more convincing counter-argument that...".
Develop Your Reasoning: To move up the mark scheme, you must explain *why* you find one writer more convincing. Is their evidence better? Is their logic more sound? Is their argument more relevant today? Justify your judgment in detail.

Candidate 97128

Word Count: ~217 words

Evaluation Score: 5/12

Dr. Sarah Jenkins has good points. For an example, she says yes because ~~[crossed out]~~ "The flexibility of our ~~[crossed out]~~ uncodified constitution means that Parliament can pass ~~[crossed out]~~ new laws easily". This shows us that we can pass laws quickly, keeping up with public opinions. She has also stated that "judicial flexibility ensures our legal framework remains dynamic, relevant and entirely fit for the modern age." This is important with new generation as public views change overtime so they need to make sure they keep up with it. But she does have some negative points, such as saying about how the tradition of common law allow judges to interpret. This is bad because the traditions should change and judges shouldn't need to interpret in a modern day society. Professor David Chen also has some good points stating that when the government try to catch up with ~~[crossed out]~~ new technology, it suddenly becomes outdated which is true. Society is growing at a rapid place which means people need to keep up with it all the time. Another point he has made is that it does take a while for a bill to pass through which makes it outdated as soon as it gets passed. A negative point he has made however is that he thinks relying on unelected judges is bad. It is a bad point because these people are randomly selected from the public. That means they will understand more as they know what is happening. In conclusion, I agree with Sarah Jenkins because she states on laws and the government. I do think that community and technology is important but the law is what builds up good people. Having a law ~~[crossed out]~~ a government that is flexible shows us that they ~~[crossed out]~~ they're able to hear our views and put them into place.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a good start by identifying arguments from both writers and making a clear judgment. You explain some of these points, for example, linking constitutional flexibility to keeping up with public opinion. However, your evaluation is not yet sustained. To improve, you need to directly compare the arguments against each other and avoid factual errors, such as your point about how judges are selected.

Developing Evaluation: Farrell's argument that relying on unelected judges is a weakness has some merit, as it raises questions about democratic accountability. However, one could counter this by arguing that senior judges are appointed based on extensive legal expertise, ensuring decisions are based on law, not temporary public opinion, which provides stability.

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have structured your answer logically, dealing with each writer in turn before reaching a conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Argument Identification: You successfully identify several distinct arguments from both sources and use quotes to support your points.

Targets

Develop Explanations: Your explanations are simple. Instead of just saying a flexible constitution helps "keep up with public opinions," explain *how*. For example, "This allows the government to respond swiftly to pressing social issues, such as online safety, without the lengthy process of constitutional amendment."
Directly Compare Arguments: Don't just list the points. Weigh them against each other. For example, "While Farrell's concern about outdated technology is valid, Malik's argument for judicial flexibility is more convincing because it addresses the core, long-term function of the legal system."
Check Factual Accuracy: Your evaluation was weakened by the incorrect statement that judges are "randomly selected from the public." Senior judges are appointed based on legal experience and merit. Ensuring your own knowledge is accurate is crucial for high-level evaluation.
Strengthen Your Conclusion: Your conclusion should be a summary of your evaluation. It needs to explain *why* you find one writer more convincing, referring back to the specific arguments you have compared throughout your answer.

Candidate 98607

Word Count: ~190 words

Evaluation Score: 5/12

One positive point made by Dr Jenkins is that 'the flexibility of our un-codified constitution means parliment can pass new laws'. This is a good point as it allows issue to be dealt with quicker and help society run smoother. One negative point would be 'our law-making system is remarkedly effect' is not a strong point this is because it is unclear due to our constitution not being writen down. Another strong point made by Dr Jenkins is that 'our tradition of common law allows judges to interpret and apply existing legal principals' This is a strong point as the laws are able to be changed and adapted and also lets old laws be reviewed to make sure they are still good. One strong point made by professor chen would be how 'it often requires months or even years for a bill to pass the both houses'. This is a strong point as it is not address quick enough society could be corrupted by the time it is passed. A weak point made was that. 'our current system of law-making is dangerously slow. This is weak as there is an issue that must be adressed imidiatly it will- Another strong point made by professor chen would by 'our cumbersome, traditional procedures leave society vulnerable'. This is a strong point as a point is not impstn it won't be addressed as quickly. Overall both argument had the strong and weak points. Over all I personally agree more with Dr. Sarah Jenkins however I did disagree with some points.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have a clear structure and have correctly identified arguments from both writers to support your views. This is a solid foundation for a good answer. However, your evaluation is not yet sustained. You analyse each point in isolation rather than directly comparing them to see which is more convincing. To improve, focus on explaining *why* one writer's point is stronger than the other's, creating a direct debate between the two sources throughout your answer.

Comparative Judgement: While Professor Malik's concern about the slow pace of law-making is valid, Dr Farrell's argument that our flexible constitution allows for rapid change when needed is ultimately more persuasive. For example, his point about common law adapting is a stronger counter-argument to the idea that our system is 'dangerously slow' because it shows there is already a mechanism for laws to evolve with society.

Strengths

Argument Selection: You are good at reading the sources and pulling out specific, relevant quotes to use as evidence for your points.
Clear Structure: Your answer is easy to follow. You deal with one writer at a time before coming to a conclusion, which shows good planning.
Basic Explanation: You consistently try to explain *why* a point is strong or weak, which is the first step towards proper evaluation (e.g., linking flexibility to dealing with issues 'quicker').

Targets

Direct Comparison: To reach Level 3, you must directly compare the arguments. Instead of just saying a point is strong, compare it to a point from the other writer. For example: "Dr Farrell's point about flexibility is more convincing than Professor Malik's point about slowness because..."
Develop Your Explanations: Your explanations are a good start but need more detail. When you say a slow process could make society 'vulnerable', explain how. Give a specific example (e.g., 'vulnerable to new types of online crime that aren't yet illegal').
Check Source Details: You used the names 'Dr Jenkins' and 'Professor Chen', but the sources were by Dr Owen Farrell and Professor Sarah Malik. Losing marks for small errors like this is easily avoided with a quick check.
Write a Sustained Conclusion: Your conclusion should summarise your evaluation. It needs to briefly explain *why* you find one writer more convincing, using the comparisons you have already made in your main paragraphs.

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 10629

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 10869

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 16079

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 19678

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 19726

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 20967

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 26817

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 28691

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 60982

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 67012

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 67801

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 67892

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 68170

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 71689

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 72916

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 76921

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 78962

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 79180

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 82790

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 86120

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 89721

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 90128

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 91708

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 91826

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 96120

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 97128

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 98607

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback