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expertise," which means by the time a bill like the Online Safety Act passes through both Houses, it is often already outdated.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 explain each writer's view in separate paragraphs without making them 'debate' each other. Top-level evaluation requires pitting the arguments directly against one another to judge which is stronger.
👉 Model: While Professor Malik argues that collective defence provides a crucial security guarantee through alliances like NATO, Dr Farrell's counter-point that this leads to a loss of national sovereignty is more convincing because it prioritises a nation's ability to act in its own specific interests.
2. Inaccurate Use of Source Details: A very common error was using incorrect names for the writers (e.g., 'Sarah Jenkins', 'David Chen'). Using the precise names provided in the source material (Professor Sarah Malik, Dr Owen Farrell) is a fundamental skill demonstrating careful reading.
👉 Model: Professor Sarah Malik’s primary argument is that shared intelligence from allies is invaluable, a point which Dr Owen Farrell does not sufficiently address in his focus on self-reliance.
3. Underdeveloped Explanations: Many students stated a point from a source but did not go on to explain *why* it was a strong or weak argument, or support it with specific knowledge. A sustained line of reasoning requires this deeper analysis.
👉 Model: Dr Farrell’s argument for military self-sufficiency is compelling because it forces a nation to develop a robust domestic defence industry, which can create jobs and stimulate technological innovation, as seen in countries like Sweden or Switzerland.
4. No Clear, Sustained Judgment: Essays often lacked a clear, upfront thesis stating which writer was more convincing and why. This resulted in descriptive responses that failed to build a consistent argument towards a decisive conclusion.
👉 Model: Ultimately, Professor Malik's perspective is more persuasive because the modern threats of cyber-warfare and global terrorism are too complex for any single nation to face alone, making the collective security she advocates for a necessity, not a choice.

Teacher Next Steps

1. Argument Tennis (for Direct Comparison): Put a key argument from Professor Malik on the board (e.g., "Alliances deter potential aggressors"). In pairs, students have 3 minutes to find the best counter-argument from Dr Farrell and write it on a mini-whiteboard as a single comparative sentence (e.g., "While Malik sees alliances as a deterrent, Farrell would argue this is a fantasy that risks dragging a nation into others' conflicts."). Share the best examples.
2. Source Sleuths (for Accuracy): Provide a short model paragraph evaluating the two writers, but fill it with deliberate errors (incorrect names, misattributed arguments, wrong titles). Give students 5 minutes in pairs to find and correct all the mistakes. This gamifies the process of checking source details carefully.
3. The 'Because' Chain (for Development): Write a simple point on the board, e.g., "Malik supports collective defence." Ask a student to extend the sentence by adding "because...". Ask the next student to add another "because..." to the new, longer sentence. Continue the chain 4-5 times to demonstrate how to build a point into a fully developed and sustained explanation.
4. Thesis Statement Showdown (for Clear Judgment): Give students the essay question again. They have 3 minutes to write one single sentence that states their judgment and a brief reason why. In groups, they share their sentences and vote for the one that is the clearest and provides the strongest foundation for an essay. Discuss what makes the winning sentences effective.

Candidate 18926

Word Count: ~155 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

While David Chen (DC) makes his point clear on why our law making system cannot keep up with Scientific, Cultural, and Social Changes, he forgets to mention how although it is archaic, it is effectively able to adapt quickly to these changes. This means that when urgent issues arise, parliament can quickly pass new laws to help solve them. Sarah Jenkins (SJ) says that our law making system is supported by dedicated bodies like the Law commission, which ensure legislation stays relevant and proposes necessary reforms. This is so that things such as parliament can view issues and problems with society, aiming to fix and lead the issues. A combination of parliamentary sovereignty and judicial flexibility ensures that our legal framework remains flexible, dynamic and is completely suitable for common modern age. If we maintain these standards, our law making system will be able to adapt and make changes, were aesser necessary for society issues.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 2 response. You make a clear judgment and support it by explaining arguments from both writers and integrating your own impressive knowledge. To reach the top level, your evaluation needs to be more sustained. Instead of discussing the writers' points separately, you should directly compare them to show why one is more convincing than the other throughout your answer.

Direct Comparison: "While David Chen's point about the system being archaic has some merit, Sarah Jenkins' argument is more convincing. Her reference to the Law Commission directly counters Chen's claim by highlighting a specific, dedicated body whose entire purpose is to prevent the law from becoming outdated, ensuring it can keep pace with modern society."

Strengths

Clear Judgment: You don't just sit on the fence. You reach a decisive and well-supported conclusion that the law-making system is "completely suitable for the common modern age".
Use of Own Knowledge: Your reference to 'parliamentary sovereignty' and 'judicial flexibility' is excellent. This shows a deeper understanding of the topic and significantly strengthens your evaluation.

Targets

Direct Comparison: To achieve a top-level mark, you must directly compare the writers' arguments. Explain *why* SJ's point about the Law Commission is a stronger argument *than* DC's point about the system being archaic. Pit them against each other.
Sustained Reasoning: Develop your points with specific examples. When you state that Parliament can "quickly pass new laws," you could mention a real-world example like the Coronavirus Act 2020 to make your argument more powerful and sustained.
Use Correct Writer Names: In the exam, you will be given the writers' names (e.g., Prof Sarah Malik, Dr Owen Farrell). Make sure you use the names provided in the source material to show you have read the question carefully.
Clarity and Precision: Proofread your work to catch typos (e.g., "aesser") and refine your phrasing. For example, instead of "fix and lead the issues," you could write "address societal problems and guide legal reform" for greater clarity.

Candidate 18926

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I agree with David Chen (DC) More. This is because he makes a clear point about how our law making system is slow as old fashioned. This is dangerous as its fail to keep up with current social and modern scientific advancement making it unable to adapt quick enough to update a law law and/or protect the public from potential threats. This problem effectively leaves society vulnerable to re occurring issues and emerging threats. He also talks about how there is a severe lack of specialized technical expertise" among politicians, this is a problem as it leads to poorly/ unhelpful laws which fail the comprehension of nuances of complex developments for science. Another reason why the law making system can be a problem is because it requires months or even years to simply pass a bill through the House of Commons and the House of Lords meaning that things such as artificial intelligence or social media regulation is able to out date our law making system making it pointless.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgement and explained the arguments of one writer in good detail, using relevant examples to support your points. However, the response does not mention the arguments of the other writer (Professor Malik) at all. To reach the higher levels, you must analyse and evaluate arguments from *both* sources, directly comparing their views to decide which is more convincing. This omission is the main reason your mark is in the Level 2 band.

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a decisive statement declaring which writer you agree with. This provides immediate focus for your answer.
Developed Explanation: You don't just state Dr Farrell's points; you explain *why* they are significant, for example by linking the slow pace of law-making to society being left 'vulnerable'.
Use of Examples: Your reference to 'artificial intelligence or social media regulation' is an excellent, modern example that effectively supports the argument that the law is being outpaced by technology.

Targets

Address Both Writers: The question requires you to refer to 'both parts of the source'. You must explain Professor Malik's arguments as well as Dr Farrell's to show a balanced understanding. What might be the benefits of a slow, deliberate system?
Create Direct Comparisons: Instead of only explaining one side, directly compare the two views. Use phrases like "While Professor Malik argues that..., Dr Farrell's point is more convincing because...". This is the core skill of evaluation.
Use Comparative Language: To help structure your comparisons, integrate words like 'however', 'on the other hand', 'whereas', or 'a more persuasive argument is...'. This signals to the examiner that you are actively evaluating.
Check Source Details: Always double-check the names and key terms provided in the source material to ensure your answer is accurate (e.g., using 'Dr Owen Farrell' instead of 'David Chen').

Candidate 20876

Word Count: ~402 words

Evaluation Score: 9/12

Although both writers, Sarah Jenkins and David Chen, express their different opinions about how our system of law-making keep up with the scientific, cultural and social changes in the world is considered a big debate. I agree to a large extent with Sarah Jenkins about how system of law-making does keep up with scientific, cultural and social changes in the world. Firstly, one reason why I agree with Sarah Jenkins because she provides a more sophisticated argument. For example, she states how "our 'uncodified constitution' means parliament can pass new laws relatively quick." The reason why this is an excellent point because this aligns with 'parliamentary sovereignty' where parliament is not limited by old principles, such as magna carta but is able to have flexibility to adapt to new law changes in the modern world. Furthermore, she states how the use of 'delegated legislation' allows "government ministers to swiftly update regulations". This is another great argument as it highlights the effectiveness and efficiency for the upper body of parliament/government where ministers, who have an understanding in the modern world, to make effecient changes to law based on the info from several departments in cabinet who hold great information. On the other hand, you could disagree with the statement and support David Chen's argument as he believes it is dangerously slow. For example, he state, how the legislative process "often requiring months or even years for a bill to pass through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords". Although it is a long process, David Chen needs to understand how it provides stability and allows members of parliament to assess and look for mistakes in the bill in order to prevent future problems. I know that this is true as most of the UK's law is very stable over the past years because of their legislative process. In conclusion, I agree with Sarah Jenkins as she refers to adaptability whereas David Chen believes that it is dangerous. Secondly, another reason why I agree with Sarah Jenkins because she links to the idea of 'societal values'. For example, she mentions how 'law commission, which constantly reviews legislation to ensure it remains relevant'. This is a great point as it prevents future protests if the law became a problem in the future, as it checks for errors. You could also link this to the use of judicial reviews as perhaps there would be less issues with the law which means that people would not open a case in the supreme court. This will save the country money as they won't have to spend it on areas for development.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a strong response that clearly enters Level 3. You make a clear and consistent judgment, supporting it with well-explained evidence from both sources and your own detailed knowledge (e.g., parliamentary sovereignty). Your direct challenge to Dr Farrell's argument is a high-level skill. The main issue preventing a top-tier mark is the confusing structure, with a conclusion placed in the middle of the essay, which undermines the "sustained and coherent line of reasoning" required for the highest marks.

Developing a Conclusion: A stronger conclusion at the end of your essay could have been: "In conclusion, while Dr Farrell's concerns about the slow pace of law-making are valid for ensuring stability, Professor Malik's arguments about the flexibility of our uncodified constitution and the efficiency of delegated legislation are ultimately more convincing. They demonstrate that our system has inherent mechanisms to adapt to modern societal changes, making her the more persuasive writer."

Strengths

Strong Analysis & Own Knowledge: You don't just state the writers' points; you analyse them effectively by linking them to your own knowledge of concepts like 'parliamentary sovereignty' and 'judicial reviews'.
Direct Comparison: Your rebuttal of Dr Farrell's argument is a highlight. You explain that the slow process he criticises is actually a strength because it ensures stability and scrutiny. This is a key skill in evaluation.
Clear Judgement: From the very first paragraph, your position is clear, and you maintain this judgement throughout your response.

Targets

Essay Structure: Your conclusion appeared in the middle of your essay, followed by another main point. For a coherent argument, ensure your structure is: Introduction -> Arguments For -> Counter-arguments -> Conclusion at the very end.
Develop Your Conclusion: Your concluding sentence was very brief. A good conclusion should briefly summarise the main reasons for your judgement (e.g., mentioning flexibility vs. stability) and reaffirm your final decision.
Accuracy with Names: You referred to the writers as 'Sarah Jenkins' and 'David Chen'. In the exam, always use the exact names provided in the source material (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell) to show attention to detail.
Integrate Your Points: The 'Secondly...' paragraph felt disconnected because it came after the conclusion. Try to group all your points supporting one writer together in a more integrated and flowing manner before moving on to the other writer.

Candidate 26718

Word Count: ~274 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

Although Sources have strong and convincing points, I agree more with Source B as his points about lawmaking are good and persuasive. For example Proffesor David (P.D) explains that our current system of law making is dangerously slow. I agree with this point because the system can barely keep up with modern scientific and social advancements. Another reason why I agree with Source B, is because P.D says that lawmaker only adress issues after significant public harm harm has occured. This isn't good as that's a living human that's being harmed and laws are only being put in after the damage has been done. Doing this could make the public happy, but it could make some of them angry because they would ask 'why is this only being done now' and could result in protesting and conflict. A final reason why is Although I agree with Source B, Source makes some very good points as well. For example Sarah Jenkins states that Parliament can pass new laws relatively quickly when urgent issues arise without navigating the complex amendment process required in countries with rigid constitutions. If this is true, this could really be a great affect on our country as there could be possible reduce in any bad things that harm people as new laws, are passed more quikly and are stable. A final reason why I agree with source B is because of how he talks about how the laws are updated carelessly. This is demonstrated when P.D. states that new laws are handled by unelected judges which isn't good as first of all, they're unelected and that is very premad and undemocratic.

Quality of EvaluationPromising. Your evaluation shows some strong skills. You have made a clear judgement and supported it with relevant evidence from Source B, often developing these points with your own thoughtful reasoning, such as linking slow law-making to modern advancements. However, your argument is not always sustained. You include a point from Source A but don't use it to directly challenge or compare with Source B's arguments, which makes your overall structure a bit confusing. To reach the top level, focus on creating a direct 'wrestling match' between the two sources throughout your answer.

Comparative Evaluation: Instead of "Although I agree with Source B, Source A makes some very good points as well...", try this: "Although Source A argues that Parliament can pass laws quickly in emergencies, Source B's point about the overall system being 'dangerously slow' is more convincing. Emergency laws are rare, whereas the slow pace of updating laws on issues like technology affects citizens daily, as Farrell suggests."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a clear statement of which source you find more convincing, which provides a good focus for your answer.
Evidence and Development: You effectively select evidence from Source B and develop it with your own ideas, for example, by explaining the public anger that could result from reactive law-making.
Use of Key Concepts: You correctly identify the issue with unelected judges as being 'undemocratic', showing good use of subject-specific terminology.

Targets

Sustained Argument Structure: Your argument for Source B is interrupted by a point from Source A. Try to structure your answer with a clear introduction, paragraphs that support your judgement, and a conclusion. Use linking phrases like 'On the other hand,' or 'In contrast,'.
Direct Comparison: Instead of just stating points from each source, directly compare them. For example, "Source A claims laws can be passed quickly, but Source B's argument that this only happens after harm has occurred makes his view more persuasive because..." This creates a true evaluation.
Use Counter-Arguments to Rebut: When you introduce a point from the source you disagree with (Source A), use it as a chance to prove why your chosen source (Source B) is still stronger. This is called rebuttal.
Accuracy with Source Details: Take a moment to double-check the names of the writers in the exam (e.g., Dr Owen Farrell, not Professor David). While not penalised for evaluation, it shows attention to detail.

Candidate 4131

Word Count: ~140 words

Evaluation Score: 5/12

Sarah Jenkins (SJ) Believes Our law making system is effective and up to date however David Chen (DC) thinks the laws are dangerously slow and out of date. Out of both opinions I agree with (DC) as the law making system of today is an extremely long process which can take months also if Justice is served it is typically very expensive costing the state hundreds and thousands a year. This may lead to improper judgement and less Justice is the country is financially declining. This [illegible word crossed out] can lead to increase in crime and danger and a decrease in population leading to less workers which could make the countrys collapse. Also in todays law system the UK has very old laws which haven't been removed some of which dating back to the 1950's.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgement and supported it with some relevant points from the source and your own knowledge. You correctly identify both writers' arguments and begin to explain why you find one more convincing. However, to reach the higher levels, your evaluation needs to be more balanced. You focus entirely on why Dr Farrell is correct, without explaining why Professor Malik's arguments are weaker. Directly comparing the two viewpoints is essential for a sustained evaluation.

Direct Comparison: "While Professor Malik might argue the system is effective, Dr Farrell is more convincing because the existence of outdated laws from the 1950s directly contradicts the idea that the system is 'up to date'. This shows the process for repealing old laws is too slow, supporting Dr Farrell's main point."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state clearly which writer you find more convincing right at the start of your evaluation. This gives your answer a clear focus.
Use of Evidence: You have used specific points from your own knowledge, such as the slowness of the process and the existence of old laws, to support your judgement.

Targets

Direct Comparison: To achieve a Level 3, you must directly compare the two writers' arguments. For example, state "Writer A's point about X is less convincing than Writer B's point about Y because..."
Explain the Counter-Argument: Your answer only explains why Dr Farrell (Writer B) is right. You also need to explain *why* Professor Malik (Writer A) is wrong or less convincing. What are the weaknesses in her argument?
Develop Your Points Realistically: Avoid making very extreme claims (like the country collapsing). Instead, explain the immediate, realistic consequences of a slow legal system (e.g., public losing faith in justice, new technologies not being regulated).
Use Formal Names: In your exam, refer to the writers by their actual names (Professor Malik and Dr Owen Farrell) rather than initials or placeholders to maintain a formal academic tone.

Candidate 4203

Word Count: ~246 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

Considering both sides of the argument, I Preferably agree with David Chen (DC) more than Sarah Jenkins. The reason for this is DC states some true and agreeable facts such as: "the legislative process is archaic, often requiring months or even years for a bill to pass through." I agree with this statement because indeed law can take forever to pass through the House of commons and the House of commons, and this could lead to unhappy people in the country as they feel their opinions don't matter. Another reason I agree with DC is when he says "lawmakers typically only address issues after significant public harm has occured". I really agree with this point because if lawmakers are waiting for a problem to happen before making stepping, so this isn't improving culture or society let alone keep keeping up with it. Although on the other hand, I dissagree with Sarah Jenkins (SJ). This is because even though some reasons may be relevant, I don't agree with her when she says "Our law-making system is effective and adapting to the rapid pace of scientific, cultural, and social change." I don't agree because I don't even think law making is even close to our rapid pacing society and Parliament is not doing anything to change that. I also disagree with Sarah (SJ) when she states: "Parliament can pass new laws relatively quickly when urgent issues arise." Parliament has the authority to do many things but they don't. The law making process does take time as it goes through green paper then white paper etc. but they do need to be taken more seriously.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 2 response. You make a clear judgement and consistently support it by explaining relevant arguments from both writers. You successfully build a case for why you agree with Dr Farrell and disagree with Professor Malik. To reach the top level, your evaluation needs to be more direct and sustained. This means directly comparing the writers' arguments against each other, rather than discussing them one by one, and using specific real-world examples to make your points more powerful.

Direct Comparison: "While Professor Malik claims Parliament can pass laws quickly in emergencies, Dr Farrell's argument that the process is archaic is more convincing. For example, the response to online harms took years of debate, resulting in the Online Safety Act 2023. This delay supports Farrell's view that the system struggles to keep pace with rapid social change, even when issues are urgent."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a decisive statement about which writer you find more convincing and maintain this position throughout your answer.
Evidence-Based Reasoning: You effectively select and embed quotations from both sources to act as the foundation for your own explanations and analysis.
Logical Structure: Your answer is well-structured. You explain why you support one writer first, before clearly signposting your move to challenge the opposing view.

Targets

Use Correct Writer Names: In the exam, ensure you use the names provided in the source material (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell) for accuracy and clarity.
Develop Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing the writers separately, compare their arguments head-to-head. For example: "Malik's point about X is challenged by Farrell's argument about Y, which I find more persuasive because..."
Incorporate Specific Examples: To elevate your analysis, use real-world examples of laws or events. Mentioning a specific Act of Parliament that was slow to pass (e.g., the Online Safety Act) would make your argument against Malik much stronger.
Strengthen Your Conclusion: Your final sentence is a little weak. Aim to end with a powerful summary sentence that reinforces your overall judgement.

Candidate 4229

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 3/12

Law-making keep up with scientific cultural and social changes in the world is a good debate for example for both writer perspective groups different view point. Dr Sarah yes and Professor David Chan says No. In both agreement talks about lawmaking but in Dr Sarah say "the fact that our constitution is uncodified" the mean uncodified means that is able to adapt in different situation and allows laws to be easily made. The strength with this argument is that clear point that before laws being made must go through a set scrutiny so that it doesn't goes Proposed characteristics and will help example can be for assisted die some people disagree with helping people die and debates about the law being going through parliament this stability in the country. This is however the weakness with this is that it might be a slow process which it takes for time for law being pass as a bill in parliament and then to be sign in the green paper. In Professor David Chan argument

Quality of EvaluationBeginning. You have started to evaluate by picking out a key idea from one of the writers and thinking about its strengths and weaknesses. You correctly identify the point about the uncodified constitution. However, to improve, you must analyse both writers' arguments in equal detail and then compare them directly to decide which one is more convincing. Your explanation of the law-making process also needs to be more accurate.

Developing an evaluative point: "A weakness of Malik's argument is that while an uncodified constitution is flexible, the law-making process itself can be very slow. For a bill to become an Act of Parliament, it must pass through multiple stages in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords before receiving Royal Assent, a process which can take many months or even years."

Strengths

Identifying a Key Argument: You correctly identified Professor Malik's key point about the UK's 'uncodified constitution' being a reason why our laws can adapt.
Attempting Evaluation: You tried to evaluate the argument by considering both a strength (scrutiny) and a weakness (slow process). This is the right approach for a high-level answer.

Targets

Analyse Both Writers: Your answer only focuses on the first writer. To access higher marks, you must give equal attention to Dr Farrell's arguments before you can compare them.
Make a Clear Judgment: The question asks which writer is *more convincing*. You need to state your overall judgment clearly, for example, "I find Professor Malik's argument more convincing because..."
Use Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing the writers separately, try to compare their ideas directly. For example, "While Malik argues that flexibility is a strength, Farrell counters this by suggesting it creates instability..."
Improve Subject Knowledge: Your explanation of the law-making process was a little confused (e.g., the role of a Green Paper). Revise the journey of a bill to an Act to make your points more accurate and convincing.

Candidate 42292

Word Count: ~119 words

Evaluation Score: 2/12

He says 'the legislative process is archaic when requiring month for a bill to pass through Hous & Commons - and Lords' the argument has pretty strong point as it's a gap with how know if the law assisted due to is going to be a law this really show lack clarity as if it was about a really serious situation it will take me up decades. The flaw with this argument is that although it might take time but it worthy the scrutiny and made MPs now do not make the law don't grow money any promised championships In conclusion even though Both argument made clear points and view but I agree with Dr Sarah Huan problems David

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. This answer fits into Level 1 because you make a simple judgment and identify a point from each side of the debate (speed vs. scrutiny). However, your explanation of these points is very unclear and the reasoning is not developed, which prevents it from reaching a higher level. To improve, you must focus on expressing your ideas clearly and explaining *why* an argument is strong or weak.

Clarity: Your sentence "although it might take time but it worthy the scrutiny and made MPs now do not make the law don't grow money any promised championships" is very confusing. A clearer way to express this idea would be: "However, Professor Malik's argument is stronger because she points out that this time is worthy for scrutiny. This ensures that MPs check laws properly before they are passed."

Strengths

Identifies Core Debate: You have correctly identified the central conflict in the sources: the speed of law-making versus the need for careful checking (scrutiny).
Attempts a Judgment: You make a clear decision at the end about which writer you find more convincing. This is a crucial first step in any evaluation answer.

Targets

Clarity of Expression: Your sentences are often difficult to understand (e.g., "how know if the law assisted due to is going to be a law"). You must re-read your work aloud to ensure it makes logical sense before you move on.
Use Writer Names Correctly: You used "Dr Sarah Huan" and "David" instead of the correct names from the source (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell). Using the correct names shows you have read the sources carefully.
Develop Your Points: After stating a writer's point, explain it in your own words. For example, *why* is scrutiny important? You could say, "This scrutiny is vital as it prevents poorly written laws from being passed, which could have negative consequences for citizens."
Structure Your Argument: Try to use a simple P.E.E.L. structure. Make a Point (e.g., "Malik's argument is more convincing"), provide Evidence (a quote or idea from her), and then Explain *why* that makes her argument strong, before Linking to the question.

Candidate 4238

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

Although, our UK has a constitution is unwritten and uncodified which allows for flexibility when it comes to law making, this may also make it hard to adapt in the everchanging world. Dr Sarah Jenkins states that the use of delegated legislation empowers the government ministers to swiftly update regulations in technical areas. This allows for a swift argument to it allows for adaptability without needing to go through more processes. This may also be a disadvantage Sarah Jenkins fails to mention as swift change in technical areas that need proper thought and testing to be put in place, allowing for more problems later down the line. On the other hand, our law making process can be slow and not allow for swift change as there are many checks and balances to ensure the law is fair, complies with human rights and doesn't contradict other laws. This allows for more thought out and designed laws to be put in place without the risk of forgetting factors. Professor David Chen says no, our system does not keep up with changes to society. He states that our law making system is democratic and that Parliament is reactive rather than proactive. He makes valid points as problems with the public shoulder have to occur to make a law to prevent this. There should be preventative laws in place to ensure these issues don't arise in the first place. What Professor Chen fails to mention is the law making process may be long, but it is to ensure that the law reflects the whole nation and applies to everyone in every case or scenario.

Quality of EvaluationPromising. This is a strong evaluation that engages with both writers' arguments. You correctly identify key points about flexibility and the reactive nature of Parliament. Your own evaluative points, where you challenge what the writers 'fail to mention', are a key skill for top marks. However, the response lacks a clear, overarching judgment stating which writer is more convincing and why. To improve, structure your answer around a clear thesis statement at the start and refer back to it to create a more sustained argument.

Making a Clear Judgment: "Overall, Dr Farrell is more convincing. While Professor Malik rightly highlights the benefit of flexibility, Farrell's argument that our system is dangerously reactive is more persuasive because major societal problems must occur before Parliament is forced to act, which is a fundamental flaw in ensuring public safety."

Strengths

Effective Use of Evidence: You accurately select key arguments from both writers concerning delegated legislation and the reactive nature of Parliament to build your points.
Developing Counter-Arguments: You show strong evaluative skill by identifying what each writer "fails to mention," creating your own counter-arguments about the risks of swift change and the need for preventative laws.

Targets

State a Clear Judgment: Begin your answer with a clear sentence stating which writer you find more convincing and briefly why (e.g., "Writer B is more convincing because..."). This will structure your entire response.
Use Correct Writer Names: In the exam, ensure you use the names provided in the source booklet (Professor Sarah Malik, Dr Owen Farrell). Using incorrect names can confuse the examiner.
Sustain the Comparison: Instead of evaluating each writer separately, try to directly compare their points. For example: "While Malik sees flexibility as a strength, Farrell would argue this same flexibility leads to reactive laws that fail to prevent harm..."
Write a Concluding Summary: End your response with a short conclusion that summarises your main points and reaffirms the judgment you made at the start.

Candidate 4251

Word Count: ~337 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I believe our system of law making depends is made to keep up with scientific, cultural and social changes around the globe. I fully agree with Sarah Senkin (SS) who believes our law making system is reasonably effective. This is because the constitution used in the UK is uncodified meaning it can be changed through the 'flick of a finger'. This is evident as our constitution is flexible meaning government policies such as the ban of weapons etc can pass laws with immediate effects if necessary. In addition to this courts are set as courts with multiple layers ensuring justice for all. This means that if someone feels wronged in a low down court with enough evidence and money they can go to the high court etc to have their point heard. This is similar to a couple of years back when a case was had between a man who was drunk driving, but he had to in depth he was forced to drive with his life on the line if he didn't. Luckily - the new law was to a higher court to have his point heard further when law led to the case being dismissed and the man walking free. This helps back Senkin's point of the flexibility and efficiency of our law system of how criminals can play such a large role. Overall, this mixture of judicial precedent, parliamentary sovereignty and expert consultation ensures our legal framework remains a versatile and an appliance for our daily lives. However on the other hand David Don (DD) disagrees with this statement and believes our law system is outdated, and 'dangerously slow and entirely ill equipped to help pace with modern scientific and social advancements'. This argument has many flaws. A flaw of this argument is when our law making system is slow. This is because the law making system is similar to a river which constantly needs bills of law inputting and taken. This makes it more tiring for a bill to turn into a law and I believe a system like this is not necessary in keeping our law up-to-date. In addition to this in our law making system we have the use of evaluation of common law which allows judges to interpret and by existing legal principles to renew and discard previous positions as mistaken. Misunderstanding in law. Although the legislation process may be arduous I believe it is necessary in ensuring our government and law system is keeping up with scientific, cultural and social changes in the world.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgment and supported it with relevant points from both sources, which is the foundation of a good evaluation. You also use some excellent keywords like 'judicial precedent' and 'uncodified constitution'. However, your own reasoning becomes confused, particularly when you try to argue against Dr Farrell. You end up agreeing with his point that the system is slow without effectively explaining why this might be a good thing (e.g., for thoroughness). This creates a contradictory argument which keeps your response in Level 2.

Clarity in Argument: Your weakest moment was: "A flaw of this argument is when our law making system is slow... This makes it more tiring for a bill to turn into a law and I believe a system like this is not necessary". A clearer way to challenge Dr Farrell would be: "While Dr Farrell is right that the legislative process can be slow, this is a necessary feature, not a flaw. This deliberation ensures new laws are carefully considered, preventing rushed legislation. Furthermore, he overlooks the role of the courts; through common law, judges can adapt legal principles to modern situations far more quickly than Parliament can pass a new Act, providing the flexibility Farrell claims is missing."

Strengths

Clear Judgment: You begin with a decisive statement ("I fully agree with Sarah Senkin...") which immediately establishes your line of argument. This is a high-level skill.
Use of Concepts: You correctly identify and apply key citizenship concepts like the uncodified constitution, the court hierarchy, and judicial precedent to support your points.
Good Structure: Your essay is structured logically, dealing with the writer you agree with first, and then challenging the writer you disagree with, before reaching a final conclusion.

Targets

Maintain a Consistent Argument: When arguing against Dr Farrell, you accidentally agreed with him that the system is "tiring" and "not necessary". Ensure your counter-arguments always support your main judgment. Try turning a negative into a positive (e.g. "The system isn't slow, it's *thorough*.").
Explain Evidence Clearly: Your example about the drunk driver was confusing and legally inaccurate. When you use your own knowledge, make sure you can explain it clearly and link it directly to the point you are making about the law-making system.
Directly Compare Writers: To reach the top level, you need to make the writers 'talk' to each other. For example, "Professor Malik's point about flexibility directly challenges Dr Farrell's claim that the system is 'dangerously slow' because..."
Elaborate on Key Terms: You list terms like 'parliamentary sovereignty' but don't explain *how* they make the system effective. Briefly explain the link to show the examiner your deep understanding.

Candidate 4252

Word Count: ~268 words

Evaluation Score: 9/12

I personally agree with Sharah Jenkins this is because she makes a good point that our "unwritten constitution" allows for a lot of flexibility meaning we can respond to emergency's with require a law change immediately. For example the law on being arrested for 48 hours instead of 24 may have cost have more lives to prevent terrorism this law was adapted quietly due to our unwritten constitution and was done quietly probably saving lives. On the other hand I disagree with professor David Chen because he states that "The legislative process often requires months or even years for a bill to pass through" even though this statement holds truth it fails to give examples for example the law on terrorism and holding inmates longer where changed quickly. This means that David Chen could potentially bias with his opinions making his argument less credible. Whereas (SJ) gives several examples on how our unwritten constitution helps us for example she says "It gives several examples and pieces of evidence which helps to support on how our method of making laws is effective. These examples consist of "The use of delegation legislation also empowers government ministers to swiftly update regulations" not only is this (SJ) argument stronger than David Chen's but it also disproves and deconstructs David's Chen argument about the speed of how our law making is slow. (DC) claims parliment is reactive instead of proactive but this is a result of democracy as parliment if parliment went and made decisions on their own without consulting the public it would both ruin the democratic nature of the country and violate the reason the public put parliment in power to put their voice. This would make (DC) argument extremely weak.

Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a strong evaluation that reaches a clear, well-supported judgment, placing it in Level 3. You effectively use the arguments from one writer to directly challenge the other, creating a sustained line of reasoning. Your use of own knowledge to critique David Chen's point about Parliament being 'reactive' is a particularly high-level skill. To reach the very top marks, focus on expressing your points with greater clarity and precision.

Using Evidence: Your weakest sentence was: `(SJ) gives several examples... for example she says "It gives several examples and pieces of evidence..."`. A more direct rewrite would be: "Jenkins' argument is strengthened by her specific examples. For instance, she highlights how 'delegated legislation... empowers government ministers to swiftly update regulations,' which directly contradicts Chen's claim that the process is always slow."

Strengths

Sustained Judgement: You state your view clearly at the start ("I personally agree with Sharah Jenkins") and maintain it throughout, consistently explaining why you find her more convincing.
Direct Comparison: You effectively pit the two writers against each other, using Jenkins' points on flexibility and speed to directly "disprove and deconstruct" David Chen's argument. This is a key skill for high marks.
Use of Own Knowledge: Your rebuttal of Chen's 'reactive vs. proactive' point by linking it to the principles of democracy is an excellent example of high-level analysis that goes beyond just the source material.

Targets

Clarity of Expression: Some sentences are a little confusing (e.g., "may have cost have more lives to prevent terrorism"). Reread your work to ensure your meaning is perfectly clear. Reading it aloud is a great way to spot awkward phrasing.
Precise Use of Evidence: When you mentioned Jenkins gives examples, you quoted her saying she gives examples. Instead, quote the actual examples she provides (like you did with 'delegated legislation') to make your point more direct and powerful.
Develop Evaluative Points: You state Chen could be "bias" and his argument "less credible". This is a good start. Strengthen this by explaining why he might be biased or what specifically makes his argument less credible (e.g., a lack of supporting evidence compared to Jenkins).
Acknowledge Nuance: To show a more sophisticated evaluation, you can briefly acknowledge the element of truth in Chen's argument. For example: "While Chen is right that major reforms can take years, Jenkins correctly identifies that the system has flexibility for urgent matters..."

Candidate 4304

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 3/12

I somewhat agree with Sarah A due to rapid chaos in scientific, cultural, social change. are law is adopting to the extreme chase such as Parliment pasting a law that allowed help control the spread of covid 19 by coffee cocaine People this is only possible because of our great con consititution is uncodifed which help with changes to the law unlike other countries that often ... which is centers people resistent to ensure it hence relevant the use delegate legislation is also another soverinty minister also the process of house of common and house of lords is also is other to review As for a to set a low across a most use white and green paper Judical Feabilities also keep it in check as is is so esay human rights. this help keep the Erope act in check. I somewhat agree with david chen whai as even the cre consition is not writed which easy to past law c-pasting adopting to socias as there still is a whole Lesil process to go though A .mp put idea dan during Perliant Parts meaning R steen paper white paper and other other they idea has to be heard in the house of common as it then the reperdent ed which can take month as house law have to findcuz the decision as the monarch has to sign the bill that could take year also law are made for hese bis problem that essete the whole of society as it leave society law can became out date idea as 'time is rapid chaos a law is secrets

Quality of EvaluationLimited. You have identified some relevant concepts from both sides of the argument, such as the uncodified constitution and the legislative process. However, your answer does not make a clear, single judgement on which writer is more convincing. The arguments are listed separately rather than being directly compared, and significant errors in spelling and grammar make your reasoning very difficult to follow. This places your response in Level 1.

Direct Comparison: "While Professor Malik is correct that the UK's uncodified constitution allows for rapid change, such as with COVID-19 laws, Dr Farrell's argument is more convincing. This is because the full legislative process, from Green Papers through both Houses of Parliament, can take many months or even years, meaning major laws often lag far behind societal change."

Strengths

Identifying Key Concepts: You correctly identified several important ideas, including the UK's uncodified constitution, delegated legislation, and the role of Green/White Papers.
Use of Examples: Using the COVID-19 laws as an example to show how quickly laws can sometimes be made was a good, relevant choice to support Professor Malik's argument.
Engaging with Both Sides: You attempted to explain points from both writers, which is a crucial first step in any evaluation question.

Targets

Make a Clear Judgment: Start your answer with a single, decisive statement. For example, "I believe Professor Malik is more convincing because..." This will give your answer a clear focus.
Directly Compare Arguments: Don't just list the points for each writer separately. Compare them head-to-head. Use phrases like: "Although Malik argues..., Farrell's point about... is stronger because..."
Structure with P.E.E.L.: For each point, use the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link structure. State your point, use evidence from the source, explain *why* it supports your point, and link it back to your main judgment.
Proofread for Clarity (SPaG): Your ideas are good, but spelling and grammar errors (e.g., 'consititution', 'Parliment pasting') make them hard to understand. Reading your work aloud can help you catch these mistakes and ensure the examiner can award you marks for your knowledge.

Candidate 6092

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 5/12

I agree with professor David Chen as he says 'no' but although both sources are pleasing, I lean more towards David Chen's argument. This is due to him stating that 'our current system of law-making is dangerously slow and entirely ill-equipped to keep on pace with modern scientific and social advancement'. This evidence clearly shows how the system of law-making doesn't keep up with scientific culture. And Most of the time our law-making systems are ignorant towards the scientific, social, cultural changes in the world. However, Sarah Jenkins says our law-making system is remarkably effective at adapting to the rapid pace of scientific culture. and she agrees and says 'yes' but on the other hand. David Chen says 'by the time legislation regarding fast-moving technologies such as artificial intelligence or social media regulation finally recieves royal assent the goalposts how the laws are slowly progressing. David Chen also says that agrees and says that in the law-making systems, that there is also a lack of specialised technical expertise among politicians. - This clearly informs us that David Chen disagrees with the statement as he says our system of law is etc very poor and ill-equipped with and poor These no progression or any of skills involved in our law-making systems.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgement and selected relevant evidence from Dr Farrell's argument to support your view. You also correctly identify Professor Malik's opposing viewpoint. However, the evaluation is not sustained because you don't directly compare their arguments or explain in detail why Malik's view is less convincing. To improve, focus on creating a 'dialogue' between the two writers, weighing their specific points against each other to justify your judgement more thoroughly.

Clarity & Precision: "Dr Farrell's argument is that the lack of technical expertise among politicians, combined with the slow legislative process, makes the UK's law-making system unfit for purpose in the modern age."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin your answer with a decisive statement, making it clear from the outset which writer you find more convincing. This provides a strong focus for your evaluation.
Evidence Selection (Writer B): You have effectively chosen several key arguments from Dr Owen Farrell's text (e.g., the slow pace of law-making and lack of expertise) to build a solid case for your judgement.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing one writer and then the other, try to compare their points directly. For example, "While Malik claims the system is 'effective', Farrell's point about the slow pace of AI legislation directly challenges this, making his view more convincing because..."
Balanced Analysis: Your answer is very focused on Dr Farrell. To reach the top level, you must also explain *why* Professor Malik's arguments are less persuasive. Do they lack evidence? Are they too optimistic? Challenge her points using Farrell's evidence.
Clarity and Precision: Some of your sentences are repetitive or grammatically unclear (especially the final one). Re-read your work aloud to catch these errors and ensure your points are expressed clearly and concisely.
Attention to Detail: Always double-check the names of the writers in the source material (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell). Using the correct names shows care and accuracy.

Candidate 60928

Word Count: ~216 words

Evaluation Score: 3/12

Sarah Jenkins on the other hand says that - overall this entire conservative of parlimentary soverignty, expert computation and melicial flexibility remains dynamic & reverent and entriels for the modern age. to summarise he is telling us that although people may disagree our sagtrad our law-making systems doesn't keep up with scientific, cultural, social changes in the world, she agrees and says that they paying the law-making systems. however I disagree but I think they should be more inclusive and law-making systems are specially of culture, social changes in the world, but to what extent I feel like David Egan means that he wants the law-making systems to be about 'celebrating broadly defined cultures' not we should celebrate the social changes in the world, but David also makes the view it relates nationally and internationally to that he says can't work for everyone and fails - and this David perhaps exclude more international events and allow people to money and draw off their culture, but for some event really any cultural, social changes its mostly ONLY about the people who WANT to express their culture. but overall I agree with David. I can and disagree with the payment because in my view our law-making systems don't keep up with scientific, cultural, social changes in the world.

Quality of EvaluationLimited. Your response makes a simple judgment and identifies a basic point from each writer. This meets the criteria for a Level 1 answer. However, the explanation of the writers' arguments is often confused, you misidentify their names, and there is no direct comparison between their views. To improve, you must focus on explaining the arguments clearly and then comparing them directly to support your judgment.

Developing a Judgment: "Overall, I find Dr Owen Farrell's argument more convincing. While Professor Malik claims the system is flexible, Farrell provides a stronger case that it 'fails' to represent diverse cultures, which is a significant weakness in a modern society. His argument is more persuasive because it addresses the real-world impact on minority groups, whereas Malik's view seems too theoretical."

Strengths

Clear Judgment: You clearly state which writer you agree with ("overall I agree with David"). This is a crucial first step in any evaluation question and provides a focus for your answer.
Identifies Core Ideas: You successfully identified the basic stance of each writer – one supports the current system's flexibility, while the other criticizes its lack of cultural inclusivity.

Targets

Accurate Naming: Always use the correct names for the writers as given in the source material (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell). This shows attention to detail and is a basic requirement.
Explain, Don't Just State: Instead of just saying a writer believes something, explain *why* they believe it using evidence from the text. For example: 'Farrell argues the system fails *because* it doesn't celebrate diverse cultures.'
Direct Comparison: To evaluate effectively, you must directly compare the two arguments. Use phrases like "Malik's argument is less convincing than Farrell's because..." or "While Malik focuses on flexibility, Farrell's point about inclusivity is more important because...".
Clarity and Precision: Re-read your work to check for clarity. Some sentences were confusing (e.g., "allow people to money and draw off their culture"). Aim for clear, simple sentences to explain your points effectively.

Candidate 61028

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 5/12

Personally, I agree with chen because the system we have in place that currently constricts laws asnt effective enough and the legislation entries are quite strict as they encorige Biased views whatever which is unfair, We have Ai and All these technologies, personally this system of laws is outdated ' the legislative process is archice often requiresy Months or yers even a Bill to pass through" this is so unessessay and quite slow. this leaves society quite Biased and vulnerable, it may not specifically help the public and their needs unfortunately. I disagree with Sarah Because the laws we have in this country are not up to date to keep up, their system is very complex it takes years for a Bill, to Be confirmed and pass By. the response from the uk government takes Months or even years to respond. this outdated system is not reliable as it used to whatsoever. Relying on unelected and now legally qualised Judges will lead to serious devestating consequences, this system fails to Adjust to todays standards the law Makers here dont adress All issues fairly it only happens when they face something and Backlash.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgement and supported it with a direct quote from the source, which is a key skill. However, your evaluation is not sustained because the reasoning becomes confused and contradictory. Your argument for agreeing with Dr Farrell (who you call 'chen') is that the law is slow, but you then use the exact same reason to disagree with Professor Malik. To reach the higher levels, you must directly compare their two different viewpoints, rather than just repeating one viewpoint.

Comparative Evaluation: For example, you could write: "While I understand Professor Malik's concern that relying on 'unelected...judges' could have 'devastating consequences' for democracy, I find Dr Farrell's argument more convincing. His point that the legislative process is 'archaic' and takes 'months or years' shows that the current system is already failing society by not adapting to modern needs. Therefore, Farrell's view that the process needs fundamental change is stronger than Malik's defence of a slow and outdated system."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin your answer by clearly stating which writer you agree with. This provides a strong focus for your evaluation.
Use of Evidence: You have correctly selected and used a direct quote from the source material to support your main point about the legislative process being slow.

Targets

Avoid Contradiction: Your reason for disagreeing with Sarah was the same as your reason for agreeing with 'chen' (the system is slow). Ensure your arguments are logical and don't contradict each other.
Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing each writer in a separate paragraph, compare their arguments directly. Use phrases like "Malik argues... however, Farrell's point is stronger because..." to create a true evaluation.
Accurate Use of Arguments: You used one of Sarah's own arguments (about the danger of unelected judges) as a reason to disagree with her. Make sure you understand and correctly represent each writer's viewpoint before you evaluate it.
Clarity and Precision (SPaG): Proofread your work to fix spelling and grammar errors (e.g., 'archaic', 'unnecessary', 'qualified', 'biased'). Clearer writing makes your arguments more powerful and easier for the examiner to understand.

Candidate 67801

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I agree with David Chen and how he does not agree with the statement. One strength that I noticed within the argument was when he stated "The legislative process is archaic, often taking months, or even years to pass". I like this statement because sometimes, the whole process of passing laws can be read of the path, because some lords do not agree. Additionally, the process *itself* is quite long even without it being sent back to stages like the 'ping-pong' stage. However, some may agree with Dr Jenkins and how she argues that agrees with the statement. One statement that stood out to me was when she stated "The contribution of parliamentary sovereignty ensures our legal framework remains dynamic". This, one example of the legal framework is judicial review, which is a judgement of High Court boys based on fairness. 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 puts us behind the worldly changes.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgment and selected relevant evidence from both writers to support your view. You explain why you find David Chen's argument about the slow pace of law-making convincing, using your own knowledge of the 'ping-pong' stage. However, your explanation of Dr Jenkins' point is less clear, and your own knowledge about judicial review is inaccurate. To reach the top level, you need to directly compare the two arguments, explaining why one outweighs the other.

Improving Accuracy: Your explanation of judicial review could be more precise. Instead of "...a judgement of High Court boys based on fairness," try: "For example, Dr Jenkins' point about a 'dynamic' legal framework could be supported by judicial review, where senior judges assess whether a public body has acted lawfully, ensuring laws are applied correctly."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your overall opinion clearly at the start and end, providing a consistent line of reasoning throughout your answer.
Evidence Selection: You have successfully identified relevant quotes from both writers to act as the foundation for your evaluation.
Use of Own Knowledge: You effectively used your own knowledge of the 'ping-pong' stage to develop the point about the slowness of the legislative process.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing each writer separately, try to compare them directly. For example: "Although Dr Jenkins argues the system is dynamic, this is undermined by the slow pace that David Chen highlights because..." This creates a more sustained evaluation needed for Level 3.
Accuracy of Own Knowledge: Be careful with the accuracy of your own knowledge. Your description of judicial review was inaccurate. It's a process where judges review the lawfulness of an action made by a public body, not just its "fairness".
Formal Terminology: Avoid informal language like "High Court boys". Use precise, formal terms like "High Court judges" or "the judiciary" to improve the academic tone of your writing.
Develop Explanations: Your explanation of Dr Jenkins' point was less developed than your point on David Chen. Ensure you fully explain *why* parliamentary sovereignty makes the law 'dynamic' before giving an example.

Candidate 72189

Word Count: ~256 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

Although Sarah Jenkins and Professor David Chen I agree more with Sarah Jenkins this is because Sarah Jenkins speaks about the flexibility of law making in the uk. For example when she says 'The flexibility of our uncodified constitution means parliament can pass laws relatively quickly" this is a great point because having an unwritten and uncodified constitution means that laws can be changed and made more easily. This is also true because I know that the process of judicial review is able to happen more easily because the constitution is unwritten. Another reason I agree with Sarah Jenkins is because she says 'the system is supported by dedicated bodies like the Law commission which constantly reviews legislation' This is a great point because I know that case law is effective in the uk so if anybody believes something is unjust they can always appeal to a higher court to get a decision changed which shows our system is constantly changing. However David Chen also raises a good argument that "Royal assent is frequently outdated" This is a great point because Royal assent goes against the democratic values of the country as the monarch having the final say of all laws completely undermines democratic values of the uk. However what David Chen fails to understand is that Royal assent is not the be all and end all of laws and has no real effect on laws and decision making. This is because Royal assent is carried out more so for traditional reasons than political reasons. In addition to this David Chen also says 'parliament is inherently reactive rather than proactive' This is a good point because parliament being able to react quickly embodies democratic values. In conclusion Sarah Jenkins raises the strongest point because she describes how the uk keep up with social changes.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 2 response with moments of Level 3 quality. You establish a clear judgement from the start and support it by explaining arguments from both writers, using quotes and your own knowledge effectively. Your rebuttal of the Royal Assent argument was particularly impressive, demonstrating sophisticated political understanding. To improve, focus on making your evaluation more sustained by directly comparing the writers' arguments, and ensure all your rebuttals fully address the criticism being made.

Developing Your Rebuttal: Instead of agreeing that being 'reactive' is good, try to challenge the point directly. For example: "While Dr Farrell is correct that Parliament is often reactive, this can be seen as a strength that supports Professor Malik's view. For example, the rapid passing of the Coronavirus Act 2020 showed the system's ability to respond decisively to a national crisis, demonstrating the very flexibility Malik praises."

Strengths

Excellent Use of Own Knowledge: You effectively use your own knowledge to challenge the sources. Your rebuttal of the argument about Royal Assent being undemocratic was particularly insightful and well-explained.
Clear Judgement: You begin with a clear and confident judgement ("I agree more with Sarah Jenkins") and maintain this focus throughout your answer, which gives your writing a strong sense of direction.
Good Source Integration: You select relevant quotes from both writers and explain their meaning clearly in your own words. This forms a solid foundation for your evaluation.

Targets

Direct Comparison: To reach the top level, try to directly compare the two writers' arguments more often. Instead of discussing them in separate blocks, pit their ideas against each other (e.g., "While Dr Farrell criticises X, Professor Malik's point about Y is more convincing because...").
Develop All Rebuttals: Your rebuttal of Royal Assent was excellent. However, your response to the 'reactive vs proactive' argument was less clear. Ensure every counter-argument directly addresses and weakens the specific point you are challenging.
Use Correct Writer Names: An important part of academic writing is accuracy. In your answer, you referred to 'Sarah Jenkins' and 'David Chen' instead of the correct names from the source, Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell. Always double-check the source material.
Strengthen Your Conclusion: Your conclusion is clear but brief. Try to make it more impactful by summarising *why* one writer is more convincing, briefly recapping the key clash of ideas you have discussed (e.g., flexibility vs. outdated traditions).

Candidate 79162

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

I agree most with Professor David chen who believes parliment is "reactive" rather than "proactive" when making laws. I agree He also claims "that our current system is slow and ill, equipped." There is proof of that in todays society. For example the war between Russia and Ukraine has caused inflation within the UK, and the current parliment has made no laws/policies to counter act this. Also Professor David chen makes a great point explaining that parliment can-not wait for unelected Judges to make laws as it's undemocratic. This leaves society vulnerable to emerging threats like inflation and more. I agree less with Dr Sarah Jenkins however she makes good points like stating that our current parliment is flexible. I disagree with this statement as parliment have lots of checks like white, green, blue papers and can be very time consuming. Page 2! This means that parliment is slow and will take time to adjust to current global matters. For example Ukraine, Russia, Palastine, USA and Iran. Our current government will take to long to react to the effect that these wars will have on the UK. Dr Sarah also believes parliment can relatively make decisions when urgent decisions arise. In conclusion Dr Sarah fails to express that relying on unelected Judges is not democratic. Also Professor David needs to give an example and proof of why parliment is ill-equipped.

Quality of EvaluationPromising. This is a strong Level 2 response with clear signs of Level 3 skills. You establish a clear judgement from the start and consistently argue in its favour. Your best moment is using your own knowledge of legislative papers to directly challenge one of the writers. To improve, you need to develop your examples with more specific detail and structure your answer to create a more sustained, flowing argument, avoiding informalities like "Page 2!".

Developing Evidence: "For example, while the government has offered some financial support packages in response to the cost of living crisis, these were arguably reactive measures implemented months after inflation began to rise sharply following the war in Ukraine. This supports Dr Farrell's view that Parliament is slow to legislate against emerging economic threats."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You make a clear and consistent decision on which writer is more convincing and maintain this viewpoint throughout your answer.
Effective Use of Own Knowledge: Your use of the legislative process (white, green papers) to challenge Professor Malik's argument about flexibility is an excellent example of high-level evaluation.
Critical Analysis: You don't just accept the arguments. You critique both writers, even the one you agree with, by pointing out what you believe is missing from their points.

Targets

Use Correct Writer Names: In the exam, you must use the exact names provided in the source booklet (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell). Using incorrect names can suggest a lack of care in reading the sources.
Develop Your Examples: Your inflation example is relevant, but it's too general. Instead of saying "no laws/policies," strengthen your point by discussing the *timing* or *effectiveness* of specific government actions (e.g., energy price caps).
Improve Structure and Flow: Avoid informal phrases like "Page 2!". Use connecting words and phrases (e.g., "In contrast," "Furthermore," "This directly challenges...") to link your paragraphs and create a more sustained line of reasoning.
Proofread for Accuracy: Take a moment to check for spelling errors of key terms, such as 'Parliament'. This improves the formal, academic quality of your writing.

Candidate 81097

Word Count: ~288 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

Whilst the debate about our law making system has been constantly up for debate, I wholeheartedly believe that laws do not keep up with scientific, cultural and social changes in the world. One reason why I believe our law system doesn't keep up with many changes in the world is because of the nature of the UK's parliament. For example, Professor David Chen says that "Parliament is inherently reactive not proactive". This means that parliament can only react to things that have already happened as opposed to trying to prevent it happening in the first place. This argument is strong because it addresses a key reason why things like AI continue to go under the eye of the law as parliament takes a while to respond. As a result, Therefore, this is why I strongly believe that our law system does not keep up with scientific, cultural and social changes in the world due to the abysmal pace it takes just to pass a law. On the contrary, a person would argue that our law system in fact does keep up with scientific, cultural and social changes in the world due to dedicated bodies in Parliament. For example, Dr Sarah Jenkins argues that dedicated bodies like the law commission can "constantly review legislation to ensure it remains relevant and propose necessary reforms to reflect modern societal values". This means that even though society may change and evolve, Parliament will always be able to adapt and stay relevant in today's society. However, this argument is flawed because there are severe amounts of a lack of specialised expertise amongst politicians. As a result of this, laws are made that don't fully comprehend the nuances of complex development in society. Ultimately, whilst considering the merits of both points, I still steadfastly believe that our law making system doesn't keep up with the scientific, cultural and social changes in our world. Although you could argue that dedicated bodies make the legislation stay relevant, this is clearly untrue as the slow law making process makes parliament more redundant in society.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a well-structured response with a clear and consistent argument. You effectively use both sources to build your case and attempt to rebut the opposing view, which is a key evaluative skill. To move into the top band (Level 3), your evaluation needs to be more developed. Your rebuttal of Writer B is a good point, but it could be more strongly linked to your main argument about the *pace* of change. Show how a lack of expertise specifically causes delays that make the Law Commission's work less effective.

Developing Rebuttals: "However, while the Law Commission's work is valuable, its recommendations are not binding. Parliament can still take years to debate and enact these proposed reforms, meaning that by the time a law is passed, the societal issue it was meant to address may have already evolved further, proving Writer A's point about the system being too slow."

Strengths

Clear & Consistent Judgement: You state your opinion clearly in the introduction and maintain this argument throughout the entire response, creating a coherent and persuasive piece of writing.
Effective Use of Both Sources: You have successfully selected relevant arguments from both writers, explained their meaning accurately, and used them to support your overall judgement.
Good Structure: Your answer is logically structured into paragraphs, dealing with one writer, then the other, before reaching a final, summative conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.

Targets

Develop Rebuttals: When you challenge a writer's argument (like you did with Writer B), try to link your counter-point directly back to your main argument. For example, explain *how* the 'lack of expertise' you mention slows down the law-making process, reinforcing your point about parliament being reactive.
Use Direct Comparative Language: To create a more integrated evaluation, use phrases that directly compare the two writers. For example, "While Writer B's point about the Law Commission is valid, it fails to address the fundamental issue of parliamentary delay raised by Writer A, making Writer A's argument more convincing."
Accuracy with Source Details: In an exam, always double-check the names of the writers in the source material. Using the correct names (Professor Sarah Malik and Dr Owen Farrell) adds precision and credibility to your analysis.
Expand on Examples: Your mention of AI was a great, relevant example. To elevate this, you could briefly explain a specific problem that law is struggling with (e.g., 'the rapid rise of unregulated AI-generated deepfakes') to add more weight to your point.

Candidate 8609

Word Count: ~42 words

Evaluation Score: 0/12

This Shows that the UK's system of law-making does not keeps up with scientific, cultural and social changes as the real issues that are going on are not noticed until after the real damage has been done.

Quality of EvaluationLimited. Your answer makes a simple judgement, but it does not address the question asked. The question required you to evaluate the arguments of Professor Malik and Dr Farrell on the topic of collective defence versus self-reliance. Your answer discusses law-making, which is not relevant to the sources provided. To score marks, you must focus directly on the question and use the information from both writers to support your conclusion.

Making a Judgement: "Overall, I find Professor Malik's argument more convincing because her points about shared intelligence and combined military strength seem more realistic in today's world than Dr Farrell's idea of complete self-reliance."

Strengths

Attempt at a Judgement: You have started your answer with a clear judgement ("This Shows that..."). This is a good instinct for an evaluation question, as a final conclusion is essential.
Clear Sentence Structure: Your response is written in a clear and understandable sentence, which communicates a single point effectively.

Targets

Address the Question: Your top priority must be to read the question carefully and answer it directly. Your response on law-making did not address the debate between Professor Malik (collective defence) and Dr Farrell (self-reliance).
Use the Sources: To score any marks, you must refer to the arguments made by both writers. For example, mention Professor Malik's points on NATO or Dr Farrell's views on national sovereignty.
Directly Compare Writers: For higher marks, don't just list their points. Compare them directly. For instance, you could state, "Writer A's argument about shared resources is more convincing than Writer B's point on self-reliance because..."
Develop a Line of Reasoning: Build your argument step-by-step. Start by explaining one writer's view, then the other's, compare them, and use this comparison to build towards your final, well-supported judgement on who is more convincing.

Candidate 86091

Word Count: ~157 words

Evaluation Score: 5/12

I agree with writer A, Sarah Jenkins (SJ). This is because SJ makes convincing arguments to further advance her opinion and uses reliable information to support her answer. For example, when SJ announces how quickly the Parliament can pass new laws, enabling quickly when urgent issues arise, unlike other countries who have to navigate complex amendments process. Furthermore, This shows that writer A (Sarah Jenkins) is correct as if a new discovery or ground changing discovery is revealed in certain countries, the UK's Parliamentary system would be able to make a rule appropriately, quicker than others, further advancing and proving SJ's point. However, other individuals such as writer B, David Cunn (DC) disagrees. This is because DC makes points that actually have a deeper meaning, forcing the debate topic to go unnoticed. For example, DC modernly says the "Parliament is inherently reactive rather than proactive, law makers typically only address issues after significant public harm has occurred."

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgement and have started to explain the arguments from the sources. Your explanation of Writer A's point about parliamentary speed is a real strength. However, your analysis of Writer B's argument is very unclear, and the response does not directly compare the two viewpoints to explain *why* one is stronger than the other. This lack of direct comparison is what keeps the answer in Level 2.

Improving Evaluation: Instead of "DC makes points that actually have a deeper meaning...", try to explain the point and link it to the other argument: "However, Writer B's argument that Parliament is 'reactive' is a significant weakness, as it suggests laws are only made after a crisis. This directly challenges Writer A's view on speed, suggesting that being fast isn't useful if you're always too late."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a clear and confident statement of which writer you find more convincing. This immediately focuses your answer.
Explanation of Writer A: You successfully identified a key argument from Professor Malik about the speed of law-making and developed it with your own example, which shows good understanding.

Targets

Accurate Naming: Always use the full, correct names provided in the source material (e.g., Professor Sarah Malik). This demonstrates careful reading and adds a more academic tone to your writing.
Explain Both Sides Fairly: Your explanation of Dr Farrell's point was confusing. Before evaluating, you must clearly explain what his argument ('reactive rather than proactive') actually means in your own words.
Direct Comparison: To reach the top marks, you must directly compare the arguments. Don't just explain one and then the other. Use phrases like "While Writer A's point is strong, it is undermined by Writer B's argument that..." to create a true evaluation.
Develop Your Evaluation: Move beyond saying an argument is "convincing". Explain *why*. Is it because it exposes a flaw in the other writer's logic? Is it more realistic? This deeper reasoning is the key to a Level 3 answer.

Candidate 91708

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I agree more with Professor David as he says thinks our law making system is dangerous because the legislation process is archaic requiring months or years for bills to pass so until that bill is passed you are free to do e.g. smoking in public areas. So even also if an government doesnt promise to listen to people in the UK they could register laws that benifit them e.g. lowered salaries this could result in strikes or protests his weakest point is that fast moving technologies like an are outdated after they recieve royal assels -en that On the other hand Dr Sarah Jenkins says our law making system are effective a keeping speed with modern day culture so they can pass laws when they are needed urgently e.g. new found drugs. I disagree on her point when she talks about law comissions which review legislations to ensure it remains relivent and propose necessary reforms to reflect modern society values which I think is wrong due to certain peoples ideas of what necessary causing uncertainty

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgement and supported it with points from both sources. Your evaluation of the Law Commission shows excellent critical thinking. However, your overall reasoning is not yet sustained because you misunderstand one of Professor Malik's key points and you don't directly compare the two arguments against each other. To improve, focus on creating a 'mini-debate' between the two writers throughout your answer.

Comparative Evaluation: While Dr Farrell presents the Law Commission as a way to keep laws relevant, this process itself can be lengthy and political. This actually reinforces Professor Malik's core argument that the system is fundamentally too slow to deal with modern society, suggesting Farrell's examples are just exceptions to a broken rule.

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a decisive conclusion, stating clearly which writer you find more convincing. This provides a strong focus for your answer.
Good Use of Evidence: You effectively select relevant arguments from both writers, such as the slow legislative process (Malik) and the ability to pass urgent laws for new drugs (Farrell).
Emerging Evaluation: Your challenge to the effectiveness of the Law Commission is a high-level skill. You identified a specific point and explained exactly why you thought it was flawed ('due to certain peoples ideas').

Targets

Develop Your Evaluation: Move beyond simply agreeing or disagreeing. Explain *why* one argument is stronger or more significant than another. For instance, is the general slowness of law-making a more serious problem than the system's ability to occasionally act fast?
Directly Compare Arguments: Instead of discussing each writer separately, make them 'debate' each other. For example: "Although Farrell claims the system can be fast for emergencies, Malik's argument about the archaic process suggests these are rare exceptions, and the day-to-day slowness causes more harm."
Check Your Understanding: You mistakenly identified one of Malik's supporting points (about technology) as a 'weakest point'. Always re-read carefully to ensure you fully understand an argument before you try to evaluate it.
Use Precise Terminology: In exams, using the correct names (Professor Malik, Dr Farrell) and key terms (e.g., 'Royal Assent') shows attention to detail and strengthens the academic tone of your writing.

Candidate 92716

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

After concluding both sides of these arguments I agree with professor David then because the lawmaking system in the UK goes through many stages meaning it can be taken years or eve in onths or even years to pass a bill as meaning laws are not evolving with society. Also professor why I also agree with professor David then is because he mentions there is a severe lack of specialized technical expertise among politicians which I agree with because most of the members of parliament may not be as culturally and social aware as most people because a most members of parliament consist of middle aged white people meaning that they can could fail to comprehend with society and the wishes of others. Even though I Even though I tend to agree with professor David then more Sarah Jenkins makes a excellent point regarding parliamentry soverignty "expert consultation and judicial flexibility ensures our legal framework remains dynamic, relevant and entirely sits on the modern age."

Quality of EvaluationClear. You have made a definite judgment and supported it by explaining points from both writers. You use one writer's arguments to build your case and then acknowledge a valid point from the other, which is a good structure for a Level 2 response. To improve, you need to move from explaining the arguments separately to directly comparing them. Explain *why* Dr Farrell's points about the slow pace of lawmaking are more convincing than Professor Malik's points about expert consultation.

Comparative Evaluation: "While Professor Malik rightly points out that expert consultation adds value, Dr Farrell's argument is more convincing because this consultation process often contributes to the very delays he criticises, meaning laws can be outdated by the time they are passed."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your conclusion clearly at the start ("I agree with..."), which gives your answer a strong focus and structure.
Use of Both Sources: You have successfully selected relevant arguments from both Dr Farrell (the slow pace of lawmaking, lack of expertise) and Professor Malik (expert consultation) to build your answer.
Own Knowledge Integration: You attempted to develop Dr Farrell's point about expertise by linking it to the demographic makeup of Parliament, showing you are thinking critically about the topic.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of just stating both sides, directly compare them. Explain *why* one argument is more significant or convincing than the other (e.g., "Farrell's point about delays is more critical than Malik's point on consultation because...").
Sustain Your Argument: After you introduce Professor Malik's counter-argument, you must explain why it *doesn't* change your mind. Reaffirm your original judgment by explaining why Dr Farrell is *still* more convincing.
Use Correct Names & Terminology: In an exam, always use the names provided in the source booklet (e.g., Professor Sarah Malik, Dr Owen Farrell). This demonstrates attention to detail.
Refine Language: Proofread your work to fix small errors ("can be taken years") and avoid repetition ("I also agree with..."). This makes your argument sound more confident and authoritative.

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 18926

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 18926

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 20876

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 26718

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4131

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4203

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4229

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 42292

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4238

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4251

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4252

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4304

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 6092

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 60928

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 61028

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 67801

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 72189

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 79162

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 81097

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 8609

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 86091

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 91708

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 92716

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback