Feedback Focussing on Evaluation — Has devolution been a success for the UK?

Model Answer (Exemplar)

Evaluation Score: 10/10

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

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

📄 Source Passages

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

Simon Bridges — Low Taxes Should Be the Priority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

1. Unbalanced Argument: Many students focused heavily on one source, failing to properly analyse and evaluate the counter-arguments from the other. A top-level answer must engage with the tension between both viewpoints.
👉 Model: While Dr. Sharma persuasively argues that devolution allows for tailored policies, Michael Davies provides a compelling counter-argument that this leads to an unfair 'postcode lottery' in public services across the UK.
2. Unsupported Judgements: Students often made assertions (e.g., "this is a strong point") without providing specific evidence or explanation from the sources or their own knowledge to prove *why* it is strong.
👉 Model: Michael Davies' argument about devolution weakening the UK is convincing because the constant demand for further powers, particularly from the SNP in Scotland, creates significant constitutional instability and uncertainty.
3. Imprecise Terminology: Students struggled to use key Citizenship vocabulary correctly (e.g., 'West Lothian Question', 'Barnett formula') or used vague and informal language instead of formal, academic phrasing.
👉 Model: Michael Davies highlights a key constitutional issue known as the 'West Lothian Question', where MPs from devolved nations can vote on English-only matters, creating a democratic deficit for England.
4. Weak Structure & Conclusion: Many essays ended abruptly, failing to provide a concluding paragraph that weighs up both sides and offers a final, substantiated judgement on the question.
👉 Model: In conclusion, although Dr. Sharma's points on local responsiveness are valid, the evidence presented by Michael Davies regarding national inequality and political instability suggests that, on balance, devolution has created more problems than it has solved for the UK.

Teacher Next Steps

1. Argument Tennis: Split the class in half; one side represents Dr. Sharma, the other Michael Davies. Teacher serves a theme (e.g., "Fairness"). The Sharma side makes a point. The Davies side must immediately respond with a direct counter-point, starting with a phrase like "On the other hand..." or "While that may be true...". Go back and forth for 2-3 minutes per theme to drill direct rebuttal.
2. "Prove It!" Drill: Project a simple assertion from a student's essay onto the board (e.g., "Dr. Sharma's argument is strong."). In pairs, students have 3 minutes to write two sentences that "prove" it, using the structure: "This is a strong argument BECAUSE..." and "FOR EXAMPLE...". Cold-call pairs to share their substantiated judgements.
3. Terminology Taboo: Create cards with key terms (e.g., West Lothian Question, Barnett Formula, Asymmetrical Devolution). In small groups, one student must get their team to say the key term without using a list of 'taboo' words on the card. This forces students to explain the concepts precisely and accurately.
4. Conclusion Funnel: Give students two opposing points from the sources. They have 5 minutes to write a single, three-sentence concluding paragraph following this structure: 1. (Acknowledge) "Although [Writer A]'s point about X is valid..."; 2. (Counter) "...[Writer B]'s argument regarding Y is more convincing because..."; 3. (Overall Judgement) "Therefore, on balance, devolution has been a...".

Candidate 16927

Word Count: ~221 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a confident and clear statement identifying which writer you agree with. This gives your answer immediate focus.
Effective Use of Evidence: You skilfully select and embed specific examples and quotes from Dr. Sharma's text (e.g., "abolish university fees," "crucial local areas") to build a convincing case.
Argument Development: You don't just list points from the source; you explain *why* they are significant (e.g., explaining that local decision-making leads to "more accurate laws").

Targets

Engage with the Counter-Argument: Your top priority is to analyse Michael Davies' views. Explain his key arguments (e.g., postcode lottery, weakening the UK) and then evaluate why you disagree with them. An answer cannot reach the top levels without discussing *both* sources.
Use Evaluative Connectives: To improve the structure of your argument, use phrases to transition between the two viewpoints. For example: "On the other hand, Michael Davies argues that...", "While Davies makes a valid point about...," or "A weakness in Davies' argument is...".
Sustain to a Conclusion: Your answer ends very abruptly. Add a concluding sentence that summarises your main point and reaffirms your overall judgement to provide a stronger, more complete structure.
Proofread for Accuracy: Several spelling and grammatical errors (e.g., "parliment," "arent," "cherrish") can affect the formal tone of your writing. Always leave time for a quick proofread.

Candidate 19627

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have organised your answer well, discussing Michael Davies' view first before presenting your own judgement in favour of Dr. Anjali Sharma.
Use of Source Material: You effectively quote from the source (e.g., "stepping stone," "constitutional chaos") to show you are engaging directly with the writers' arguments.
Decisive Conclusion: You provide a clear and firm conclusion, stating which writer you agree with and briefly summarising the key reasons why, such as decisions on education.

Targets

Check Factual Accuracy: Your argument about the Brexit referendum was based on incorrect information (e.g., Scotland's vote, London's vote). Using inaccurate evidence undermines your evaluation. Always double-check key facts.
Develop Your Evaluation: Move beyond simple evaluative phrases like "England's selfish desires." Instead, use more analytical language to explain *why* some might view the situation as England-centric, perhaps referencing population differences or constitutional arrangements.
Improve Sentence Clarity: Some sentences were very difficult to understand (e.g., the one mentioning "seth stormont"). Read your work aloud to catch awkward phrasing and ensure each sentence makes a clear, single point.
Spelling and Terminology: Be careful with key citizenship terms. You wrote "seperation" instead of "separation" and "foward" instead of "forward". Accurate spelling is crucial for clear communication.

Candidate 19672

Word Count: ~395 words

I agree with Anjali Sharma's view that devolution has helped the UK because of her positive aspect toward the result and has continuous writing towards not only the political aspect but social aspect and compare to Michael Davies whom I disagree with as they do bring topics that can should be changed but some of his points fail to show the positive strange space towards the ones he has stated. For example in Michael Davies (MD) views he has opposed to devolution stating that 'devolution has become a stepping stone towards seperation and not a solution' on one hand he is somewhat correct as with devolved power it does not affect the UK in anyway due to their different laws on healthcare, education etc but on the other hand (MD) failed to further explain on his views as devolved powers are more beneficial to Scotland due to the welling in central parliament, westminister does not always advocate their views however with devolution they were able to have their traditional views they stood with for example free prescription for medicine. One reason why I agree with the Anjali Sharma's (AS) views is due to her continuous explanation as to why Devolution is successfully in the UK as she has stated that Devolution has been able to 'create policies tailored to their specific needs which would be impossible under a centralised system' I heavily agree with this view as it allows countries in the UK to be able to have their own sense of identity and their voices heard to a country who has central parliament at the greatest power. This helps stop dispute and encourages a more democratic peaceful system however (MD) would disagree due to his belief that 'MPs can still vote on laws that apply to england' hence this is a contradicting view but what (MD) failed to consider is the fact that there are resolved powers that devolved powers cannot propose in without the permission of central parliament to avoid future conflict or devolved powers are abusing their power and there is also an chancellor of exchequer who is appointed by the Prime Minister which job is to make sure the UK's funds are distributed properly meaning devolved powers can still need more money for the people of their area due to their needs and keeps the UK peace and unity maintained properly.

Strengths

Engaging with Both Sources: You consistently use quotes and ideas from both Dr. Sharma and Michael Davies to build your argument and create a debate between the two views.
Clear Overall Judgement: You state your opinion clearly in the first sentence and maintain this position throughout the answer, which provides a strong structure.
Use of Specific Examples: Your reference to "free prescription for medicine" in Scotland is an excellent use of a specific, real-world example to show the positive impact of devolution.

Targets

Clarity and Precision: Some of your sentences are long and confusing (e.g., "fail to show the positive strange space"). Aim for shorter, clearer sentences and choose your words carefully to make your point precisely.
Accurate Use of Own Knowledge: It's great that you're bringing in your own knowledge, but it must be accurate. You confused 'reserved powers' with 'resolved powers' and your explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's role was not relevant to the point you were making. Double-check these key concepts.
Sustained Analysis: Your analysis starts well but can become muddled. Try to build your points logically step-by-step within a paragraph. When you introduce a counter-argument, make sure your rebuttal is clear, focused, and directly answers the point.

Candidate 20179

Word Count: ~498 words

Although Michael Pavier (MP) makes strong points based on the possible instability that may come from devolution in the UK, I agree mostly with Dr Anjali Sharma (AS) as she advocates for the peace and specificity that devolution has delivered. especially, One reason why I agree with AS is because she brings up how "devolved governments have been able to create policies tailored to their specific needs". This is true as I know that the nations in the UK are given devolved powers over departments like transport and education because the cultures are very different between nations in the UK. AS reinforces this idea through the "abolishment of university tuition fees for Scottish students". This reflects how devolution has allowed specific nations to be able to adapt to their local problems that are observed only in their nation which is a positive aspect of devolution. AS also says how devolution was a "clear desire to represent the clear will of the people" which was expressed in the 1998 referendums. This point is excellent as devolution has re-enacted a time where the public had put large pressure on the government into holding a referendum. This had shown how the UK was able to be flexible and adapt to shifting cultures and societal standards that were different from the between nations in the UK which makes devolution very successful for the UK. However, some may agree with MP as they argue how devolution had been a financial and societal problem for nations in the UK. For example, they say how it was reflected that the Scotland had wanted to leave through "2014 Scottish independence referendum" from the UK. Although this is true, MP fails to see that a few years after this had occured, the party in Scotland that had hosted the referendum had lost a huge majority of its seats and the referendum was never successful anyways. This shows that over time, people in these devolved nations had grown accustomed to the changes promoted by devolution which demonstrates its slow but inevitable success for the UK. They also say how devolution had resulted in "unstable political systems" but this is quite vague as the idea behind devolution liberates each nation to have their own independent parliaments and their systems, like when the "Assembly has been suspended multiple times due to political disagreements" in Northern Ireland, then it is not the fault of devolution but it is solely the fault of the nations disorganisation. MP also says that how devolution was is also fundamentally unfair to England and how the West Lothian question of on whether England should have a separate parliament. Although this point is quite substantial, I argue it is more important to support a democratic system in each of these nations, allowing more people to vote, reflects a higher proportion of the general public view on representation or changes in society. MP states how the postcode lottery is quite lackadaisical of the UK as it may not provide sufficient funds to specific places in the UK and the public services. This point is good, however, it undermines the success of the funding of devolution through the Barnett formula which provides each devolved nation the ability to spend on departments specific to their nation which is a success of devolution. Therefore I disagree mostly with MP. In conclusion, despite the decent points brought up by MP about the past failures that may have stemmed from devolution or political instability, I agree mostly with AS as she excellently argues how devolution was necessary at being a major provider for the services, needs and shifting cultural standards and how it had promoted independence in the governance of their respective devolved nation.

Strengths

Effective Use of Evidence: You skilfully select quotes and examples from both sources (e.g., "abolishment of university tuition fees", "2014 Scottish independence referendum") to build and support your argument.
Strong Rebuttal Skills: You don't just present the opposing view; you actively challenge it with your own knowledge. Mentioning the Barnett formula to counter the 'postcode lottery' claim was particularly impressive.
Clear & Sustained Judgement: Your argument is consistent from the introduction to the conclusion. You maintain a clear line of reasoning, always explaining why you favour Dr. Sharma's perspective.

Targets

Deepen All Counter-Arguments: Some of your rebuttals are stronger than others. When challenging a point like the 'West Lothian question', try to address it more directly with specific knowledge (e.g., 'English Votes for English Laws') rather than just stating a different priority.
Avoid Vague Dismissals: You described MP's point on instability as "quite vague" and blamed "nations disorganisation." Instead of dismissing the point, analyse it. Could devolution itself create the conditions for this disorganisation? Acknowledging this complexity shows higher-level thinking.
Define Key Terms: You correctly used the "Barnett formula," which is excellent. To elevate your analysis further, briefly explain what it is (e.g., "...the Barnett formula, a mechanism that adjusts public spending allocated to the devolved nations..."). This demonstrates precise understanding.
Refine Phrasing for Precision: Phrases like "postcode lottery is quite lackadaisical of the UK" are slightly awkward. Aim for more formal academic language, such as "the postcode lottery highlights a significant flaw in UK public service provision."

Candidate 2219

Word Count: ~108 words

Strengths

Identifies Both Sides: You have selected a point from both Writer A (policies tailored to needs) and Writer B (fractured system), which is the first step to a balanced evaluation.
Makes a Judgement: You begin with a clear judgement ("I agree with..."), which is a key feature of a high-level evaluative answer.

Targets

Focus on the Question's Key Term: The question is about 'devolution' (the transfer of power to regional governments), not 'multiculturalism' (the co-existence of diverse cultures). Ensure you understand and use the correct key terms from the question.
Use the P.E.E.L. Structure: To develop your points, use the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link structure. State your point, provide evidence from the source (e.g., "Writer B argues..."), explain what it means in your own words, and link it back to the question.
Improve Sentence Structure: Many sentences are fragmented or grammatically incorrect (e.g., "Rather than satisfying"). Read your work aloud to check it flows correctly and that every sentence is complete.
Substantiate Your Judgement: Don't just state which view you agree with. Build up to your conclusion by weighing up the evidence from both sides and explaining *why* one argument is stronger than the other.

Candidate 22479

Word Count: ~12 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You have given a very clear and direct answer to the question, which is a great starting point for an evaluation.
Relevant Focus: The point you make is entirely relevant to the debate about devolution and its consequences for UK unity.

Targets

Use the Sources: Your answer must directly refer to the views of Writer A (Dr. Anjali Sharma) and Writer B (Michael Davies) to show you have understood the debate presented in the source material.
Develop Your Points (PEEL): Structure your arguments using the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link method. You made a 'Point', but you need to add 'Evidence' (from sources or your own knowledge) and 'Explanation' (why the evidence proves your point).
Analyse Both Sides: To achieve a higher mark, you must evaluate both the successes and failures of devolution. Your answer only focused on one negative outcome. Consider the arguments for why it might be seen as a success too.
Proofread Your Work: Pay close attention to spelling to ensure your arguments are presented clearly and professionally. In your answer, "separation" was spelled incorrectly as "seperation".

Candidate 4150

Word Count: ~293 words

I disagree that devolution has been a success for the UK and I agree more with Micheal Davies more than Dr Sharma because overall devolution can be seen as a hinderance the it's unsuccesful. On one hand, Dr Sharma says that devolution has been a success for the UK. She argues this because its a more flexible and responsive to its diverse nations. This is successful for the UK as it shows the very essence of a modern functioning democracy. This point is strong as the all the nations in the UK devolution making the UK more flexible and responsive is true as it allows each nation to have their own power and independance to make their own actions. However on the other hand Micheal davies says no and disagrees that devolution has been a success to the UK. Micheal Davies argues this because he believes devolution has become a stepping stone to separation. This is a very strong point as after the UK left the EU, Scotland has wanted to seperate from the UK which would in turn lead to separation Dr Sharma further agrees that devolution has been a success for the UK and they argue this because, devolution gave them everyone its benefits from it. For example she says, devolved governments have been able to create policies tailored for to their specific needs. However this point loses weight because the devolved governments dont have access to reserved powers which limits how much policies they can tailor for their specific needs. Micheal Davies however further disagrees and states that devolution has not been a success for the UK. This is because Micheal argues this because the UKs' devolution system is fundamentally unfair to the England. Micheal argues this because Scottish MPs can comment on English both laws but English MPs cannot comment on Scottish laws. This is a very valid argument as I know that parliament is sovereign so it's unfair that Scotland has a say on British English law. In conclusion I personally agree with Micheal Davies more because his argument has less flaws and ultimately the topic of devolution is not doing a good job at making the UK more unified and there is inherently unfair towards the UK.

Strengths

Logical Structure: You followed a clear point-counterpoint structure, dealing with each writer's arguments in turn. This makes your essay easy to follow and ensures you cover both sides.
Use of Own Knowledge: You effectively brought in relevant outside knowledge, such as the issue of 'reserved powers' and Scotland's calls for independence post-Brexit, to support and challenge the views in the source.

Targets

Develop Evaluation with Examples: Instead of just stating a point is 'strong' or 'valid', you need to prove it with a specific, real-world example. For instance, when discussing 'tailored policies', you could have mentioned free university tuition in Scotland or free prescriptions in Wales.
Refine Key Terminology: Be precise with your language. The issue of "Scottish MPs can comment on English laws" is known as the 'West Lothian Question'. Using the correct terminology shows greater subject knowledge and precision.
Analyse, Don't Just Describe: For your first point on Dr. Sharma, you explained what she said but didn't fully analyse *why* flexibility is a success. Explain the impact – does it increase democratic engagement? Does it make people feel more represented? This moves from description to analysis.
Strengthen Your Conclusion: Your conclusion is clear, but could be more powerful. Try to briefly synthesise *why* Davies' arguments outweigh Sharma's. For example: "Although Sharma's points on local responsiveness are valid, Davies' arguments on national unity and fairness are more compelling, as the threat of separation poses a greater risk to the UK's future."

Candidate 4164

Word Count: ~317 words

Despite Dr Sharma raising a fair argument that Devolution is "flexible and responsive to a diverse nation", Davies argues that strong point that represents the weaknesses of Devolution. Dr Sharma contains a consistant argument stating Devolution has especially given the diverse nation a sense of sovereignty that allows them "to create policies tailored to their specific needs". This is a credible argument as it highlights the central reason as to why devolution was originally established. The devolved nations are essentially given dissolved power which allows them to make decisions on, travel, tourism, transport etc. This further allows them to be more democratic as their laws can be regulated by their citizens who are accustomed to their culture. Despite this, Sharma fails to evaluate the extent of sovereignty granted to the dissolved nations, implying a weakness in their overall judgment. For example, the central government still maintain reserved powers such as defence, taxs, etc. This means the dissolved nations are unable to scrutinise decisions that will affect their country. Alternatively, Davies argues "devolution has created a deeply fractured and unstable political system". Davies further supports his argument stating "the wake of Brexit" is deemed as a consequence of Devolution. This is a strong point as it highlights the lack of sovereignty the nations had meaning when England decided to leave Brexit, the nations were forced to follow. This meant that severe consequences as Scotland resisted to leave as it would deconstruct not only their trading alliance but also the continous support provided by the European Union. However in order to emphasise his argument Davies could of used the weakness of the Barnett formula. The Barnett formula is a formula that allows tax to be equally redistributed within the nations. However this poses as a weakness as smaller nations such as Scotland benefit more than larger nations, ie, England who is the central tax provider

Strengths

Effective Use of Own Knowledge: You brilliantly integrate your own knowledge, such as 'reserved powers' and the 'Barnett formula', to challenge and evaluate the views in the source. This is a key skill for reaching the higher levels.
Balanced Critical Analysis: You have provided a balanced analysis, giving clear consideration to both Dr. Sharma's and Michael Davies' arguments before offering your own judgement on their limitations.

Targets

Use Precise Terminology: Be careful with key terms. You consistently wrote 'dissolved nations' instead of the correct term, 'devolved nations'. Using the correct terminology is crucial for demonstrating precise understanding.
Refine Grammatical Accuracy: Proofread your work to catch minor grammatical errors, such as writing 'could of' instead of the correct 'could have'. Polished writing strengthens the credibility of your argument.
Develop a Concluding Judgement: Your evaluation is strong throughout, but the essay ends abruptly. Add a concluding paragraph that summarises your points and offers a final, overall judgement on whether devolution has been a success, weighing up the evidence you've discussed.

Candidate 4226

Word Count: ~266 words

Strengths

Good Use of Evidence: You effectively used specific examples for both sides of the argument, such as the abolition of Scottish tuition fees (for Sharma) and the 2014 independence referendum (for Davies).
Balanced Structure: Your answer is well-structured, dedicating a paragraph to each viewpoint. This shows you understand how to approach an evaluation question.
Clear Initial Stance: You begin your answer with a clear judgement, stating which viewpoint you agree with more, which helps to frame your entire response.

Targets

Sentence Clarity: Many of your sentences are long and grammatically confused (e.g., "leads to have outcomed organised democratic success"). Focus on writing shorter, clearer sentences to ensure your arguments are understood.
Develop Your Judgement: Your evaluation is mostly agreeing with each point as you raise it. To improve, add a concluding paragraph that weighs up both sides and explains *why* one argument is stronger than the other. This is a 'substantiated judgement'.
Use of Key Terminology: You described the issue of Scottish MPs voting on English laws. The correct term for this is the 'West Lothian Question'. Using precise terminology will make your points more academic and impressive.
Proofreading: Small errors like "Sharma's says" and "he use" can affect the overall quality of your writing. Always leave a few minutes at the end to read through your work and correct these mistakes.

Candidate 4249

Word Count: ~292 words

Strengths

Clear Structure & Judgement: You begin with a clear overall judgement and then structure your answer logically, dedicating a paragraph to each writer. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Effective Use of Evidence: You skillfully select direct quotes and specific examples (e.g., the 2014 referendum, Scottish tuition fees) to support the points you are making for both sides of the argument.
Good Personal Analysis: You don't just state the evidence; you explain its significance. Your explanation of how devolved powers enabled the tuition fee policy was particularly strong and showed good understanding.

Targets

Develop a Concluding Paragraph: Your answer ends abruptly after discussing Writer A. To make your evaluation more "sustained" (a key Level 4 skill), add a conclusion that weighs up both arguments and reaffirms your overall judgement.
Deepen Your Analysis: To add more depth, consider the complexities within each point. For example, when discussing the "democratic deficit," you could have mentioned attempts to solve it, like 'English Votes for English Laws' (EVEL), to show a deeper understanding.
Maintain Formal Language: Avoid informal phrasing like "a lovely argument" or "they may aswell be independent". In an exam, use more academic language such as "a persuasive argument" or "it could be argued they should be independent".
Refine Spelling and Grammar: There are a few minor errors (e.g., "controll" should be "control", "aswell" should be "as well"). Proofreading your work can help eliminate these and improve the clarity of your writing.

Candidate 4267

Word Count: ~195 words

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You have clearly addressed both sides of the argument, discussing the views of Michael Davies and Dr. Anjali Sharma in separate paragraphs.
Use of Evidence: You effectively used specific, relevant examples like Scottish independence post-Brexit and the abolition of tuition fees in Scotland to support your points. This is a crucial skill.

Targets

Develop Your Analysis: To reach Level 4, expand on your points. For example, *why* does the demand for Scottish independence create an 'unstable political system'? Explain the consequences (e.g., constitutional crises, economic uncertainty).
Sustain Your Judgement: Your initial judgement is clear, but your final sentence seems to strongly support Sharma's view without linking back to your main argument. Try to create a 'mini-conclusion' at the end of each paragraph that reinforces your overall stance.
Refine Key Terminology: Be careful with key terms. The word is 'sovereign' (meaning a self-governing state), not 'sovirent'. Using precise language will make your arguments more convincing.
Proofread for Accuracy: There are several spelling errors (e.g., 'devoloved', 'arguements', 'parliment'). Taking a minute to proofread improves the clarity and quality of your writing.

Candidate 4283

Word Count: ~110 words

Strengths

Use of Evidence: You effectively used specific examples like the 'postcode lottery' and the suspension of devolved assemblies to support Michael Davies' viewpoint.
Considering Both Sides: You successfully identified and explained a key argument from both Sharma (peace in NI) and Davies (instability), showing you understand the debate.

Targets

Clear Introduction: Your opening statement, "I agree with Sharma... I agree with Michael Davies," is contradictory. Start your response by clearly stating which view you find more convincing and why, to establish a clear line of argument.
Sustained Analysis: Your points are listed rather than linked. Use connecting phrases (e.g., 'Furthermore, this demonstrates that...', 'This is significant because...') to build a logical chain of reasoning throughout your answer.
Developed Evaluation: When you make a judgement, like "devolution has made bigger problems," you must explain *how* and *why*. For example, how has Brexit increased tensions between Westminster and devolved governments over policy?
Clarity and Precision: Avoid vague phrases like "only a part of Britain believes...". To improve, try to be more specific by referring to things like opinion polls, specific political groups, or different national viewpoints (e.g., in Scotland vs. England).

Candidate 4310

Word Count: ~131 words

Strengths

Evidence-Based: You effectively use direct quotes from both sources (Sharma and Davies) to support the points you are making.
Clear Structure: Your answer is structured logically, dealing with one writer's argument before moving on to the counter-argument.
Initial Judgement: You begin with a clear personal judgement ("I agree with Anjali Sharma"), which is a key requirement for an evaluation question.

Targets

Develop Your Analysis: Move beyond simply stating what the writers say. Explain the *implications* of their arguments. For example, *why* is an "unstable political system" a risk? What specific problems could it cause for citizens?
Balance Your Argument: Your answer focuses heavily on Writer A (Sharma). To achieve a higher mark, you must give equal consideration to Writer B's (Davies) viewpoint, analysing it in the same amount of detail.
Substantiate Your Judgement: You state your opinion at the start, but you need a concluding paragraph to bring your points together. This paragraph should directly compare the two views and explain *why* you find Sharma's argument more convincing than Davies'.
Proofread for Accuracy: Several spelling and grammar errors (e.g., "strengthing", "speafic", "civillians") can affect the clarity of your argument. Always leave time to check your work.

Candidate 4328

Word Count: ~345 words

I agree strongly with Dr Anjali Sharma, that devolution has been a success for the UK because of the many positive changes and it's had on the UK. Whilst Michael Davies has provided reasons as to why devolution hasn't been so successful, they've failed to provide any real evidence. Dr Anjali Sharma has states that 'devolved governments have been able to create policies tailored to their specific needs' which I know is true because Scotland and Wales now have the power to make adjustments to laws over devolved powers. For example, these devolved powers may include public transport, healthcare and education which are deemed to be as important as reserved powers. This means that if governments can create policies tailored to specific needs it will lead to less pressure on the government from the public and a higher chance that the party in power at the time will be voted for again. As a result, the UK government can then reflect on it's public wants and needs much more. But some may disagree with Dr Anjali Sharma as they fail to mention that due to each government having devolved power the Barnett formula and expenses may not be seen as being fair as Wales for example has a bigger of population than the UK therefore requiring more money. Michael Davies states 'It has resulted in a 'postcode lottery' for public services, where a citizen rights and entitlements depend on which part of the UK they happen to live in' which can be false as they fail to realise that some local councils in Wales are partially responsible for improving peoples wellbeing in area. Furthermore, Davies claims that it 'breeds resentment which isn't completely true as he doesn't represent a majority. Michael Davies also states how 'MP's from Scotland can vote on laws that apply to only to England, such as health, and education, while England MP's have no say on those same matters in Scotland'. But he fails to realise that reserved powers are all decided in Westminister therefore Scott-Scotland doesn't have that much power.

Strengths

Clear Structure: Your answer begins with a clear overall judgement and is logically structured, making it easy for the examiner to follow your argument.
Effective Use of Sources: You consistently select relevant quotes from both Dr. Sharma and Michael Davies to use as the foundation for your points.
Application of Knowledge: You successfully applied your own knowledge by correctly identifying examples of devolved powers, such as healthcare and education, to support Dr. Sharma's argument.

Targets

Substantiate Your Judgements: Avoid making simple assertions like "he doesn't represent a majority". To make your evaluation convincing, you must substantiate (support) every claim with evidence, examples, or a clear line of reasoning.
Deepen Your Rebuttals: When you challenge a writer's point, ensure your counter-argument directly addresses what they are saying. Your rebuttal about 'reserved powers' did not successfully counter Davies's argument about the fairness of voting on *devolved* matters.
Check Factual Accuracy: Your argument about the Barnett formula was weakened by the incorrect statement that "Wales... has a bigger of population than the UK". Inaccurate facts can undermine an otherwise good point. Always double-check your supporting evidence.
Refine Key Terminology: To build stronger arguments, ensure you have a precise understanding of key concepts like the 'West Lothian Question' and the clear difference between 'devolved' and 'reserved' powers.

Candidate 4341

Word Count: ~136 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin your answer by clearly stating your agreement with one of the writers. This shows you understand that the question requires you to make a judgement.
Use of Source Evidence: You have correctly selected two relevant quotes from Dr. Anjali Sharma's viewpoint to support the points you are making.

Targets

Engage with Both Sides: Your answer only discusses Dr. Sharma's positive view. To create a balanced evaluation, you must also analyse and evaluate the counter-arguments made by Michael Davies.
Develop Your Evaluation: Move beyond simple statements like "more better." Explain *how* and *why* a policy is a success by using specific, real-world examples (e.g., free university tuition in Scotland, different COVID-19 rules) to substantiate your judgements.
Use Precise Terminology: To improve the quality of your analysis, replace informal phrases like "more better" with precise Citizenship vocabulary such as 'accountability', 'regional identity', or 'policy divergence'.
Proofread for Accuracy: Always check your work for spelling and grammar errors. For example, "would of" should be "would have", "desisions" should be "decisions", and "cinzens" should be "citizens".

Candidate 4349

Word Count: ~621 words

Writer 2 speaks on the unfairness of devolution to England individually and the consequences of devolution on UK politics, however I believe this argument misses out significant facts on the UK voting system, whilst additionally having an ironic argument (based on the past of Britain's control over other countries). Whereas writer 1 focuses on the collective benefit each individual devolved power has experienced and conflicts solved via devolution, leading me to agree more with writer 1. To begin with, a major sector of my agreement to writer 1 is because of their initial, analytical statement, "The creation of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly was a direct response to the clear will of the people, expressed in the 1998 referendums". This is a key strong initial point, factoring in how devolution is a core part of the UK's traditional values such as individual liberty and democracy. In response, Writer 2 argues the unfairness of devolution as "MPs from Scotland can vote on laws that apply to England... while English MPs have no say on these same matters in Scotland", and that "this creates a serious democratic deficit and breeds resentment". In reality, this argument is ironic and hypocritical as it disregards the past of UK politics and conquest. with countries such as; Wales, Ireland and Scotland being under UK control and not having the individual power to make laws on crucial matters such as defense, tourism and education until devolution. This outright shows how neighbouring countries to the UK have endured the unfair, restrictive control on their own laws by the UK, and how it is ironic to say devolution is unfair to England. Furthermore, not only have these countries endured the unjust policies of following UK laws, but also the resentment that has built up from them by decades leading me to agree with writer 1 as they empathise with these long-endured struggles. An alternative reason as to why I agree with writer 1 is because of their empathetic reference to civil wars and conflicts in Northern Ireland, and how it was resolved via devolution. They claim that, "In Northern Ireland, devolution was a cornerstone of the peace process". This is a significant point as it references the unfortunate civil conflict of 'The Troubles' where many civilians wrongfully were prosecuted. Whereas, writer 2 claims that, "the Assembly has been suspended multiple times due to political disagreements". Whilst this is true, it is unreasonable to expect instant resolve in a country recovering from previous civil conflict. This is additionally thought about from writer 1, stating how devolution is "creating a new framework for cooperative governance" which shows their understanding of the political struggles and disagreement that devolved powers may continue to face. Lastly, I further disagree with writer 2 as they argue how "The 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum was a direct consequence of the powers granted to the Scottish parliament" and the "issue" still dominates and "destabilises" UK politics, particularly in the wake of Brexit". However this argument is factually incorrect as, although over 50% of the SNP voted to leave stay in the EU, the UK STILL left! This is preposterous as it shows how even having a majority in a devolved - powered - government is still largely unequal to higher - replaced governments, and their votes are often over-looked politically due to the unfair system? Thus, I overall agree with writer 1. They considerately empathise with NOT JUST the governments of these individual countries, but also the citizens who have suffered greatly on how devolution has concluded this unjust civil violence. Furthermore, writer 1 reflects the UK's values of individual liberty and democracy which have both been increased since devolution, whilst also admitting there will still be initial political disagreement for the newly devolved powers. showing their consideration of both viewpoints on devolution and how it can be corrected. Whereas, writer 2 makes ironic statements and hypocritical arguments which don't take into their account the individual processes faced by the UK pre-devolution, leading me to agree with writer 1 as their argument is more well-rounded considering all viewpoints.

Strengths

Sustained Evaluation: You don't just describe the sources; you constantly weigh them against each other and your own knowledge, making clear judgements from start to finish.
Effective Use of Own Knowledge: You successfully integrated your understanding of UK history, 'The Troubles', and the Brexit vote in Scotland to build powerful counter-arguments and add depth to your analysis.
Clear and Logical Structure: Your essay is easy to follow, with a clear introduction stating your view, well-developed paragraphs focusing on specific points, and a conclusion that summarises your overall judgement.

Targets

Maintain Formal Language: Your analysis is strong, but informal words like "preposterous" and ending a sentence with a question mark ("...unfair system?") can weaken the academic tone of your argument. Always aim for precise, formal language.
Clarify Complex Points: Your point about the Brexit vote in Scotland was a sophisticated idea but was confusingly worded. When tackling a complex issue, break it down step-by-step to ensure your reasoning is crystal clear to the examiner.
Develop Historical Context: The point about Britain's historical "conquest" is excellent. To make it even stronger, you could add a specific example, such as referencing the Acts of Union, to provide concrete evidence for your claim of hypocrisy.
Define Key Terms: When discussing Writer B's point on the "democratic deficit," you could briefly explain that this is often called the 'West Lothian Question'. This demonstrates a deeper level of subject knowledge and precision.

Candidate 48962

Word Count: ~140 words

Strengths

Clear Summaries: You accurately summarise the main arguments of both Writer A (devolution as a democratic success) and Writer B (devolution as a cause of instability).
Evidence Identification: You effectively pick out key reasons and examples used by each writer, such as the 1998 referendums for Writer A and the 2014 independence referendum for Writer B.

Targets

Develop Your Judgement: Your final sentence is an assertion ("We wouldn't know..."). You need to move beyond this to a substantiated judgement. Explain *why* it's difficult to judge, weigh the arguments, and come to a clear conclusion (e.g., "it is a success in some ways but a failure in others because...").
Use Evaluative Language: To structure your evaluation, incorporate phrases like "On the one hand...", "However, a more convincing argument is...", "While Writer A's point is valid, it overlooks..." This signals to the examiner that you are analysing, not just describing.
Introduce Own Knowledge: To reach the top marks, bring in your own knowledge. Could you mention the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland as a success of devolution, or the ongoing debates about an English Parliament to show the complexity of the issue?
Proofread for SPaG: Check for small errors. For example, in your first paragraph, "it's" (it is) should be "its" (belonging to it) when you write "responsive to its diverse nations."

Candidate 48967

Word Count: ~41 words

Strengths

Clear Stance: You have taken a definite position on the issue, which is the first step in building an argument.
Identifies a Key Concept: You correctly identify the 'English question' as a central and relevant part of the debate on devolution.

Targets

Engage with Both Sources: To meet the question's requirements, you must refer to arguments from *both* Writer A (Dr. Anjali Sharma) and Writer B (Michael Davies). Explain why you find one writer's view more convincing than the other's.
Substantiate Your Judgement: Don't just state your opinion. You must use specific evidence from the source to support your points. For example, quote or paraphrase what Michael Davies says about the 'English question' to prove your argument.
Use P.E.E.L. Structure: To build a developed paragraph, make your **P**oint (The system is unfair), provide **E**vidence from the source ("Michael Davies states..."), **E**xplain how this evidence proves your point, and **L**ink back to the question.
Answer the Full Question: The task asks "Which writer do you agree with most?". Start your answer by explicitly naming the writer (e.g., "I agree most with Michael Davies...") to ensure your response is focused.

Candidate 62017

Word Count: ~343 words

I agree more with with Dr. Anjali sharma, and believe that devolution has been a success for the UK. One reason I agree with Anjali Sharma is because she mentions "devolution has allowed for different priorities to coexist within one state." and "making the union stronger". This is a well strong point as I know that devolved powers has given devolution has given divolved powers to Scotland, Ireland, and wales, such as education and transports. This means they have control over what they need improving living standards for people. For example, the Scotland could increase funding on transport, supporting the elderly and their needs. Not only does this take. This is a strong point as Devolution has given countries the power to respond to their needs, however to a certain extent to much independance. Another reason why I agree more to an extent with Anjali Sharma is because she mentions that 'devolution was the cornerstone of the peace process' this is a good point as I know that devolution avoids the sense of agriculture being undermined in some areas. For example, but with devolution and the devolved powers it gave to countries, agriculture such as scottish education or arrcitchture, could be more better expressed and valued. This brings peace as certain people will no longer feel opressed by the British government centorlisation power being centrolised centerlised, take pressure away from westminst. This bring peace as people are more content, strengthening the Union. This is a strong point as it takes in account that devolution improved publive happiness. Michael Davies disagrees and believes devolution was not a success and mentions that "devolution has created a deeply fractured and unstable political system" although I understand where Michael Davies is comming from, and I understand that devolution has increased independence, weakning unity in the UK and instabilising the government, I have to disagree with his point as I know that devolution actually benefits not only devolved countries, but also Parliment as well. For example, with devolution the pressure and responsibilitias has been taken off government in westminster. this allows them to focus more on their own public need, such as focusing on problems on enviroment and taxes. This improves government power and ensures power is not centralised. Overall, I agree more with Anjali sharmas as she brings clear points such as agriculture and how it can have a positive impact, improving unity. On the other other hand I disagree with Michael Davies as he fails to deeply analyise the consequences of devolution, not taking in account the strengths devolution brings. Overall I agree and believe Devolution was successful for the UK, strengthening peace, unity, and democracy.

Strengths

Effective Use of Sources: You consistently select relevant quotes from both writers (e.g., "cornerstone of the peace process") to structure your paragraphs and build your argument around.
Clear Judgement and Rebuttal: Your third paragraph is excellent. You clearly state your disagreement with Michael Davies and provide a well-reasoned rebuttal, explaining how devolution can also benefit the central UK Parliament by reducing its workload.

Targets

Develop Examples with Specificity: Your examples are a good start (e.g., Scotland funding transport). To improve, use specific, real-world policies. For instance, you could mention the Scottish Parliament abolishing university tuition fees or Wales making organ donation opt-out.
Ensure Accurate Understanding: Your repeated use of the word "agriculture" was incorrect and confused your argument about the peace process. Always re-read the source and your own writing to ensure your points are logical and use terms correctly.
Improve Sentence Structure: Some sentences are long and grammatically awkward (e.g., "...however to a certain extent to much independance"). Aim for clearer, more concise sentences to make your arguments more powerful. Break complex ideas into shorter sentences.
Sustain Your Analysis: Your analysis of Davies' view was strong and well-supported. Aim to apply this same level of clear reasoning to all your points. Your second paragraph was much weaker than your third because the central example was confused.

Candidate 68124

Word Count: ~180 words

I agree with Dr Safali Sharma on whether democracy was a success in the UK since it has allowed for those who were unrepresented in the union to recieve greater representation in UK government. One reason why I agree is because Sharma says that devolution 'rightly transferred power from London to the national level'. One example of what happened when people were unrepresented is the Troubles in Northern Ireland, where Irish catholics who were unrepresented launched attacks against the UK military and civilian infrastructure. This therefore shows how Sharma makes a good point since it prevents people from resorting to terrorism to recieve a be taken seriously by Westminster, it also helps fulfill the role of our democracy country being a federation of equals after all. Another reason I agree with Sharma is because they sensibly note that devolution makes the union stronger and more adaptable for the 21st century. It would indeed be sensible and rational for the government to adapt its government to represent the whole population after all. We can look to countries like Yugoslavia that tried to maintain an ethnic monopoly on state control, ending in the Yugoslav wars and the very poor relations each ex-Yugoslav nation has of each other now. Adopting devolving policies would modernise the United Kingdom for the 21st Century: a time where people can observe press for their human right for democracy like never before & therefore to a large extent agree with Sharma on this as it prevents the UK continuing to exercise the english ethnic monopoly it did in the past, which is certainly a strong point. One way in which devolution could be flawed is in the way it is implemented. This is since Jamie's points out that the infamous 'English Question' remains unanswered and English cities have no say on those same matters that the proposition that England also become a devolved nation). This points out a fundamental hypocrisy in the system and, with London becoming more multicultural and different to the rest of England, it would be unfair for England to not recieve the same representation as the rest of England, thus making it a relatively strong reason for scrutiny against devolution due to its perceived hypocrisy.

Strengths

Excellent Use of Evidence: You effectively used your own knowledge (e.g., The Troubles, Yugoslavia) to support and analyse the arguments from the source. This adds impressive breadth and depth to your response.
Clear and Consistent Evaluation: You consistently made well-substantiated judgements on the views in the source, using phrases like "Sharma makes a good point" and "a relatively strong reason for scrutiny" and backing them up with clear reasoning.

Targets

Accuracy with Source Details: Be careful to use the correct names of the writers provided in the source (Dr. Anjali Sharma and Michael Davies, not "Dr Safali Sharma" and "Jamie"). This improves the precision of your answer.
Develop the Counter-Argument: Your final paragraph on the opposing view was well-argued but shorter than the others. To reach the top marks, aim to give equal weight and depth to both sides of the debate, perhaps by adding another specific example.
Refine Terminology: Phrases like "english ethnic monopoly" are powerful but could be more precise. Using established political terms like 'centralised governance' or 'asymmetrical devolution' will enhance the academic tone of your writing.
Proofread for Clarity: Some sentences contain small errors (e.g., "...to recieve a be taken seriously..."). Reading your work aloud is a great way to catch these and ensure your arguments are as clear as possible.

Candidate 72198

Word Count: ~380 words

Despite the fact that Michael Davies ~~who says no-~~ (MD) establishes very precise and considerate arguments towards why devolution hasn't become a success for the UK by evaluating the situation regarding Brexit, I agree more with Anjali Sharma (AS) who argues for the statement - as their considerate, powerful and arguments such as referring to flexibility and priorities simply ~~is~~ are simply more considerate towards the question. One reason why I could agree more with AS is due to their references to how devolution allows countries to "create policies tailored to their specific needs". This is a very strong argument as not only does it take into consideration of how each country may need laws which only apply to them rather than a blanket of so which is more advantageous to ~~before~~ ensuring the public is satisfied, but also the argument also successfully recognises that every country is sovereign and deserves its own individual choices on what laws allow their country to run smoothly. From my own knowledge I know that the devolved powers in Scotland allowed them to make changes to the law which were tailored to their specific preferences ~~such as education fees and which is a true representation of what comes with devolution~~. Therefore I would agree with more with AS as their powerful argument takes into consideration of the advantages of devolution. However, I would also ^some agree with MD as they make considerate arguments towards why devolution has not been a success within the UK. Firstly they argue how "the system is fundamentally unfair to England", which is a good point as they successfully recognise how Scotland can vote on laws which apply only to England however English MPs have no say on the same matters in Scotland. This, as a result of devolution presents it as unsuccessful which is why some could agree with MD. However later on they express how devolution has become a "stepping-stone towards separation". However, a weakness in this point is that they fail to recognise how each country deserves its own sovereignty and therefore ~~deserve to~~ should have the ability to remain independent if by choice. Therefore, although MD makes considerate arguments towards the weakness of devolution, they also have some flaws within their arguments such as recognising countries' sovereignty which is why I would personally agree more with writer AS. In conclusion, although MD precisely recognises how unfair devolution can be towards the voting ability of MPs, they have weaknesses in their recognition of individual countries' choices on decisions which is why I agree more with AS who has many more powerful arguments such as how policies are accustomed to ~~the~~ needs of countries.

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state which writer you agree with in your introduction and maintain this clear line of argument throughout your answer. This makes your essay focused and easy to follow.
Effective Use of Evidence: You have skilfully selected and embedded direct quotes from both writers (e.g., "tailored to their specific needs," "fundamentally unfair to England") to support your analysis.
Application of Own Knowledge: Your reference to Scotland's devolved power over education fees is an excellent example of using specific own knowledge to strengthen an argument from the source.

Targets

Develop Deeper Evaluation: When you identify a weakness in an argument (like MD's point on sovereignty), go one step further. Explain *why* it's a weak argument in the context of the debate. Does it ignore other factors? Is it based on a flawed assumption? This moves from identifying a flaw to analysing its significance.
Use 'Mini-Conclusions': At the end of each main paragraph, add a sentence that explicitly links your analysis back to the main question. For example, after discussing MD, you could say: "This flaw in his argument significantly weakens his overall claim, making Sharma's perspective on devolution's success more persuasive."
Refine Evaluative Language: You use the phrase "considerate arguments" several times. Try to use a wider range of evaluative vocabulary to make your analysis more precise. Words like 'compelling', 'persuasive', 'unconvincing', 'oversimplified', or 'well-substantiated' will add more power to your judgements.
Balance Your Analysis: You correctly identify the strength of MD's point about fairness to England. To improve, you could briefly explain *why* this is a significant issue before concluding that AS's arguments are *still* stronger overall. This shows a more balanced and nuanced evaluation.

Candidate 78061

Word Count: ~253 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a decisive and well-supported judgement, immediately establishing the direction of your argument.
Effective Use of Evidence: You skillfully select a key argument from Michael Davies (the West Lothian Question) and explain its significance clearly, linking it to democratic principles.
Critical Rebuttal: Your challenge to Dr. Sharma's point on tuition fees is a strong example of evaluation. You don't just accept the source material; you question its credibility and consider the wider context.

Targets

Develop the Counter-Argument: Your acknowledgement of Dr. Sharma's positive point is brief. To reach the top level, you must develop this counter-argument. Explain *why* tailored policies are a success and perhaps give a specific example (e.g., the smoking ban in Scotland happening before England).
Sustain the Analysis: Your analysis is strong but focused heavily on one side. A sustained analysis requires giving equal weight to both writers. After critiquing Dr. Sharma, you should also explore the strengths of her argument more fully before reaching your final conclusion.
Refine Terminology: While your point about funding is valid, phrases like 'evenly distributed' are imprecise. Aim to use more specific concepts like the 'Barnett formula' or 'per-capita funding' to add more academic weight to your economic arguments.
Structure for Balance: Consider a structure where you analyse Writer A's view in one paragraph, Writer B's view in another, and then use a third paragraph for your overall judgement. This can help ensure you give balanced consideration to both sides.

Candidate 82067

Word Count: ~320 words

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You did an excellent job of considering the viewpoints of both Dr. Sharma and Michael Davies. This shows you can engage with different perspectives, which is key to evaluation.
Effective Use of Evidence: You consistently selected relevant quotes from the source to build your paragraphs around. This grounds your analysis in the provided material.
Clear Structure: Your answer was logically organised with an introduction, distinct paragraphs for your points, and a conclusion. This makes your argument easy for the examiner to follow.

Targets

Substantiate Your Judgements: Your final judgement needs to be proven. Instead of just saying one argument is 'stronger', explain *why* by directly comparing the points. For example, is one argument based on stronger evidence than the other?
Develop Your Analysis: Move from explaining what a point means to exploring its real-world impact. When discussing 'tailored policies', you could mention a specific example like free university tuition in Scotland to make your analysis more detailed and convincing.
Refine Academic Terminology: To elevate your writing, replace informal phrases with more precise, academic language. For instance, instead of "given the wheel," you could use "granted legislative autonomy" or "empowered to self-govern."
Proofread for SPaG: Small errors can distract from a good argument. Pay close attention to common spelling mistakes like "seperation" (separation), "soully" (solely), and "arguement" (argument) before you finish.

Candidate 86792

Word Count: ~295 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: Your essay begins and ends with a consistent and clearly stated judgement, which provides a strong argumentative thread throughout your writing.
Effective Use of Own Knowledge: Your explanation of reserved vs. devolved powers to challenge Michael Davies' view on a "fractured" system was a superb piece of analysis that significantly elevated your response.
Logical Structure: You followed a clear and effective structure: introduction with judgement, a paragraph for Writer A, a paragraph for Writer B including rebuttal, and a concluding summary. This makes your argument easy to follow.

Targets

Sustain Your Rebuttal: You brilliantly challenged one of MD's points but accepted the "separation" point without critique. To reach Level 4, aim to challenge or evaluate *all* key arguments you introduce. For example, could devolution actually *strengthen* the union by giving regions a voice?
Develop with Specific Examples: To add more depth to your analysis, link the writers' points to real-world examples. When discussing AS's "adaptable" union, you could mention how the Welsh government's policy on prescription charges differs from England's.
Refine Academic Language: Elevate your analysis by using more precise terminology. Instead of "this Point is strong," you could use phrases like, "This is a compelling argument because..." or "This viewpoint is substantiated by..."
Proofread Carefully: Small errors in spelling (e.g., 'suisessful', 'vaild'), punctuation, and grammar can distract from your excellent ideas. Always leave time for a final check to correct things like capital letters for names (Michael Davies) and to ensure sentences are clear.

Candidate 89670

Word Count: ~457 words

Whether or not devolution has been successful in the UK is an argument that has been debated for many years since it was implemented by Tony Blair in the early 2000s. On one hand, it provides each nation of the UK to be sovereign in their own affairs while providing strength and security nationally while on the other it can be seen as the providing of the independence as some say that ultimately, devolved powers still leave many flaws unsolved such as controversial. Despite this, I largely agree with Michal Davis, primarily due to how devolution was handled and rather than devolving powers themselves. Firstly Davis mentions how devolution continues to destabilise UK politics. I agree with this largely however it is due to how representation is affected. During Brexit, nearly all of London as well as the large majority of Scotland and Wales voted to remain in the EU however due to the rest of England having a larger population and mostly believing how the EU further creates immigration issues, that such as less jobs for the native population, that leaving the EU would be the most beneficial. This is reflected in Scotland today where many MPs want to full leave the UK sovereignty through independence in order to rejoin the EU. Anjali Sharma however says that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly creation was a direct response to the clear win by people while it is true that many studies did show that over 55% of Scottish people were happy to stay in the UK after devolution however she also says that policies can be made to tailor specific needs. While true on paper, it is clear that not enough time has been put into properly monitoring how these new laws are made. For example, Scottish UK MPs cannot vote on native issues such as education, which is entirely fair, however, the same doesn't apply vice versa which Davis also does mention. Additionally, Northern Island has certainly been harmed most in devolution. Prior to it, not the state was not a lot of political unrest but even for threats to public safety, it was largely stabelised due to the English Parliament. By allowing devolving powers without support, it can lead to a paralysis and circus of governance which Sharma ultimately fails to mention but Davis does. supports this by saying that the current system leads to constitutional chaos instead of stable settlement. Ultimately I agree with Michal Davis. Our current system of devolution is severely flawed and is far from the 'ideal' "success" it is made out to be however I still do agree with Sharma on the ultimate premise of devolution. The idea of each state in the UK being capable of voting on their own issues such as education and a education is certainly what should happen while national security is more broad however our current system of it creates many flaws such as representation and stability. Overall devolution is certainly what is needed to move the UK as a whole forward however, the current system is far from successful which is why I agree with Davis, contrary to Sharma.

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your overall view in the introduction and maintain it throughout your answer, concluding with a strong, decisive summary. This shows you have understood the evaluative nature of the question.
Use of Own Knowledge: Your use of the Brexit result as an example of how English votes can outweigh those of devolved nations was an excellent way to add depth and evidence to Davies' argument about destabilisation.
Balanced Argument: You successfully analyse and evaluate points from both Sharma and Davies. You create a genuine debate in your answer rather than just describing one point of view.

Targets

Develop Your Points with Detail: Some of your arguments are asserted rather than fully explained. For example, when you mention Northern Ireland, explain *how* it has been harmed by mentioning the specific collapse of the Stormont power-sharing executive.
Precision with Key Terms: You correctly identify the issue of voting rights for MPs (the 'West Lothian Question'), but you describe it inaccurately. The issue is that MPs from devolved nations *can* vote on English-only laws. Double-check your understanding of such key terms to improve accuracy.
Improve Sentence Clarity: Some of your sentences are very long and contain multiple clauses, which can make them difficult to follow. Try to break these down into shorter, clearer sentences to make your argument more direct and powerful.
Use a Clear Paragraph Structure: To help develop your points, try using a structure like PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) for your main paragraph. This ensures each argument you make is fully supported and analysed before you move on.

Candidate 91768

Word Count: ~395 words

I agree with Anjali Sharma because she believes that the 'Devolution is a democratic success' that has 'strengthened the United Kingdom'. Whereas I disagree with Michael Davies because he believes 'devolution created a deepy fractured and unstable political system.' I agree with A.S. to a large extent due to her view that Devolution was a positive democratic decision for this country - for example devolution gave Scotland and Wales their own parliament so that they could make decisions based on what was the primary needs of their country. for example, the scottish parliament made a decision to abolish tuition fees for scottish students and it only affected scotland. This shows us that devolution was good for the democratic state of the united kingdom because scotland wouldn't of been able to make that decision if it was up to the english parliament as they would be more focused on things that it would benefit England and not the rest of the united kingdom. It also shows us that devolution has allowed all countries and parliaments to coexist without conflict with the priorities within the state. On the other hand, I disagree with M.D. because to a large extent because of his view that devolution created an unstable political system. for example, due devolution meant that different parliaments would get a different amount of money to spend and England would be given the most money as it holds the majority of the United kingdom's population whereas Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales get smaller amounts of money due to the fact that they only have a small percentage of the united kingdom's population each and the contribute less money to the United kingdom's economy than England etc. He also says that the system is fundamentally unfair to England as scottish M.P. can vote on laws that only apply to England whilst England have no say on those matters in scotland. Overall, I agree with A.S because devolution has overall improved the democratic state of the UK as it allows for Northern Ireland, scotland and wales to vote on have their own parliament so that they can pass laws on things that would benefit their country - where as I disagree with M.D. as he comments on minor problems such as England having no say on scottish laws which aren't aren't important necessary.

Strengths

Clear Structure: Your answer is well-organised with an introduction stating your view, a paragraph for each writer, and a concluding summary. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Use of Specific Evidence: You effectively used the real-world example of Scottish tuition fees to support Dr. Sharma's argument. This shows good application of your own knowledge.
Understanding of Key Arguments: You accurately identified and explained the 'West Lothian Question' (Scottish MPs voting on English laws), which is a complex and important part of the devolution debate.

Targets

Develop Your Conclusion: Avoid simply dismissing arguments as "minor" or "not important". Instead, you need to weigh the arguments against each other. Explain *why* you believe the democratic benefits (View A) are more significant than the constitutional problems (View B).
Substantiate Your Judgements: Your final judgement feels like an opinion ("aren't important"). To make it a substantiated judgement, you must back it up with reasoning. For example, "While unfair, this issue affects a small number of parliamentary votes and does not destabilise the entire political system."
Refine Key Terminology: When discussing the funding issues raised by Michael Davies, using the specific term 'Barnett formula' would have added more precision and depth to your analysis, showing a more expert understanding.
Grammar and Proofreading: Watch out for small grammatical errors like "wouldn't of" (the correct phrase is "wouldn't have") and typos like "aren't aren't". Reading your work aloud before finishing can help you catch these.

Extended Writing Feedback

Teacher Access

Dashboard Unlocked

🧑‍🎓 Student Quick Access

📊 Data Export

⚠️ Safeguarding Alerts

Model Answer (Exemplar)

📄 Source Passages

Simon Bridges — Low Taxes Should Be the Priority

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

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

Teacher Next Steps

Candidate 16927

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 19627

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 19672

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 20179

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 2219

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 22479

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4150

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4164

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4226

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4249

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4267

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4283

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4310

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4328

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4341

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4349

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 48962

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 48967

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 62017

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 68124

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 72198

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 78061

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 82067

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 86792

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 89670

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 91768

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback