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. Lack of Balanced Analysis: The most common weakness was focusing on only one writer. To achieve a high mark, essays must analyse and evaluate the arguments of *both* Dr. Sharma and Michael Davies to show a full understanding of the debate.
👉 Model: While Dr. Sharma argues that devolution has been a success by allowing for policies tailored to local needs, Michael Davies counters that this creates an unfair 'postcode lottery' and weakens the unity of the UK.
2. Unsubstantiated Judgement: Many students stated which writer they agreed with but failed to explain *why* their argument was more persuasive. Evaluation requires directly comparing the merits of the arguments to justify a conclusion, rather than simply asserting a preference.
👉 Model: Although Davies's concern about the 'West Lothian Question' is valid, Sharma's argument is ultimately more convincing because the democratic benefit of self-governance for the devolved nations outweighs the constitutional anomaly it creates for England.
3. Vague and Undeveloped Points: Arguments were often too general and lacked specific, named examples or precise terminology. Persuasive points must be supported by factual evidence that demonstrates strong subject knowledge.
👉 Model: Dr. Sharma's point about tailored policies is best exemplified by the Scottish Parliament's decision to abolish university tuition fees, a policy that directly addresses the specific priorities of its electorate and differs from the rest of the UK.
4. Poor Clarity and Precision (SPaG): Frequent errors in spelling, grammar, and convoluted sentence structure made many arguments confusing and difficult to follow. Clear, concise writing is essential for communicating complex political ideas effectively.
👉 Model: Michael Davies argues that devolution creates an unstable constitutional settlement. For example, Scottish MPs can vote on laws affecting English schools, yet English MPs have no say on the same matters in Scotland.

Teacher Next Steps

1. Argument Tennis: Divide the class into two halves: 'Team Sharma' and 'Team Davies'. The teacher serves a theme (e.g., "National Unity," "Fairness"). Team Sharma must state one of her arguments on that theme. Team Davies must immediately counter with one of his arguments. This 10-minute drill forces students to actively recall and articulate arguments from both sides of the debate.
2. Judgement Justifiers: Project a concluding statement on the board, e.g., "Overall, Michael Davies's argument is more persuasive." In pairs, students have 5 minutes to write three different justifications for this statement, each starting with the word "because...". This drills the crucial skill of substantiating a final judgement with clear reasoning.
3. Evidence Match-Up: Give students a list of general points from the sources (e.g., "Devolution creates unfairness," "Devolution allows for local solutions"). Provide a separate list of specific evidence (e.g., "The West Lothian Question," "Free prescriptions in Wales," "The rise of the SNP"). In pairs, students must match the specific evidence to the general point it supports and write a sentence linking the two.
4. Sentence Surgery: Display a long, convoluted, and grammatically incorrect sentence taken from an anonymous student essay. For example: "Michael Davies states that devolution has become evident as in it is unfair for England because of the Scottish MPs who can vote on things for England but not the other way around which is a problem." As a class, 'operate' on the sentence to make it two shorter, clearer, and more precise sentences.

Candidate 1251

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Evidence-Based Analysis: You effectively selected and used direct quotes from Michael Davies' argument, such as "breed of resentment" and "stepping stone towards separation".
Use of Specific Knowledge: Your reference to Scottish MPs voting on English-only laws (the West Lothian Question) is an excellent example of using your own knowledge to substantiate a point.
Clear Judgement: You begin your evaluation with a clear, evaluative statement ("I agree with this argument partially..."), which is a great way to structure your response.

Targets

Address Both Sides: Your top priority must be to analyse and evaluate both writers in the source. To achieve a balanced evaluation, you needed to consider Dr. Sharma's arguments for the success of devolution.
Develop Your Substantiation: You state you "partially" agree. To improve, explain *why* only partially. What part of Davies' argument might be an exaggeration, or what part of the counter-argument has merit? This deepens your evaluation.
Improve Sentence Clarity: Your final sentence was long and convoluted, which weakened its impact. Aim for shorter, more direct sentences to make your concluding points powerful and precise.
Proofread for Accuracy: Ensure you check for spelling errors, such as "pervious" which should be "previous". Small mistakes can distract the examiner from your good ideas.

Candidate 18926

Word Count: ~231 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

I agree more with Michael Davies (MD) who says No. This is because he shows clear evidence on how devolution can lead to constitutional chaos and perpetual conflict. This is backed up by the fact that multiple Assemblys have been suspended due to various political disagreements leading to ungovernable. (MD) also says that it is fundamentally unfair as for London as Scottish MPs can vote on laws applying for London-England whereas England MPs have no say in some matters which can create serious democratic deficits and can breed resentment. This has had an effect where a citizens rights and entitlements depend on the part in the UK they happen to live in. Devolution can create deeply fractured and unstable political systems. This puts the Union at a constant risk. While (MD) has a strong point on why devolution has not been successful for the UK, Shola Rogers to mention how the UK can adapt to make the Union stronger for the 21st Century. However Anjali Sharma (AS) says that Devolution is a profound democratic success which only strengthens the UK by making it more flexible and responsive to diverse nations. This can make it so the UK can table on specific needs for certain communities and create policies tailored for it. This is a benefit as it would have been impossible under a centralised system and without a devolved government, needs cannot be discussed properly. (AS) also says argues that devolution has allowed for different priorities to coexist within one state and that it is a mature and sensible arrangement that acknowledges & respects national identities. In conclusion, I agree more with Michael Davies (MD) as he gives clear reasoning as to why Devolution

Quality of EvaluationGood. You have produced a well-structured answer that clearly explains the arguments from both sides of the debate. You use the source material effectively to summarise the views of both writers and you make a clear judgement at the start. However, your evaluation is not fully developed. Your conclusion is incomplete, which prevents you from fully substantiating your judgement and accessing the higher marks in Level 3.

Substantiating a Judgement: In conclusion, while Anjali Sharma's points about respecting national identities are valid, I agree more with Michael Davies. His evidence of parliamentary suspensions and the 'democratic deficit' caused by issues like the West Lothian Question provides a more compelling case that devolution, in its current form, has created more conflict than stability for the UK.

Strengths

Clear Structure: Your essay is well-organised. You deal with one writer per paragraph before attempting a conclusion, which makes your argument easy to follow.
Good Source Use: You accurately identify and explain the key arguments from both Michael Davies (e.g., 'democratic deficits') and Anjali Sharma (e.g., 'flexible and responsive').
Clear Judgement: You state your own view clearly at the very beginning of the essay, which immediately tells the examiner the direction of your argument.

Targets

Develop Your Conclusion: Your final sentence is incomplete. A strong conclusion must summarise the debate and fully explain *why* you find one side more convincing than the other, directly comparing their arguments to justify your choice.
Integrate Evaluation: Instead of just summarising each view in separate paragraphs, try to weave your analysis throughout. For example, after explaining a point from Sharma, you could immediately counter it with a point from Davies, explaining which you find more persuasive. This creates a more sustained argument.
Proofread Carefully: There are some grammatical errors (e.g., "leading to ungovernable", the incomplete final sentence) that affect the clarity of your writing. Always read your work back before finishing.
Explain Key Terms: When you mention concepts like "democratic deficits," briefly explaining what this means (e.g., the unfairness of Scottish MPs voting on English laws) would add depth and show a stronger understanding.

Candidate 20876

Word Count: ~370 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

Although this whole topic about whether devolution has been a success for the UK is a huge debate, I agree to a large extent with Dr. Anjal Sharma that devolution has been a success for the UK. One reason why I agree with Dr. Anjal Sharma that devolution has been a success for the UK because it strengthens the UK by providing flexibility. For example, Dr. Anjal Sharma states how devolution allows "decisions on crucial issues to be made by those who are most affected by it." this is an excellent argument as it creates a symbol of fairness and self responsibility, which suggests allows the people of individuals nations to feel pleased as they know more about the problems. Furthermore, Dr. Anjal Sharma states how devolved governments "are able to create policies tailored to their specific needs," this immediately highlights how each devolved nations can create laws and policies that provide a solution to their domestic problems, therefore makes her argument accurate. I know that this is true because the scottish parliament removed tuition fees (using their devolved powers of education) to provide free education to students which created convenience and more access to education. On the other hand, you could argue that devolution does not provide succession to the UK, as Michael Davies believes it makes the UK political system unfair by providing a corrosive effect, therefore making it unstable. For example, he states Michael Davies states uses the 'English question' to show how it destabilises UK politics over the constant arguments about the english question. Although Michael Davis is correct about how it destabilises UK politics as scottish MPs are sat on westminister parliament deciding creating decisions that broadly affect England, one thing Michael Davis forgot to mention is that west minister parliament is to represents the whole of UK therefore scottish MPs do have the right to be there even if decisions that are made affects england, which creates a sense of unity and collectivity, which emphasises how devolved nations work together to strengthen UK. Another reason why I agree with Dr. Anjal Sharma because devolution provides maturity. For example, she states how it "makes the Union stronger". This is true because it acts like a prevention of protests and as civilians from each nation of the UK do not have to protest against the government about changes as they can now use devolved powers such as agriculture and education. In conclusion, Although Both writers provide a sophisticated arguments, I have to agree alongside with Dr. Anjal Sharma as she provides an argument that accurately symbolises the stability of devolution in the UK as each nations identity are now respected, however Michael Davis provides a weaker argument against about how devolution does not provide success.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a strong Level 3 response. You consistently analyse arguments from both sides and make a clear, well-supported judgement. Your use of specific own knowledge (Scottish tuition fees) to substantiate a point is excellent. To improve, you need to ensure all your points are as well-developed as your first one; the argument about 'maturity' was much weaker and lacked specific evidence, which makes your analysis 'unsustained' and keeps you from reaching Level 4.

Sustaining Analysis: Another reason I agree with Dr. Sharma is that devolution strengthens the Union by managing national identity. For example, by giving Wales control over the Welsh language in education, or establishing the power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland, devolution provides a political outlet for distinct national identities. This can reduce calls for full independence, thereby making the Union more stable and mature, which directly supports Sharma's argument.

Strengths

Use of Own Knowledge: Your specific example of the Scottish Parliament abolishing tuition fees was excellent. It provided powerful, concrete evidence to substantiate the argument from the source and demonstrated strong subject knowledge.
Direct Rebuttal: You effectively engaged with Michael Davies' argument about the 'English Question'. Instead of just describing it, you challenged it directly, which is a key feature of high-level evaluation.
Clear Judgement: From the very first sentence to the conclusion, you maintained a clear and consistent line of argument. The reader is never in doubt about your position and why you hold it.

Targets

Sustain Your Analysis: Your second point supporting Dr. Sharma ('provides maturity') was much weaker than your first. To reach the top level, ensure all your points are equally well-developed with specific, supporting evidence.
Develop Your Rebuttal: Your rebuttal of Davies was good, but could be even stronger. To show deeper understanding, you could have briefly mentioned proposed solutions to the 'English Question', such as 'English Votes for English Laws' (EVEL).
Broaden Your Examples: Your Scottish example was great. To add breadth to your knowledge, try to also include examples from Wales (e.g., control over health policies like prescriptions) or Northern Ireland (e.g., the unique power-sharing arrangements).
Refine Sentence Structure: Some sentences are very long and contain repeated phrases (e.g., "he states Michael Davies states"). Proofread your work to combine ideas and vary your sentence beginnings. For example, use phrases like "Furthermore, Davies argues..." or "In contrast, Sharma suggests...".

Candidate 2251

Word Count: ~182 words

Evaluation Score: 5/12

page 2

However, On the other hand Michael Davies (MD) disagrees that devolution has been a success in the UK. This is because (MD) argues that devolution has caused "breed of resentment". I agree with this argument partially because due to the way of devolution in the UK Scottish Mps can vote on laws that apply only to England. This may result in potential resentment as English people may believe that scottish mps do not want the best for England and only look in favour of their own Nation (Scotland). Adding on to this MD also argues that "devolution has become a stepping stone towards separation, not a solution". This has become evident as in the scottish independence referendum. This has a direct long-term effect power granted to the scottish parliment with this linking back to his pervious point of devolution fearing the love our people have for eachother while also giving birth to hatred for one another as the issue continue to destroy, dictate and destablise UK politics as a whole.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have demonstrated the ability to select relevant arguments from a source and support them with your own knowledge. The analysis of Michael Davies' viewpoint is clear and shows understanding. However, the entire response is one-sided. By failing to engage with Dr. Sharma's arguments, you cannot produce a balanced evaluation or a well-substantiated judgement, which is essential for reaching the higher levels of the mark scheme. This has capped your mark in Level 2.

Clarity & Impact: This links back to his previous point, suggesting that instead of uniting the UK, devolution has created divisions that destabilise national politics and risk the future of the Union.

Strengths

Effective Use of Source Material: You have clearly identified, quoted, and explained key arguments from one of the sources (Michael Davies).
Developing Arguments with Own Knowledge: You have successfully used your own knowledge, such as the Scottish independence referendum and the issue of Scottish MPs voting on English laws (the West Lothian Question), to support the points you are making.

Targets

Engage with Both Sides: To achieve a higher mark, you must analyse the views of *both* writers. Your answer only focused on Michael Davies, completely ignoring Dr. Anjali Sharma's perspective on the successes of devolution.
Structure for Balanced Evaluation: A good structure is: 1) Explain Writer A's view with evidence. 2) Explain Writer B's view with evidence. 3) Write a concluding paragraph where you weigh up both sides and give your overall, substantiated judgement.
Substantiate Your Judgement: Your judgement ("I agree...") needs to be fully 'substantiated'. This means explaining *why* you find one argument more convincing than the other by directly comparing their merits, rather than just agreeing with one side.
Proofread for Clarity: There are some spelling and grammar errors (e.g., "pervious" instead of "previous", "This has become evident as in..."). Reading your work aloud can help you spot awkward phrasing and improve the clarity of your sentences.

Candidate 4203

Word Count: ~229 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

Considering both sides of the argument I tend to agree more with Dr. Anjali Sharma due to her reasonable, valid points. This is because (As) says a statement that I personally agree with: "Devolved governments have been able to create policies tailored to their specific needs". I agree because the government wouldn't be able to achieve this under a centralised system. Meaning a devolved government is effective. I also agree when she says "The Scottish Parliament's decision to abolish university tuition fees for Scottish students is a policy that reflects the distinct policy priorities of it's electorate. This is because this helps students who are struggling with money, not worry much about fees. The extent to which powers are devolved reflects the strength of referendum vote. Lastly I agree with her when she says "making the union stronger and more adaptable for the 21st century". This is because devolution could really help the UK in the future as it strengthens the union. Although I partially agree with Michael Davies to some extent. A local Parliament or national assembly can better represent the need of their citizens and each country will have a measure of self-governing within the UK. I agree with (MD) when he states "Devolution has become a stepping-stone towards seperation not a solution to it." This is because some solutions aren't solved by a devolved government.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have built a clearly structured answer, using evidence from the sources to form a judgement. However, your analysis is unbalanced, with a much stronger focus on Dr. Sharma's views. To improve, you must give equal weight to the counter-argument and deepen your evaluation beyond simple agreement. Instead of just stating a point is effective, explain the wider consequences and implications of it, using specific real-world examples to substantiate your claims.

Developing Evaluation: Your weakest evaluation was on Michael Davies' point. Instead of "some solutions aren't solved", you could write: "I agree with Michael Davies that devolution can be a 'stepping-stone towards separation'. For example, the Scottish National Party (SNP) has used its devolved power to consistently campaign for a second independence referendum, arguing that Brexit has fundamentally changed the UK. This shows how a devolved parliament can become a platform to promote separation, directly challenging the unity of the UK."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start your answer with a clear and direct judgement, stating which writer you agree with most. This gives your essay a strong focus from the beginning.
Evidence-Based Points: You effectively select direct quotes from both sources to support your arguments. This shows you have understood the key points made by each writer.

Targets

Develop Your Evaluation: Instead of just stating you agree and rephrasing the point (e.g. "it strengthens the union"), explain *how* or *why* it is a strong argument. What are the consequences? This is the difference between stating and substantiating.
Balance Your Analysis: Your analysis of Dr. Sharma's view is much more detailed than your analysis of Michael Davies'. Give equal attention to the counter-argument. Explain *how* devolution could be a 'stepping-stone to separation', perhaps by mentioning the rise of nationalist parties like the SNP.
Avoid Vague Statements: The phrase "some solutions aren't solved by a devolved government" is too vague to earn marks. Be specific. What kind of problems might devolution fail to solve, or even create? For example, issues of national security or economic inequality between the devolved nations.
Proofread for Precision: Pay close attention to grammar and spelling. For instance, use 'its' for possession (e.g., 'its electorate') and 'it's' for 'it is'. Also, check the spelling of key terms like 'separation'.

Candidate 4229

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 5/12

Whether devolution has been a success for the UK is a good debate. For example Dr Anjali Sayr devolution strengthening has united the kingdom by making it flexible. The strength with this argument is that clear that the advantages of devolution. It rank how devolution in the UK is different of powers from central government of Westminster to national level and other point is that each country will have a measure of self-government within the UK. Which is also the problem with this argument is that it failed to point although devolution has taken place in the UK parliament votes on the following reserved matters for the following of the UK as well as devolved issues for England. For example the constitution, foreign affairs, financial/economics, defence and civil services. In Michael Davies says the system is fundamentally unfair to England the strength with this argument is that because there votes for English law Parliament does devolution a process was intended to ensure that legislation was more only England is approved by a majority of MPs representing English constituencies. This is a strong argument although devolution has benefit the UK but it England as is the main house of power. The flaw with argument that devolution creates a sense of equally of all countries in the UK for example the scots was a long history of independence and high local support for devolution. etc. Final in my conclusion I think that the two writers perspective have a solid and deep understanding of devolution but I agree with Dr Anjali Sharm more than Michael Davies as his point and are more valid than the other. For example Dr point out that devolved governments have been able to create policies tailored to their specific needs which is much -

Quality of EvaluationPromising. You have made a good attempt to engage with both writers' perspectives and have correctly identified their core arguments. You also offer a clear judgement in your conclusion. However, your analysis is often unclear due to grammatical errors, which makes it difficult to follow your reasoning, particularly when explaining Michael Davies' viewpoint. To improve, you need to focus on structuring your points more clearly and fully substantiating your final judgement with specific evidence from the sources.

Developing an Argument: "Michael Davies argues the system is unfair to England. This is because MPs from Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland can vote on laws that only affect England, while English MPs cannot vote on devolved matters. This issue is often called the 'West Lothian Question'."

Strengths

Identifies Core Arguments: You successfully identify the main point of each writer – Sharma's view that devolution is a flexible success and Davies' view that it's unfair to England.
Attempts Direct Evaluation: You try to evaluate the arguments directly, for example, by correctly pointing out that Sharma's argument doesn't fully account for 'reserved matters' that Westminster still controls. This is a high-level skill.

Targets

Clarify Your Explanations: Your sentences are often long and grammatically confusing, which hides your meaning. Try using shorter, simpler sentences to explain each point clearly. For example, when explaining Davies' argument, break it down step-by-step.
Substantiate Your Judgement: In your conclusion, you state you agree more with Sharma because her points are "more valid." You need to explain *why* they are more valid. Use a specific example from the source (e.g., tailored policies for local needs) and explain why this outweighs Davies' concern about fairness to England.
Develop Your Points Fully: Your final sentence is incomplete. Always re-read your work to ensure every point is finished and makes sense. A well-developed point will always score more marks than an unfinished one.
Use Key Terminology Correctly: You mention "reserved matters" which is great. Try to also incorporate other key terms like the 'West Lothian Question' when discussing the fairness to England, as this would make your analysis of Davies' view much stronger.

Candidate 4238

Word Count: ~300 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

Although both sides make great points, I lean slightly more to Dr Sharma. This is because she makes valid arguments such as devolution makes the UK more flexible and responsive to the ever-changing world and also how devolution allows for better decisions on more local issues. This is a valid argument because when power is concentrated into the central government local issues are not prioritised as decisions regarding any other bigger issues are prioritised. Something that she forgets to mention is how devolution can lead to a unstable political system. This is because it may mean that government may not align with the votes in Westminster, allowing for laws-making in the UK this in turn makes laws in some areas unclear which may lead to public confusion. On the other hand, Michael makes also makes valid points of why devolution hasn't been a success for the UK. Such as how a citizens rights and what laws apply to them vary depending on where in the UK they live and also how for example MPs from Scotland can vote on issues in England but not vice versa, which leads to problems for people who live in England as their problems on a local level are not recognised by MPs in the Scottish Parliament. Another issue with devolution is Parliaments' as Scotland's making changes that put more pressure on the economic centre of the UK, England. For example Scotland choosing to make university tuition fees non existent pressures England to cover those fees as they are not being payed for by the Scottish Parliament. This can lead to social unrest within England as tax prices may rise because of this. In conclusion both sides make great points but I lean towards Dr Sharma's as it betters the UK and its constituents more

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 3 response. You have a clear structure, you address both sides of the argument, and you make a consistent judgement. You move beyond simply listing points from the source and attempt to analyse them. To reach the higher levels, your analysis needs to be more precise and your arguments need to be developed with more depth and accuracy.

Precision: Your point on tuition fees was a little inaccurate. A more precise way to phrase it would be: "For example, when the Scottish Parliament abolished university tuition fees, it created a significant policy difference with England. This can lead to claims of unfairness, as all UK taxpayers contribute to the block grant Scotland receives, which it then uses to fund such policies."

Strengths

Clear Structure & Judgement: Your answer is well-organised with an introduction, balanced paragraphs, and a conclusion. Your overall judgement is stated clearly at the start and finish, which gives your writing a strong sense of direction.
Balanced Argument: You successfully identified and explained key arguments from both Dr. Sharma and Michael Davies. This shows you have a good understanding of the different viewpoints presented in the source material.
Developing Analysis: You consistently try to explain *why* a point is valid or what its consequences are (e.g., "local issues are not prioritised"). This is the foundation of high-level evaluation.

Targets

Precision in Explanation: Some of your analysis, particularly regarding the West Lothian Question and Scottish tuition fees, was slightly inaccurate. Focus on explaining complex political issues with greater precision. Always double-check the exact cause and effect you are describing.
Develop 'Mini-Conclusions': You make good evaluative comments throughout (e.g., "...which may lead to public confusion"). To elevate this, add another sentence to explain the impact. For instance, try adding "This is significant because..." to elaborate on the consequences.
Substantiate Final Judgements: Your conclusion is clear but asserted. To make it stronger, substantiate it by briefly summarising the single most important reason from your analysis. For example: "...I lean towards Dr Sharma because the long-term benefit of responsive local decision-making outweighs the inconsistencies in policy it creates."
Refine Sentence Structure: Some sentences are long and grammatically complex, which makes them slightly unclear (e.g., "...allowing for laws-making in the UK this in turn makes laws..."). Read your work aloud to catch awkward phrasing and try splitting long ideas into two shorter, clearer sentences.

Candidate 4251

Word Count: ~296 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

Dr. Anjali Sharma (A) agrees with devolution and believes it has been a success for the UK. This is because Dr (A's) argues that issues that casual local issues should be resolved by those directly affected by them. For example when the ban bill of devolution was turned into a law. Scotland tailored to Scotland of their specific needs. This was their decision to abolish university fees which had been for years on end through its electorate. This mean that through the of devolution university fees in Scotland had been abolished resulting in more people who originally could not afford university being able to pursue an education. Ultimately causing a surge in people in university and an overall increase in the skill-range of the Scottish economy as individuals in Scotland that had no skills in flat sectors of production - leading to high paying jobs that can overall mix in a inclusive tax. This allows Scotland to put more money into other aspects of the economy such as the environment. For example due to Scotland's very North of the UK nature to plays a crucial role in the people's everyday lives. This allowed people in Scotland to start up pressure groups and while also effectively campaigning for the reduction of deforestation and the protection of Appenines which would now be present for the due to the rise in income tax because of the abolishment of university fees that originally stemmed from the creation and promotion of devolution Overall after evaluating and analysing the Strengths and weaknesses of both arguments I partially agree with both points, however after coming to a conclusion I believe Dr Anjali Sharma's point has less flaws and more strengths while also having evidence to back it up. For example how the abolishment of university fees led to a rise in the strength of the Scottish economy due to the multiplication effect -

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have correctly identified Dr. Sharma's argument and used a strong example (Scottish university fees) to explain it. You also attempted to build a chain of reasoning, linking that policy to wider economic benefits, which is a key skill. However, the response is entirely one-sided and does not engage with Michael Davies' argument at all, which prevents you from accessing the higher mark levels. To improve, you must analyse both viewpoints before making a balanced and substantiated judgement.

Substantiated Judgement: Overall, while Dr. Sharma provides a compelling case for the economic benefits of devolution using the Scottish tuition fee example, her argument overlooks the potential for national division that Michael Davies highlights. Therefore, while devolution has been a success in specific policy areas, Davies' concerns suggest it has not been an unqualified success for the UK as a whole.

Strengths

Clear Focus on One Viewpoint: You have understood Dr. Sharma's argument well and selected a key piece of evidence (Scottish university fees) to explore in detail.
Attempted Chain of Reasoning: You tried to link an initial policy change (abolishing fees) to wider economic and social impacts (more skilled workers, more funding for other areas). This is a crucial skill for evaluation.

Targets

Engage with Both Sources: Your answer almost exclusively discusses Dr. Sharma. To achieve a higher mark, you must also analyse Michael Davies' argument, explaining his viewpoint and evidence before you evaluate which is stronger.
Improve Factual Accuracy: The reference to the "Appenines" in Scotland is a significant factual error that undermines your argument. Always double-check specific examples to ensure they are correct and relevant.
Develop Your Evaluation: Your conclusion states a preference but doesn't explain *why* Sharma's argument has "less flaws". A good evaluation directly compares the two arguments, explaining why one's evidence is stronger or one's reasoning is more convincing than the other's.
Enhance Clarity and Precision (SPaG): Some sentences are long and confusing. Focus on writing shorter, clearer sentences to ensure your points are communicated effectively and with precision.

Candidate 4252

Word Count: ~349 words

Has devolution been a success for the UK I agree with Andail Sharma in saying yes devolution has been a success in maintaining peace between county and preventing civil wars. "Strengthing the UK by making it more flexible and responsive to it's diverse sub-nations" he (AS) makes a good point by how stable the UK has become a more stronger country through devolution providing evidence by saying the "welsh assembly was a direct response to the clear will of the people expressed in the 1998 referendum" this statement not only proves the success of devolution but how it helps other country's to demonstrate they have a voice in politics especially regarding their own needs it also shows how well devolution is being executed by the UK. Making it a strong point. On the other hand I dissagree with Michael Davie as he says the experience in northern iland where the assembly has been suspended multiple time's due to political dissagrents, shows that devolution can lead to paralysis and a vacuum of government" the reason this point is weak is because it's factually wrong as devolution isn't to blame for the political dissagrent's but democracy having the ability to freely agree or dissagree isn't because of devolution but democracy in the UK is a democratic country meaning even without devolution the political dissagrent are bound to happen. Making this a weak point. Rather whereas (AS) makes a strong argument in saying "The benefits are clear to see Devolved governments can create policies tailored to their specific needs" she provide a valid piece of evidence to back this statement by saying for example "Scottish parliment's decision to abolish tuition fees" this point is extremly valid due to the it's strong context and evidence it would also disprove (MD) point of saying "devolution leads to paralysis" this would be disproved as devolution is it clearly shown to help build a relationship of trust and handling matters through politics instead of war. In conclusion I agree with (AS) due to her strong point's of how much devolution provides to the UK's current success as well as maintaining positive relationship between countrys compared to (MD) relatively biased veiws and he positives outweigh any potential negatives

Strengths

Clear, consistent judgement: You state your position at the start and return to it in your conclusion, giving your answer a coherent structure throughout.
Use of specific evidence: You quote both writers and use the Scottish tuition fees example effectively to support your argument — this is exactly the kind of evidence that earns marks.
Attempts counter-argument: You engage with Davies and try to explain why his point is weaker, which shows genuine evaluative thinking.

Targets

Develop your rebuttals: When you say Davies is "factually wrong" or "biased," you must explain why using reasoning and evidence — otherwise it reads as assertion rather than evaluation.
Explain your quotes: After every quote, explain what it shows and why it supports your judgement. Don't let quotes speak for themselves.
Sustain comparison: Rather than dealing with each writer separately, try comparing them on the same theme within a paragraph — e.g. both discuss stability, so pit their arguments directly against each other.
Precise terminology: Use subject-specific vocabulary such as "devolved powers," "legislative autonomy," and "constitutional settlement" to demonstrate command of the topic.

Candidate 4304

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Specific Evidence: You used a great, specific example (no tuition fees in Scotland) to support Dr. Sharma's argument for devolution being a success.
Linking to the Source: You did well to connect your evidence back to Dr. Sharma's point about acknowledging "different culture identities". This shows you are thinking analytically.
Clear Judgement: Starting your answer with "I Somewhat Agree" is a good technique in an evaluation question, as it immediately tells the examiner your position.

Targets

Explain Both Sides: Your explanation of Michael Davies' viewpoint was unclear. To improve, you must clearly state the main point of the second writer and use evidence to support it, just as you did for Dr. Sharma.
Proofread for Clarity: Many sentences were difficult to understand due to spelling and grammar errors (e.g., 'weshils', 'referedn', 'sive', 'tchen Fees'). Always leave time to read your work back carefully to correct these, as they can hide your good ideas.
Use P.E.E.L. Structure: To make your points clearer, try using a Point, Evidence, Explain, Link (P.E.E.L.) structure for each paragraph. This will help you build a more developed and coherent argument.
Define Key Terms: Show the examiner you understand the topic by clearly defining 'devolution' at the start of your answer (the transfer of power from a central government to regional governments).

Candidate 4344

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 4/12

I Somewhat Agree with Dr. Anjali She us As She belive because devolution it had lead to democratic Success As it strensthins the UK as Also Scottish and weshils both use referedn to allow there sevices more Power e.g In Flance this is know as devote Power two explcin of this Power is Scottish have there onh of opion to vote explcin is enviroment and eccnes Chense In Ch citson Socess this sive more Freeden to oth Scottish as those People vote For Lot that onls effecs Scottish People & one explcin of Scottish Law is that in Scottish People set no tchen Fees. this cnls a lon the cseot Scotland this there strensin Dr. Anjali Shehas Point that devolution is success and help Acknowledge then different culture identities however micheal I-S michal davies Crstin Sc Point of devotment devolution as devolution does sive men Freeden to ut even thoun Dr(AJS) Sas it allowed diverted there still Achien with devolution as Pronble with dters devolution is so sercilos Power of counis bu Fer this issue Canles still

Quality of EvaluationUndeveloped. Your evaluation begins with a clear judgement and you support one side of the argument with a relevant, specific example (Scottish tuition fees). This shows some understanding of the topic. However, your analysis of the counter-argument from Michael Davies is unclear and does not explain his perspective. This lack of balance prevents you from developing a sustained evaluation and limits your mark. To improve, you must clearly explain both viewpoints before weighing them against each other.

Structuring Evaluation: "On the other hand, Michael Davies would argue that devolution creates damaging divisions. However, his argument is weak because examples like Scotland having no tuition fees actually strengthen the UK. As Dr. Sharma suggests, this acknowledges Scotland's unique identity within the UK, rather than breaking the country apart."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You started your answer with a clear judgement ("I Somewhat Agree"), which is a key requirement for an evaluation question.
Use of Evidence: You included a specific and relevant piece of evidence to support Dr. Sharma's view – the fact that Scottish students do not pay university tuition fees.

Targets

Explain Both Sides: You need to clearly explain the main argument from *both* writers before you evaluate them. Your explanation of Michael Davies' view was not clear enough for the examiner to follow.
Develop Your Evaluation: Instead of just agreeing with one side, try to use one writer's argument to challenge the other's. For example: "While Davies argues X, Sharma's point about Y shows that this is not a significant problem because..." This creates a 'debate' in your answer.
Structure with P.E.E.L: Use the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link structure for your paragraphs. This will help you to develop your arguments logically and ensure they are well-supported and easy to follow.
Proofread for Clarity: The high number of spelling and grammar errors makes your argument very difficult to understand. Reading your work aloud before finishing can help you catch mistakes in sentence structure and spelling.

Candidate 60928

Word Count: ~415 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

Considering both sides of the argument, I lean more towards Dr Anjali Sharma's side as she agrees that Devolution has been a success for the UK. And I agree with her. Firstly lets start by stating what devolution is - it's the extent to which powers are devolved that reflect the strengths of referendum votes across all nations. And the Nowlett talk about the arguments for devolution these are, that the welsh parliment or national assembly can represent the needs of their citizens. Therefore Dr Anjali also states that the benefits of Devolution in the UK are clear to see which present trend and its advantages towards this. Three advantages and points which would back Anjali's argument would be that of a mature and sensible finding word that acknowledges and respects National identity, making the union stronger and more people compared to the 21st Century. Thus furthermore A person who disagrees with her would be Michael Davies who says he and doesn't believe that Devolution has been a success in the UK. He believes that there are disadvantages to this he believes that devolution has created a deeply divided and unstable political system and compare to what it should be doing which is satisfying national demands. Another disadvantage would be that it became a driving force towards separation not solving. Although both arguments are convincing and interesting contrasting, Dr Anjali has a stronger and valid argument as she states that Devolution devolved governments have been able to create policies tailored to their specific needs which would've been impossible under a centralised system. An example would be the Scottish parliaments decision to abolish university tuition fees for Scottish students is amazing! I agree with her to an extent due to her having valid points and facts from her decisions and beliefs. However Michael who has strong and bold points when he states that the system is fundamentally unfair on England and which I cannot agree on but he also states that the experience in Northern Ireland, where an Assembly has been suspended multiple times due to political disputes - but does not mention can lead to a vaccine of violence as previously. Overall Michael Davies he thinks was too is not a positive statement overall. Overall I agree and lean more towards Anjali Anjali as she states there are benefits and that devolution that has been a profound democratic success which is a big advantage she backs her point this which makes it a valid argument.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid response that clearly understands the two opposing viewpoints on devolution. You make a consistent judgement and support it with evidence from the source and, crucially, with your own excellent example about Scottish tuition fees. However, your evaluation is unsustained because the analysis of Michael Davies's arguments is less developed, and you sometimes dismiss his points without explaining why. Several sentences are grammatically awkward or unclear, which holds back the overall quality of your analysis.

Sustained Evaluation: A stronger evaluative sentence could be: "Ultimately, while Michael Davies's concern about political instability in Northern Ireland is valid, his argument is less convincing because it overlooks the profound democratic success, such as policies tailored to local needs like free university tuition in Scotland, that devolution has delivered."

Strengths

Use of Specific Knowledge: Your example of the Scottish Parliament abolishing tuition fees was excellent. It's a precise, relevant piece of own knowledge used to effectively substantiate Dr. Sharma's argument.
Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the start and maintain this position throughout the answer, creating a consistent argument.
Evidence Selection: You have successfully identified and used relevant points from both writers to build your arguments for and against the success of devolution.

Targets

Develop Counter-Argument Analysis: When you disagree with a point (e.g., Davies's view on England), you must explain *why*. Analyse the opposing view in more detail before dismissing it to show a deeper, more balanced evaluation.
Clarity of Expression (Proofreading): Some sentences were confusing or grammatically incorrect (e.g., "vaccine of violence", "mature and sensible finding word"). Always re-read your work to check it makes sense and communicates your ideas precisely. This is called proofreading.
Define Key Terms Accurately: Your definition of 'devolution' was not precise. For top marks, you must demonstrate a clear understanding of core concepts. Create a glossary for key terms like Devolution, Sovereignty, and Federalism.
Sustain Your Evaluation: Instead of just stating your judgement at the beginning and end, try to weave it throughout your answer. Use comparative phrases like "While Davies's point has some merit, Sharma's is ultimately more persuasive because..." to create a constantly evaluative tone.

Candidate 61028

Word Count: ~195 words

Evaluation Score: 5/12

At a certain extent I agree with Michael davies because as a result of devolution Many negative changes have appeared within a result. A lot of issues occured within the UK government ever since Brexit occured on 2016. After the UK left the EU. A lot has happened. It's hypocritical how Scotland can vote laws that apply only for england which is quite odd. It's unfair if a citizen's basic rights are tossed around all because of what part you in the UK. However english MPs can't have a say or do anything on Scottish whatsoever. Devolution is not an effective or profitable way of running the UK whatsoever. To a strong extent I disagree with Anjali, because how does it theoretically make sense when the Scottish gov can vote for english laws but England cannot? Most Assemblys have not been stabilised due to political disagreements and verbal conflicts. Governments have not always been able to create such policies tailored to specific needs whatsoever. This makes devolution quite unreliable majority of the time. It is not so suitable as she explains it does not promise peace. So much conflicts have actually broken down ever since.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have a clear structure and make direct judgements on both viewpoints. You also identify a key argument against devolution – the 'West Lothian Question'. However, your evaluation is placed in Level 2 because it lacks breadth, repeating the same point in both paragraphs. Your arguments also need to be substantiated with more specific, relevant evidence, and you should avoid inaccuracies like linking devolution's problems primarily to Brexit.

Substantiating a Point: Instead of "A lot of issues occured within the UK government ever since Brexit", a more accurate and substantiated point would be: "For example, devolution has been criticised for fuelling constitutional crises, such as the repeated calls for a second Scottish independence referendum, which creates ongoing instability for the UK government."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have structured your answer well, addressing each writer in a separate paragraph and stating your agreement or disagreement directly.
Use of a Key Concept: You correctly identify and use a key argument against devolution – the 'West Lothian Question' (Scottish MPs voting on English-only laws) – to support your points.

Targets

Develop Breadth of Argument: Your answer relies heavily on repeating the 'West Lothian Question'. To improve, introduce a wider range of arguments. For example, discuss the economic impacts, the creation of policies tailored to local needs (a 'pro'), or the collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly (a 'con').
Substantiate with Specific Evidence: Your points need more specific, named examples. Instead of "political disagreements", mention the suspension of the Stormont Assembly. Instead of "so much conflicts", refer to the Scottish independence referendums.
Maintain Relevance and Accuracy: Be careful to link your points directly to devolution. Your reference to Brexit in 2016 is not directly relevant, as devolution began in the late 1990s. Focus on events that are a direct consequence of devolved power.
Refine Terminology: Use more precise academic language. Instead of 'quite odd' or 'tossed around', use terms like 'asymmetrical', 'constitutional anomaly', or 'inconsistent application of rights'.

Candidate 72189

Word Count: ~334 words

Although both writers raise great points I tend to agree more with Michael Davies. This is because Michael Davies says "the system is also fundamentally unfair to England". This is a strong point because I know that the Barnett formula causes the devolved countries who are not as economically stable and functional will recieve more money than a country that is more economically powerful. This is a problem and a reason why I agree with Michael Davies view because devolution is less effective for bigger countries as they are not receiving as much economic support as other countries. Another reason why I agree with Michael Davies is because he says "MPs from Scotland can vote on laws that only apply to England" This is a great point because the writer is saying that devolution can often undermine the sovergnity of a countries parliament whereas English MPs have no say on the matters in Scotland which also undermines the democratic values of the UK as people from other countries are allowed to have a say on what happens in their country. This could lead to the destabilisation of the United Kingdom as Scottish Parliament are able to dominate and destabilise UK policies. Dr Anjali Sharma also raises a good argument that devolution is helpful to the UK when she says "Scottish Parliaments decision to abolish university tuition fees for Scottish students is a policy that better reflects the distinct properties of its electorate" This is a strong argument because the introduction of devolved governments allows countries to make matters such as education cheaper and more accessible. However a weakness to this point is that this does not happen in all countries in the UK due to money not being shared evenly through devolved powers. Adding onto this Dr Anjali argues that the UK has become more flexible but by becoming more flexible it has become less democratic. In conclusion I agree with Michael Davies because devolution does not have a positive affect for all countries.

Strengths

Application of Own Knowledge: Your reference to the Barnett formula and the concept of the 'West Lothian Question' adds significant depth and demonstrates excellent understanding beyond the source material.
Effective Use of Evidence: You skilfully select direct quotes from both writers to support your points and build your argument.
Clear Structure: Your argument is easy to follow, with a clear introduction, paragraphs dedicated to each viewpoint, and a conclusion.

Targets

Develop Balanced Analysis: Your analysis of Dr. Sharma's view is much shorter than your analysis of Michael Davies'. Try to give equal weight to both sides of the argument, exploring the strengths of the counter-argument in more detail before you critique it.
Avoid Assertions: The line "This could lead to the destabilisation of the United Kingdom..." is a powerful claim but is presented without explanation. Always explain *how* or *why* something would happen to turn an assertion into a developed point.
Strengthen the Conclusion: Your conclusion should be a summary of the arguments you have made. Instead of just restating your opinion, briefly weigh up the two views again (e.g., "Whilst Sharma's point is valid, Davies' argument is more significant because...").
Define Key Terms: While you clearly understand concepts like sovereignty, explicitly defining what you mean by a term like 'democratic values' can strengthen your argument and show the examiner your precise understanding.

Candidate 7289

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Effective Use of Evidence: You have successfully selected direct quotes from Michael Davies' text ("fundamentally unfair to England") to build your argument upon.
Application of Own Knowledge: You have applied relevant own knowledge, such as the Barnett Formula and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, to explain the evidence and add depth to your analysis.

Targets

Engage with Both Sides: Your answer almost exclusively focuses on Michael Davies. To improve, you must also analyse the arguments made by Dr. Anjali Sharma and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of her viewpoint.
Develop a Balanced Judgement: A top-level answer weighs the two arguments against each other. Try using comparative phrases like "On the other hand...", "While Sharma argues X, Davies counters with Y...", or "Although Davies makes a strong point about..., Sharma's view is more convincing because...".
Use Specific Terminology: You correctly identified the issue of Scottish MPs voting on English laws. The specific term for this is the 'West Lothian Question'. Using precise terminology like this can strengthen your analysis and demonstrate expert knowledge.
Structure for Comparison: A clear structure helps create a balanced answer. For example: briefly introduce both views, analyse Writer A's points, analyse Writer B's points, and then write a conclusion that compares them to reach an overall judgement.

Candidate 81097

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly and confidently at the beginning and end of your response.
Use of Evidence: You have used a specific and relevant example (the abolition of Scottish university tuition fees) to effectively support your main argument.

Targets

Engage with Both Sides: Your top priority is to analyse arguments both for AND against devolution. To evaluate, you must show the examiner you understand the whole debate, not just one side.
Develop All Points: The point you made about "government stability" was asserted without evidence. Every claim you make should be explained and backed up, just as you did with the tuition fees example.
Use Comparative Language: To evaluate effectively, use phrases that compare the arguments, such as "On the other hand...", "A more significant argument is...", or "While Writer A's point is valid, it overlooks...".
Maintain a Formal Register: Avoid informal phrases like "in this essay I'll tell you why." Aim for a more academic tone throughout your writing.

Candidate 86091

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 3/12

I fully agree with Anjali Sharma (AS) due to her correct analogy on devolved governments, and how it's advantages, consequences and overall democracy. For example 'AS' explains how "Devolution has been a profound democratic success, strengthening the United Kingdom by making it more flexible and responsive to its diverse nations". Showing proving how devolution is improving showing and its uses of benefitting the country. Another example of how 'AS' is cultivating that devolution is being used successful in the UK is by showing how other countries without devolution differ from the UK. For example 'AS' says "The benefits are clear to see. Devolved governments have been able to create policies tailored to their specific needs, which would have been impossible under a centralised system". This shows that devolution is successful in the UK as such as devolution is protected and is benefitting the UK by it is being imposed instead of always scrutinising the Parliament.

Quality of EvaluationLimited. Your response shows you can select relevant evidence from one of the sources (Dr. Sharma) to support a viewpoint. However, the entire answer is one-sided and does not consider the counter-arguments from Michael Davies at all. To progress, you must analyse *both* sources and use them to build a balanced evaluation before reaching your final, substantiated judgement. The clarity of your own explanations also needs development.

Substantiating a Point: "This quote proves devolution is a success because it allows policies, like free university tuition in Scotland, to be tailored to local needs, something a single UK Parliament might not have approved."

Strengths

Using Evidence: You effectively select direct quotes from Source A (Dr. Sharma) to support your argument. This is a great foundation.
Making a Judgement: You state your own opinion clearly at the start of your answer ("I fully agree..."), which gives your writing a clear direction.

Targets

Engage with Both Sides: Your answer only discusses Dr. Sharma's view. To get above Level 1, you *must* also analyse Michael Davies' arguments about devolution causing inequality and weakening the UK.
Develop Your Explanation (PEEL): After providing a quote (Evidence), you need to 'Explain' it in your own words. Explain *how* the quote proves your point, rather than just repeating that it does.
Read the Source Carefully: You misinterpreted a key point, suggesting the source compared the UK to other countries. The source was actually comparing a devolved UK to a centralised UK. Accuracy is crucial.
Clarity and Phrasing: Some of your sentences are long and confusing. Try to write shorter, clearer sentences to make your point more effectively.

Candidate 92716

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

I agree with this statement to an extent because after considering both sides of the argument Anjali's Sharma has shown to make the stronger points for example devolution has been a resounding democratic success strengthening the United Kingdom by making it more sturdy and responsive to its diverse nations - this is a good point because the people of Scotland and Wales created this as shown in 1998 Referendums but also it transfers power from London to local areas allowing these issues to be made on what are most essential within that area and not on a wider range scale this makes it a essence of a modern functioning democracy. Even though I agree with Anjali's Sharma, Michael Davies makes a strong point regarding how devolution has created a fractured and unstable political system and how it doesn't satisfy nationalist demands, it has only fueled them, putting the very existence of the Union at constant risk Which I can slightly agree with but however Devolution of governments have allowed for them to create specific policies tailored to their specific needs which would not have been possible under a centralisey system

Quality of EvaluationPromising. You have correctly identified the core arguments from both writers and have offered a clear, reasoned judgement. Your analysis of Dr. Sharma's view is well-supported with a relevant example (the 1998 referendums). However, your consideration of Michael Davies's perspective is much less developed, which makes your overall evaluation feel unbalanced. To reach the top level, you need to analyse both sides with equal depth before making your final, substantiated judgement.

Substantiated Judgement: While Davies's point about fueling nationalism has some merit, as seen in the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum, Sharma's argument is ultimately more convincing. The ability for devolved governments to create policies tailored to their specific needs, such as free university tuition in Scotland, demonstrates a responsive democracy that would be impossible under a centralised system.

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a clear and direct statement of your view ("I agree... Anjali's Sharma has shown to make the stronger points"), which gives your answer a strong focus.
Good Use of Evidence: Referencing the "1998 Referendums" is an excellent use of your own knowledge to substantiate Dr. Sharma's argument about devolution being a democratic success.
Logical Structure: Your answer follows a clear structure: you state your view, explain the argument you agree with, acknowledge the counter-argument, and then conclude by reaffirming your initial judgement.

Targets

Develop Both Sides Equally: Your analysis of Michael Davies's view is very brief. To achieve a more balanced evaluation, you should explore his points in more detail, perhaps by giving an example like the rise of the SNP or the ongoing debates about independence.
Substantiate Judgements Further: Your final evaluation is good, but you could make it much stronger by providing a specific example of a "tailored policy" (e.g., free prescriptions in Wales, free university tuition in Scotland) to prove your point.
Use Formal Language: Avoid informal phrases like "this is a good point because". Instead, use more academic connectives such as "This argument is compelling as..." or "This point is strengthened by...".
Proofread for Accuracy: Ensure you check for small errors. For example, "Anjali's Sharma" should be "Anjali Sharma", and "centralisey" should be "centralised".

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 1251

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 18926

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 20876

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 2251

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4203

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4229

🛑 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 4344

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 60928

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 61028

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 72189

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 7289

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 81097

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 86091

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 92716

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback