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. Unsubstantiated Judgements: The most common weakness was asserting a conclusion without explaining *why* one argument was stronger than the other. Top-level answers must weigh the evidence from both sides to arrive at a justified, rather than a stated, final judgement.
👉 Model: Although Michael Davies raises a valid concern about the 'postcode lottery', Dr. Sharma's argument is ultimately more convincing because the democratic legitimacy gained from tailoring policies to local needs represents a more fundamental success for the UK's political system.
2. Undeveloped Analysis: Many students identified key points from the sources but failed to explain their significance. They described what the writers said but did not analyse *why* it mattered or *how* it related to the success or failure of devolution.
👉 Model: Dr. Sharma argues that devolution makes the UK 'flexible and responsive', which is a key success because it allows for policy innovation; for example, the Welsh Assembly was able to ban smoking in public places before England, demonstrating how devolved bodies can address public health issues more swiftly.
3. Imprecise or Misunderstood Terminology: Students often used key terms like 'Parliamentary Sovereignty' or the 'West Lothian Question' incorrectly, or used vague language instead of specific academic vocabulary. Demonstrating understanding of these terms is crucial.
👉 Model: Michael Davies' argument about a 'democratic deficit' highlights a key failure of devolution, as the West Lothian Question—where Scottish MPs can vote on English-only laws but English MPs cannot vote on devolved Scottish matters—undermines the principle of fair representation at Westminster.
4. Poor Technical Accuracy: A high number of essays were undermined by frequent errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar (e.g., confusing 'it's' and 'its', spelling 'Parliament' incorrectly). These errors disrupt the flow of the argument and damage the overall clarity.
👉 Model: While devolution has its successes, its most significant weakness is the constitutional imbalance it creates; for instance, the persistence of the Barnett formula leads to funding disparities that many in England perceive as unfair.

Teacher Next Steps

1. Conclusion Clinic: Give students two pre-written, balanced paragraphs summarising Sharma's and Davies's views. In pairs, they have 5 minutes to write a single concluding sentence that weighs these two arguments and reaches a justified judgement. Share and compare the best examples, highlighting comparative language ("while X is valid, Y is more significant because...").
2. The 'So What?' Chain: Put a key quote from a source on the board (e.g., Davies' point on the "postcode lottery"). Ask a student to explain what it means. Then ask the next student "So what?". Continue asking "So what?" or "Why does that matter?" to build a collaborative chain of reasoning on the board, demonstrating how to explain the significance and impact of evidence.
3. Keyword Connector: Provide a list of key terms (e.g., Parliamentary Sovereignty, West Lothian Question, Barnett Formula, Asymmetrical Devolution) and a list of jumbled definitions. In pairs, students have 3 minutes to match them. As a class, challenge them to use two of the keywords correctly in a single sentence evaluating devolution.
4. Proofreading Pairs: Provide a short paragraph about devolution riddled with the class's most common errors (e.g., it's/its, there/their, Parliment, arguement, run-on sentences). Students work in pairs for 5 minutes, using a different coloured pen to correct as many errors as possible. Display the corrected version on the board for instant feedback and self-assessment.

Candidate 12906

Word Count: ~339 words

I agree with Anjali Sharma (AS) as they say that devolution rightly transferred power from London to the national level, which is a strong point, as not only does the UK gain power devolved power from Westminster, but England also keeps its parliamentary sovereignty, which means that the England can make it's own laws and other countries have no influence upon it, but they also gain more power as it is devolved from England, providing the UK with an overall more powerful power for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, while also keeping England still powerful. Devolution has also been a success as AS says that the Scottish parliament decided to abolish university tuition fees, which is a strong factual point, but also Wales decided to make prescription medicine free, in order to help ill individuals. This proves that Devolution has been an overall success for the UK, as it not only gave power to the UK as a whole, but also strengthened people's nationality, as they can now make their own decisions for their own country. However, one may agree with Michael Davies (MD) as he also gave a great point of how devolution failed many problems due to how it was introduced when the 13-rank referendum was held, leading to devolution not only being un-well executed in some parts of the UK, but also adding chaos to the UK. This is because, some powers are reserved, while others are devolved, which can lead to confusion throughout the UK. He does however give a weak point, which is that he states that MPs from Scotland can affect English law which is false, due to how England's westminster parliament makes use of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, which guarantees that English law cannot be influenced by other states/countries such as Scotland or Wales, therefore creating a postcode lottery, which means that depending on where you live, you get different benefits and losses depending on where you live. Eg. University tuition fees are non existent in Scotland, or how prescription medication is free in Wales. This is why, overall, I agree with AS as her points are overall stronger and on topic, showing true expertise in her field, even though MD also gives some good points.

Strengths

Clear Structure: Your answer is logically organised. You dedicate separate paragraphs to analysing Writer A and Writer B before providing a final conclusion.
Use of Evidence: You effectively selected specific examples from the source material (e.g., Scottish tuition fees, Welsh prescriptions) to support the points made by both writers.

Targets

Understand Parliamentary Sovereignty: Your understanding of this concept is incorrect. Revise this topic. Parliamentary sovereignty means the UK Parliament at Westminster is the supreme law-making body. It does not prevent MPs from Scotland or Wales voting on English-only matters.
Research the 'West Lothian Question': The point you dismissed as "false" is actually a major constitutional issue called the West Lothian Question. Understanding this will allow you to evaluate arguments about devolution much more effectively.
Substantiate Your Judgement: Your final conclusion is asserted rather than proven. Instead of just saying one writer is "stronger", explain *why*. For example, "Although MD raises valid issues like the postcode lottery, AS's argument is more convincing because the tangible benefits of devolution, such as free prescriptions in Wales, have a greater positive impact on citizens' lives."
Improve Precision and Grammar: Avoid repetitive phrasing like "powerful power". Also, be careful with "it's" (which means "it is") and "its" (which shows possession). For example, "England can make *its* own laws."

Candidate 18720

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Excellent Use of Evidence: You have effectively selected specific examples like Scottish tuition fees and the 'English Question' to support the points made by each writer. This demonstrates strong comprehension skills.
Clear Structure: Your answer is logically organised. You deal with each writer's arguments in separate paragraphs, making your points easy for the examiner to follow and mark.

Targets

Introduce a Judgement: Your top priority is to move from describing the arguments to evaluating them. You need to state which argument you find more persuasive and explain why. A concluding paragraph is the best place for this.
Use Evaluative Language: Instead of just reporting ("Sharma says..."), try using phrases that show you are weighing the arguments. For example: "Sharma presents a compelling case, however...", "Davies's argument is more convincing because...".
Develop a Line of Argument: A top-level answer has its own voice. It should build a case throughout, perhaps by acknowledging a strength in one argument before showing why the other is ultimately stronger, leading to a justified conclusion.
Proofread for Accuracy: Several small spelling and grammar errors ("glexible", "it's" instead of "its", "desicion", "an democratic deficit") slightly disrupt the flow of your writing. A quick proofread can fix these easily.

Candidate 20896

Word Count: ~383 words

Overall, I mainly agree with with Dr Anjali Sharma's point that devolution has been a success. In the UK as it helps unite us as a nation. For example, when Tony Blair was in power in 1998 a referendum for devolution was set out to the people. It was voted into the law through a democratic process directly showing the peoples views and powers on the topic. Devolution gives power to the nations. In the UK rather than England. By decentralising power to the countries these new policies have been put into. For example, Northern Ireland means it so that they no longer have school rankings. This means it so schools can't cherry pick students and not everybody will be applying to one place. This helps their education system run efficiently with them tailoring it to the needs for their individual nations. This devolution is a concept that aims itself to devolved nations in order to make us work better as one body, the united kingdom. This is a good point as not only does it show us how devolved governments have been able to tailor the policies to their specific needs but also it shows how devolution has allowed for different people nations and ideologies to coexist in one state. On the other hand, Michael Davies also raises a good point on how devolution rather than promoting unity rather promotes resentment and separation. For example, devolution has made a fractured political system. Devolution gives devolved powers rather than full sovereignty only gives them a taste for it only pushing nationalists further making them believe their government only listens to them more voters further thoughtfully go through with independence. Also from the very start, devolution is a political system that is outright unfair for Britain. For example, devolved powers has been given decentralised strengths to keep them in the nation. Devolution has been given all Scottish citizens free university tuition. In total over 3 years university tuition is around £30,000 and is a debt that many people carry until retirement. English citizens have no access to any of the perks that devolved powers have. This does not benefit Britain and English resentment. This is a very good point as it highlights how most people don't reap the benefits of devolution and instead all it does is use up tax payer money. It breaks a basic human rights on selfishness. As seen on source two. Also, English mp's can't take part in devolved parliament but devolved mp's like Scottish can can take part in westminster english government. Overall i agree with the first point as it shows us how devolution supports society.

Strengths

Excellent Use of Evidence: You use specific and relevant examples like Scottish university fees, Northern Irish school rankings, and the West Lothian Question to support your arguments effectively.
Clear Understanding of Both Views: You accurately represent the arguments for devolution (unity, tailored policies) and against it (resentment, unfairness), showing you have understood the sources.
Emerging Evaluative Skills: You make clear judgements, such as "This is a very good point as...", and attempt to explain *why* an argument is strong, which is a key skill for top marks.

Targets

Develop Your Conclusion: Your final sentence is too brief. A strong conclusion should briefly summarise the main arguments from both sides before giving your final, reasoned judgement on which view is more convincing and why.
Ensure Balanced Analysis: Your paragraph supporting Dr. Sharma is much more detailed than your first paragraph on Michael Davies' view. Ensure each point you make is fully explained and supported with evidence to create a more balanced and sustained analysis.
Improve Clarity and Precision: Some sentences are long and confusing (e.g., the one about nationalists getting a "taste" for power). Re-read your work to break down complex ideas into shorter, clearer sentences. Avoid vague or confusing claims, like the one about "human rights on selfishness."
Structure with P.E.E.L: To improve the structure of your paragraphs, try using the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link structure. State your point, provide your evidence (like Scottish tuition fees), explain how that evidence supports your point, and link it back to the overall question.

Candidate 21687

Word Count: ~326 words

However on the other hand I can also argue that I agree with Michael Davies (MD) as he has a devolved Government means the UK has to use some of the Governments money raised by taxes and give it to the other nations i.e the UK has the barnett formula, which some could argue if we were a devolved Government we would be able to use that money on our society instead. I further I agree with Michael Davis as he com slashes to united kingdom, devolution has created a deeply divided and unstable political system. Furthermore he explained in Northern Island, where the assembly has been suspended multiple times due to political disputes. shows that devolution can lead to plenty of a vacuum of governance, this also suggest that Devolution doesn't acknowledge that its parts matter less nor does it make the union stronger and more adaptable for the 21st century as the current system is a recipe for perpetual conflict and constitutional chaos, not a stable settlement. Whilst both sides have an outstanding set of arguments, one reason why I would further agree with Dr. Andal Sharma (AS) as he explains how devolution has been a profound democratic success, strengthening the United Kingdom by making it more flexible and responsive to its diverse nations. This shows to be factually as the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly was a direct response to the 'will of the people', expressed in the 1998 referendums. I further agree as devolution has allowed the UK to have a much more diverse range of opinions in our system as the justice system in Wales and England involves the voice of a range of Police and Justice and magistrates and local representatives. By doing so this has been armed by providing education in schools and in the community. By allowing the devolved governments have been able to create policies tailored to their specific needs, for an example, the Scottish Parliament banned smoking in public places before the rest of the UK. This reflects the distinct priorities of its electorate. In addition a devolved Government has modernised the UK's justice system at an increased pace of magistrates and legal representatives.

Strengths

Effective Use of Evidence: You use specific, relevant examples (Barnett Formula, NI Assembly, Scottish smoking ban) to support the arguments from both sources effectively.
Clear Judgement: You make a clear and explicit decision on which view you find more convincing ("I would further agree with Dr. Andal Sharma"), which is essential for a high-level evaluation.
Balanced Structure: You dedicate a paragraph to each viewpoint, creating a balanced and easy-to-follow argument before reaching your conclusion.

Targets

Develop Your Points with Accuracy: Some of your points, particularly about the justice system, are unclear and not fully explained or factually accurate. Ensure every point you make is clearly linked to your main argument and checked for accuracy.
Refine Sentence Structure: Some sentences are long and grammatically complex, which can confuse your meaning (e.g., "he com slashes to united kingdom..."). Read your work aloud to check for clarity and flow.
Define Key Terms: While you use terms like the 'Barnett Formula' and 'vacuum of governance', briefly explaining what they mean in your own words would demonstrate deeper understanding and strengthen your analysis.
Strengthen Your Conclusion: Your judgement is clear, but it could be more powerful. In your final paragraph, explicitly weigh the evidence against each other (e.g., "While the instability in Northern Ireland is a serious concern, the democratic legitimacy from referendums represents a more fundamental success...").

Candidate 21769

Word Count: ~312 words

Strengths

Clear Structure and Judgement: Your essay has a clear introduction and conclusion, and you maintain a consistent line of argument throughout, siding with Dr. Sharma. This makes your reasoning easy to follow.
Effective Use of Sources: You consistently select relevant quotes and arguments from both Dr. Sharma and Mr. Davies to build your points and create a balanced discussion.

Targets

Substantiate Your Judgements: When you claim a point is "not a strong one," you must explain *why* with specific reasoning or evidence. For example, you needed to explain your thinking for dismissing the West Lothian Question.
Develop Analysis with Specific Knowledge: You mention the "peace process." To improve, link this directly to a specific example, such as the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, explaining how devolution was a key part of that historic settlement.
Use Formal Language: Avoid overly casual phrases like "a large debate" or "not a good point." Use more precise, academic language such as "a significant and ongoing debate" or "this argument is unconvincing because...".
Engage Fairly with Counter-Arguments: Instead of simply dismissing a counter-argument (like MD's point on differing rights), try to explore its validity first. Acknowledge why someone might hold that view before explaining why you disagree to create a more sophisticated evaluation.

Candidate 21770

Word Count: ~265 words

Strengths

Effective Use of Evidence: You selected excellent, specific examples (Scottish tuition fees, 2014 referendum) to support the arguments from both sources. This makes your points credible and clear.
Developed Analysis: Your first paragraph shows strong analytical skills. You didn't just state the example; you explained its impact on individuals and then developed it further to show the positive consequences for society as a whole (e.g., more tax).

Targets

Substantiate Your Judgement: Your conclusion was a brief, asserted statement. A top-level conclusion should briefly summarise the two sides and explain *why* one argument is more convincing than the other, weighing them against each other.
Balance Your Analysis: Your argument supporting Sharma was detailed and developed, but your analysis of Davies's view was shorter and less explored. Aim to give equal depth to both sides to create a more balanced answer.
Avoid Contradictions: Your conclusion stated devolution makes the UK "more united," but your second paragraph used the independence referendum to argue it shows a "lacking unity." Ensure your final judgement is consistent with the arguments you have made.
Proofread for Precision: Small spelling and grammar errors like "alowed," "Parliment," "fee's," and "know longer" can interrupt the flow of your argument. A quick check before finishing can make your work look more polished.

Candidate 28160

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Challenging the Sources: You did an excellent job of not just summarising the sources, but actively questioning them. Pointing out that MD didn't explain the 'English Question' and that AS ignored the independence referendum shows strong critical thinking.
Using Own Knowledge: Your use of the Scottish independence referendum and its link to Brexit to counter AS's argument was very effective. This demonstrates the ability to bring in relevant external information to support your evaluation.

Targets

Develop a Coherent Conclusion: Your final judgement must be logical and clearly follow from the points you've made. Avoid contradicting yourself, for example, by siding with a writer because their argument was "confusing". Your conclusion should summarise who is more convincing and why.
Add Depth to Your Analysis: To reach the higher levels, explain your points in more detail. For instance, *why* does the unresolved "English Question" make devolution a failure for the UK? Explain the link between the new powers for Scotland and the rise in demand for independence more explicitly.
Use Evaluative Language: While you start to do this, try to use more consistent evaluative phrases. For example: "This is a persuasive argument because...", "However, this viewpoint is weakened by the fact that...", "Ultimately, Writer B provides the more compelling case as...".
Proofread for Clarity and Accuracy: Your final sentence was confusing and seemed to mistakenly credit MD with mentioning the Scottish referendum, when that was your own point against AS. Rereading your work helps catch these errors and ensures your argument is clear.

Candidate 4280

Word Count: ~376 words

Whether devolution has been a success or not has many complex arguments. For example devolution means countries are able to make policies which apply to themselves however this may lead to inequality.

On the one hand Anjali Sharma (A.S) believes that devolution make the UK more 'Flexible and responsive to its diverse nations'. This is credible as each nation will have their own identity and opinion on how things should be run. By introducing devolution where power is transferred from Westminster to nations with devolved powers ensure countries make policy which apply to them. For example the Scottish parliament decided to 'abolish university fees' while Wales have free prescriptions and careh-omes. A.S believes this is essential for building stability however what they've forgotten to mention is the outdated barnett formula which causes inequality. This is because it determines how much each devolved power gets and leads to your quality of life depending on where you live which is unstable.

On the other hand Micheal Davies (M.D) disagrees that devolution has been a success. This is because if there are many diff-erent parliaments it leads to disagree-ments and further conflict making the UK unstable. This also relates to the 'English Quest-ion.' as MPs from Scotland are able to atte-nd English parliament but English members can't attend Scottish parliament. However what M.D has forgotten to mention is that the most important things (reserved powers) are only decided by the Westminster. For example defence, immigration this is because it effects everyb-ody whilst devolved powers only affect the nation itself and encourages regional repres-entation. A.S opposes M.D views by arguing that devolution makes the union stronger and more adaptable. This is credible as in 2014 there was a Scottish referendum on whether Scotland should leave the UK however beca-use of devolution it has brought our nati-ons closer together. However what hasn't been mentioned is that West Ireland and Northern Ireland have opposing views so devolution might make matters worse.

In conclusion I agree more with M.D as it makes things slower, unstable and unequal due to the barnett formula which hasn't been updated as well as the west lothian question. However A.S makes some valid points by how it encourages regional representation and makes sure power isn't concentrated but shared.

Strengths

Strong Evaluation: You consistently challenge the source views with your own knowledge, such as introducing the Barnett Formula and the concept of reserved powers. This shows excellent critical thinking.
Effective Use of Evidence: You skilfully use specific examples like Scottish tuition fees, Welsh prescriptions, and the 2014 referendum to support and analyse the arguments.
Clear Structure: Your answer is logically structured, dealing with each writer in turn before reaching a balanced and well-supported conclusion.

Targets

Develop Evaluative Points: Some of your excellent evaluative points, like the one on Northern Ireland, are a little brief. Try to add one more sentence of explanation to show the full impact of your point.
Use Precise Terminology: You refer to the 'English Question'. The specific term for the issue of Scottish MPs voting on English-only laws is the 'West Lothian Question'. Using precise key terms will strengthen your analysis.
Refine Phrasing: Phrases like "what they've forgotten to mention" are a bit informal. Try more academic phrasing, such as "However, Sharma's argument overlooks..." or "This view is limited because it fails to consider...".
Check for Minor Errors: There are a few minor spelling/grammar errors (e.g., 'careh-omes', 'effects' instead of 'affects', 'West Ireland'). Proofreading carefully can elevate the overall quality of your work.

Candidate 4386

Word Count: ~119 words

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You effectively explain the core arguments of both Writer A (Sharma) and Writer B (Davies), showing a clear understanding of the two opposing viewpoints.
Use of Evidence: You accurately reference key ideas from the source, such as Sharma's focus on stability and Davies' use of the 2014 Scottish Referendum as an example.
Emerging Evaluation: You use good evaluative phrases like "safety valve" and "stepping stone" to begin analysing the arguments rather than just describing them.

Targets

Develop a Concluding Judgement: Your answer explains both sides but doesn't conclude by stating which view is more convincing and why. End your response with a clear, final judgement that weighs the two arguments against each other.
Substantiate Your Points: To "substantiate" means to provide evidence or further reasoning for your claims. When you make a judgement (e.g., "making the union stronger"), try to add a "because..." or "as shown by..." to support it with specific knowledge or logic.
Increase Depth and Breadth: Your analysis is good but brief. To add depth, directly compare the two views (e.g., "While Sharma sees X, Davies sees Y..."). To add breadth, bring in a brief piece of your own knowledge, like mentioning the Good Friday Agreement in relation to power-sharing.

Candidate 4404

Word Count: ~84 words

Strengths

Identifies Both Views: You have clearly identified and summarised the core arguments of both Dr. Sharma and Michael Davies. This is the essential first step to a balanced evaluation.
Use of Examples: It's good that you have used real-world examples like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly to support your points about devolution. This shows you can connect the concept to reality.

Targets

Develop Your Judgement: Your evaluation is asserted (e.g. "stable arguement") rather than explained. To improve, you must state *why* an argument is strong or weak, using specific evidence from the source or your own knowledge.
Add an Overall Conclusion: Your answer discusses each writer but doesn't conclude on the overall question: "Has devolution been a success?". End your answer with a clear, justified final judgement that weighs up both sides.
Explain Key Terms: You use terms like 'sovereignty' and 'unstable political system' but don't explain what they mean in this context. Defining key concepts adds depth and shows the examiner your understanding.
Check Spelling and Grammar: Pay close attention to spelling to ensure your work is presented clearly and professionally. For example, the correct spelling is 'argument', not 'arguement'.

Candidate 4434

Word Count: ~309 words

Devolution is when power from a central government gets split into regional governments. The UK is a devolved country, and whether devolution has or hasn't been a success, is a debate for people to debate. I somewhat agree with Dr Anjali Sharma's (A.S.) point, where she says that devolution has been a success. She says that devolution strengthens the UK by making it more flexible to its diverse nations, which I agree with as countries like Wales and Scotland can choose their devolved laws to what is suitable for their community, which can benefit everyone as a whole. Examples of these are Scotland with no university fees and Wales with free healthcare. Devolution has allowed countries to adapt laws to their culture, making it suitable. It ensures fairness with different and varied everyone equal. A.S. also has a strong point where she says 'mature and sensitive arrangement' as it ensures fairness within all. However, I also agree with Michael Davies (M.D.) point, to an extent, where he believes that devolution has not been a success in the UK. I agree where M.D says that devolution has become a 'stepping-stone' towards 'separation' as we are supposed to be a community, but by doing this it separates us. Also, there are reserved powers which are laws that only England can change, such as immigration laws, which just make this system very undemocratic and unfair. I agree where M.D says it has resulted in a 'postcode lottery' which relate to the Barnett Formula, which gives countries power based on its population, which some could argue is a really undemocratic feature of the government. However, M.D has a weak point where he says 'a citizens rights and entitlements depend on where they live' as devolution more adapts laws to what the people need. In conclusion, I agree more with Dr Anjali Sharma, as devolution was made to ensure fairness and let communities adapt to their culture through laws, so in my opinion devolution has been a success to the UK.

Strengths

Clear Structure: Your essay is logically structured, dealing with one writer per paragraph before reaching a justified conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Use of Own Knowledge: You effectively bring in your own knowledge, such as the Barnett Formula and Scottish university fees, to support and explain the points from the source.
Direct Evaluation: You don't just describe the views; you actively evaluate them, for example, by identifying what you see as a 'weak point' in Michael Davies' argument and explaining why.

Targets

Precision with Terminology: Be careful with complex terms. You confused 'reserved powers' (UK-wide issues like immigration) with the issue of MPs from devolved nations voting on English-only laws (the West Lothian Question). Accuracy is key for top marks.
Develop Your Analysis: Push your points further. When you say the Barnett Formula is "undemocratic," explain *why*. For example, mention that it's based on historical spending and population size, not current levels of need, which can disadvantage certain regions.
Refine Sentence Structure: Some sentences are grammatically awkward (e.g., "It ensures fairness with different and varied everyone equal"). Read your work aloud to catch these and ensure your meaning is always clear.

Candidate 4510

Word Count: ~341 words

One one hand, Anjali Sharma (AJ) argues that devolution has been a profound democratic success. He accentuates this point by adding that it has served to 'strengthen' the United Kingdom by making it more flexible and respon-sive to its diverse 'nations'. This is a strong point because it not only makes a statement, but provides evidence to back it up. However, Anjali Sharma neglects to mention that devolution also promotes instability by creating an 'us against them attitude' within the UK. Furthermore, AJ adds that 'the benefits are clear to see' and reinforces this notion by stating 'devolved govern-ments have been able to create policies tailored to their specific needs'. AJ accurately mentions the benefits of having devolved powers within a democracy, which greatly strengthens his argument. However, he ignores the fact that devolution can instead lead to regional and economic disparity and often results in a 'postcode lottery'. For example, it has been recorded that the delivery of certain public services in Wales, such as healthcare, have fallen behind other parts of the UK. This would lead to higher levels of public discontent and promote inequality within the UK, weakening our democracy. On the other hand, Michael Davies (MD) argues that devolution has created a fractured and unstable political system. He reinforces the notion that 'rather than satisfying nationalist demands, it has only fueled them'. Furthermore he provides the case study of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, which shows that devolution can result in instability and destabilise the democ-ratic process. However, he has omitted the idea that devolution can create a more efficient democratic system by allowing countries to tackle national issues. For example, Scotland identified that university tuition fees were a pressing issue so they were completely abolished. In addition, MD accentuates that the infamous 'English Question' remains unanswered. This is significant because it applies limits to England's power and weakens our great power greatly. Ultimately, I agree more with AJ because it allows for increased satisfaction between member nations. However, it can also be argued that its a weakness because it promotes regional inequality.

Strengths

Excellent Use of Own Knowledge: You effectively bring in specific examples like Welsh healthcare and Scottish tuition fees to support and challenge the arguments in the source. This demonstrates excellent breadth.
Integrated Evaluation: You don't just save your judgement for the end. You consistently evaluate the writers' points as you go, for example, by pointing out what Sharma 'neglects to mention'.
Clear Structure: Your answer is well-structured, dedicating a paragraph to each writer before offering a final conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.

Targets

Develop a Conclusive Judgement: Your final paragraph starts with a clear judgement but then weakens it with a contradictory final sentence. Your conclusion should weigh the evidence you've presented and arrive at a firm, well-justified final decision.
Refine Terminology: Avoid vague or overly emotive phrases like "weakens our great power greatly". Aim for precise, academic language. For example, you could say this "diminishes England's political influence within the Union".
Address Writers Formally: When referring to the writers, use their full or last names (Dr. Sharma/Sharma, Davies) rather than initials (AJ, MD). This is a more formal and academic convention.
Grammar and Punctuation: Pay close attention to grammar, particularly the use of apostrophes. For example, "its a weakness" should be "it's a weakness" (meaning 'it is' a weakness).

Candidate 4511

Word Count: ~260 words

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have structured your answer logically, dealing with Anjali Sharma's points first, then Michael Davies' counter-argument, before attempting a final conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Use of Evidence: You effectively select and use specific evidence from the source to support the points you are explaining, such as the 1998 referendums, Scottish tuition fees, and the 2014 independence referendum.
Explaining Both Sides: You show a good understanding of both sides of the argument, giving fair consideration to Michael Davies' viewpoint on nationalism even though you ultimately disagree with him.

Targets

Complete Your Conclusion: Your final sentence is incomplete. Always ensure your conclusion fully explains *why* you have chosen one side over the other, providing a clear, substantiated final judgement.
Develop Your Evaluation: Instead of just stating who you agree with, explain *why* one argument is stronger or more convincing than the other. For example, you could argue that Sharma's point about democratic legitimacy outweighs Davies' point about nationalism because it has delivered tangible policy benefits.
Proofread for Clarity: There are some grammatical errors and awkward phrases (e.g., "to another university tuition fees which reflects Scottish UK's preferences"). Reading your work aloud can help you spot these and improve the overall coherence of your writing.
Introduce Counter-Arguments More Smoothly: You can enhance your signposting by directly linking the counter-argument to the previous point. For example: "While Sharma highlights these democratic benefits, Davies presents a compelling counter-argument, suggesting they have a dangerous side-effect: rising nationalism."

Candidate 4540

Word Count: ~339 words

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have structured your answer well, addressing one view, then the other, before reaching a conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Good Use of Evidence: You have selected relevant quotes from both Dr. Sharma and Michael Davies to support the points you are making on each side of the argument.
Sustained Judgement: You make your own view clear from the start ("I agree with Dr Anjali Sharma") and return to it in your conclusion, creating a consistent argument.

Targets

Develop Your Explanations: After you use a quote, explain *why* it is significant. For example, when you say devolution makes the UK "flexible and responsive," explain *how* it does this (e.g., by allowing different laws on health or education in Scotland vs. England).
Use Precise Terminology: Avoid vague phrases like "help better" or "make more things help". Use specific Citizenship vocabulary like 'asymmetrical devolution', 'legislative power', or 'democratic deficit' to make your points more academic and precise.
Proofread for Clarity: Some sentences contain errors that make them unclear (e.g., "p hemisetic way", "upsteaded the UK", "it has a text on a unfair system of favour"). Reading your work aloud can help you spot these and rephrase them.
Strengthen Your Rebuttal: In your third paragraph, you start to challenge MD's view. To make this stronger, directly link your point back to his argument. For example, "While MD claims devolution is 'divisive', Sharma's point about 'divergent priorities' suggests it is actually a tool for unity."

Candidate 4552

Word Count: ~291 words

Strengths

Effective Use of Evidence: You skillfully integrate quotes from the source (e.g., tuition fees) and your own specific knowledge (e.g., Good Friday Agreement, SNP) to support your arguments.
Balanced Argument: You consistently address both sides of the debate, analysing the views of Dr. Sharma and Michael Davies to create a well-rounded discussion.
Ongoing Evaluation: You make judgements throughout your answer ("I agree with...", "has a good point"), rather than just at the end. This shows you are actively weighing the arguments.

Targets

Strengthen Your Conclusion: Your final sentence was unclear ("more restriction over choices made"). Your conclusion should be a powerful summary of your main points and clearly state your final, justified judgement.
Develop Explanations Further: When you introduce a point like the 'Postcode Lottery', briefly explain *why* this is a significant problem for the UK (e.g., it undermines the principle of equal citizenship). This adds depth to your analysis.
Refine Your Language: Be careful with your choice of words. For example, you meant devolved nations have more 'autonomy' or 'control', not 'restriction'. Also, proofread for small errors like 'there' instead of 'their'.
Define Key Terms: While you use terms like 'Postcode Lottery' and 'centralised government' correctly, a brief definition or explanation can demonstrate a deeper understanding to the examiner.

Candidate 4571

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Structure: Your answer is easy to follow. You address one writer, then the other, and finish with a decisive conclusion.
Direct Use of Source: You effectively select specific arguments from both Michael Davies and Anjali Sharma, showing good engagement with the provided material.
Consistent Judgement: You make a clear judgement at the start and maintain it throughout, leading to a logical and well-supported conclusion.

Targets

Substantiate Your Judgements: Instead of just stating a point is 'strong' or 'unfair', explain *why* in detail. Use the P.E.E.L (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) method to build your paragraphs and justify your evaluation.
Develop Breadth and Depth: Expand on the points you introduce. For example, when you mention devolution puts the "UK at risk", explain *how* by referencing the rise of nationalism or the possibility of a second Scottish independence referendum.
Maintain Analytical Balance: While you can agree more with one writer, your analysis of both sides should be equally detailed. Your evaluation of Anjali Sharma's points was much more superficial than your evaluation of Michael Davies's.
Use Precise Terminology: You correctly used 'English Question'. To improve further, try to incorporate other relevant terms like the 'West Lothian Question' (which you described), 'asymmetrical devolution', or 'democratic deficit'.

Candidate 4581

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Identifying Viewpoints: You have successfully identified the core arguments of both Dr. Sharma (pro-devolution) and Michael Davies (anti-devolution). This is the essential first step for an evaluation question.
Stating a Judgement: Your answer begins with a clear statement of which view you agree with ("I agree with Anjali Sharma..."). This shows you understand the need to form a judgement, not just describe the sources.

Targets

Substantiate Your Judgements: Your evaluation must be supported by evidence or clear reasoning. Making a bold claim like devolution stops "evil regimes" needs to be explained with specific examples to be convincing. Avoid making assertions without support.
Develop Your Analysis: Move beyond just stating what the writers say. Explain *why* a point is strong or weak. For example, when mentioning democracy, you could add an example like "the Scottish Parliament's ability to abolish university tuition fees, a decision different from England's."
Improve Sentence Clarity: Several sentences were difficult to understand due to grammatical errors (e.g., "we are thus become..."). Always proofread your work, perhaps by reading it aloud, to ensure your arguments are expressed clearly and accurately.
Define Key Terms: To demonstrate a deeper understanding, briefly define key concepts. For instance, when first mentioning devolution, you could add a short definition like "(the transfer of power from central to regional government)" to strengthen your response.

Candidate 60179

Word Count: ~301 words

Strengths

Clear Use of Evidence: You effectively select specific examples from the source, such as Scottish tuition fees and the Northern Ireland peace process, to explain Dr. Sharma's viewpoint.
Understanding of the Core Debate: You correctly identify the main arguments for (local responsiveness, tailored policies) and against (political fractures, the 'English Question') devolution.
Direct Judgement: You state your own opinion clearly at the start of your answer, which gives your writing a clear direction and focus.

Targets

Develop Your Evaluation: Instead of just agreeing with one writer and disagreeing with the other, try to weigh their arguments against each other. Explain *why* the benefits of tailored policies (Sharma) are more significant than the problems of the 'English Question' (Davies). Use phrases like "While Davies raises a valid point about..., Sharma's argument is more convincing because..."
Explain, Don't Just Repeat: In a couple of places, you repeat the idea that devolution "transfers power". Try to make each sentence add a new layer of explanation or analysis to build a stronger, more concise argument.
Improve Sentence Structure and Clarity: Your final sentence was grammatically incorrect ("it don't give nothing") and unclear. Always proofread your work to fix errors and ensure your points are easy for the examiner to understand.
Define Key Terms: To show deeper understanding, you could briefly define a key term like 'democratic deficit'. For example: "...this creates a serious democratic deficit, a situation where decisions are made by people who are not directly affected by them, which breeds resentment."

Candidate 6291

Word Count: ~60 words

Strengths

Clear Structure: You use 'However' to effectively set up a direct comparison between two opposing viewpoints, which is a great start to any evaluation.
Evaluative Language: You make a clear judgement by using the phrase "This outweighs...", which shows you are weighing the evidence rather than just describing it.

Targets

Develop Your Points (PEEL): Your points are too brief. For each view, make your Point, provide Evidence from the source (quoting or paraphrasing), Explain its significance, and Link it back to the question.
Substantiate Your Judgement: Your conclusion is asserted. To substantiate it, explain *why* ending the fighting is more important than the current disagreements. Use specific examples like the Good Friday Agreement or the reduction in violence.
Use Specific Terminology: Refer to the writers by name (e.g., "Dr. Sharma argues...") and use more precise terms than "fighting" (e.g., 'The Troubles', sectarian violence) or "disagreements" (e.g., 'political deadlock at Stormont').
Add Breadth: To reach higher levels, you need to consider more than just Northern Ireland. Think about the impact of devolution on Scotland and Wales as well to show a wider range of knowledge.

Candidate 62978

Word Count: ~51 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a clear statement of your opinion ("I would mainly agree with her"), which is a key part of an evaluation question.
Source Identification: You correctly identify one of the writers (Dr. Anjali Sharma) and attempt to engage with her viewpoint.

Targets

Analyse Both Sides: Your answer only discusses Dr. Sharma. To reach the higher levels, you must also analyse Michael Davies' arguments, explaining his points before you evaluate them.
Use Specific Evidence: Phrases like "they help out eachother" are too vague. You need to use specific, real-world examples to support your points. For devolution, this could be a specific law passed in Scotland or a policy from the Welsh Assembly.
Explain, Don't Assert: Instead of just saying the UK is "democratic" or "flexible," explain *how* devolution demonstrates this, using points from the source. Build a chain of reasoning (Point, Evidence, Explain).
Engage with the Question: Ensure your answer is focused on whether *devolution* has been a success, not just general statements about the UK.

Candidate 6879

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the beginning and maintain this focus throughout your answer. This gives your writing a strong sense of direction.
Good Use of Source A: You have effectively selected several different arguments from Dr. Anjali Sharma to build a consistent and well-supported case for your viewpoint.

Targets

Engage with the Counter-Argument: To achieve a balanced evaluation, you must explain the arguments from the source you disagree with (Michael Davies). Summarise his key points first, and then explain why you find Dr. Sharma's arguments more convincing.
Develop Your Explanation (PEEL): You make a Point and use Evidence, but the 'Explain' part needs work. Instead of just saying 'this proves the point', explain *how* and *why* the evidence supports your argument in your own words.
Use Evaluative Language: Move beyond "I agree/disagree". Try using phrases like "Sharma presents a more compelling case because...", "While Davies's point is understandable, it is less convincing when..." to show a higher level of analysis.
Proofread for Precision: Your answer contains some run-on sentences and grammatical errors (e.g., "to people are most affected"). Reading your work aloud can help you spot these and improve clarity.

Candidate 78910

Word Count: ~376 words

The topic of devolution is a very complex topic. In the Prime it has been implemented in the UK as some citizens believe believe it promotes seperation however some argue it optimises for cohesion and independence. Despite the constant tug of war on the real outcomes of devolution, my discretion leads me to side with Anjali Sharma on this topic. Anjali Sharma states that devolution has caused democratic success and a flexible response to diverse nations. It is also stated that it allows decisions on crucial local issues and brings power to a regional/national level. This is a very strong point as it comments on the main aim of devolution. To represent society's specific needs. Devolution allows national government in devolved countries to make policies tailored to the needs of their own citizens which would not be changed based on location. Anjali Sharma's critical comment on this shows her worth understanding on the benefits this places on our democracy which is made to represent its citizens as much as possible. An example of a devolved decision that has benefitted a regional society is Scotland's decision to abolish tuition fees for University which helped a lot of young aspiring adults while not affecting the affordability of devolved and central nations. Anjali Sharma also states that devolution allows different priorities to coexist within one state and also resulted in a stronger and more adaptable union. This is a very strong point as devolution optimises for parliamentary sovereignty in devolved nations while also optimising for governmental cooperation. This means that countries are able to work together to streamline our democratic flexibility while also having devolved powers that allow for priorities based on different areas to still be pursued. Michael Davies however believes that devolution has not been a success for our country and states that it has caused a deeply fractured and unstable political system that puts our Union at constant risk however this incomplete point fails to consider that devolution does not transfer all powers from central government to devolved countries but it actually keeps the important powers needed for stability like immigration. This means that the UK is not entirely seperated and acts as one body that ensures society is represented rather than bypassed. He also states that it is a stepping stone to seperation however the heart of our cohesion lies in the powers held to control government making sure the UK sticks together like one nation. Michael Davies also states that MPs from Scotland vote on laws that apply to england however english MPs cannot do the same on scottish laws. This shallow point fails to consider that central government lies in england and laws passed in england affect all devolved nations however laws passed in devolved nations don't affect england.

Strengths

Effective Use of Evidence: You confidently used a specific, relevant example (Scottish tuition fees) to substantiate a point from the source, adding significant depth and credibility to your analysis.
Sustained Rebuttal: Your evaluation of Michael Davies's view was not just a summary; you actively challenged his points with well-reasoned counter-arguments and your own knowledge (e.g., on reserved powers and the West Lothian Question).
Clear and Consistent Judgement: From your introduction to your final point, your own viewpoint was clear and consistently argued, forming a coherent thread that made your answer very persuasive.

Targets

Refine Terminology: Your vocabulary is strong, but phrases like "optimises for parliamentary sovereignty in devolved nations" could be more precise. 'Parliamentary sovereignty' refers specifically to the UK Parliament; a better term for devolved bodies would be "legislative autonomy".
Develop Both Sides Evenly: Your rebuttal of Michael Davies is excellent. To reach the very top marks, apply the same critical analysis to Dr. Sharma. For example, could there be any limitations to her arguments (e.g., has abolishing tuition fees created other financial pressures in Scotland?).
Signpost Your Judgement Explicitly: You use evaluative language like "strong point". To make your judgement even clearer, use explicit phrases like "This is a convincing argument because..." or "However, this viewpoint is less persuasive as it fails to acknowledge...".
Proofread for Minor Errors: A few small spelling and grammar errors slipped through (e.g., "seperation" instead of "separation", "believe believe"). A quick final proofread can eliminate these and improve the overall clarity of your response.

Candidate 79168

Word Count: ~268 words

Strengths

Good Source Selection: You effectively select and quote relevant arguments from both writers, showing you have understood the core points of the debate.
Clear Structure: Your answer is structured logically, dealing with Writer A's points first, then Writer B's, before attempting a conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.

Targets

Develop Your Analysis: When you mention a point like the "vacuum of governance," explain *why* this is a problem. What are the consequences for citizens in Northern Ireland when decisions can't be made locally? This is called developing your chain of reasoning.
Substantiate Your Judgement: Instead of just stating "DAS had better points," explain *why* her arguments are more convincing. For example, you could argue that the daily benefits of tailored policies for millions of people are more significant than the occasional problem of assembly suspensions.
Improve Conclusion Accuracy: Your conclusion confuses the issue of English governance. The problem Davies raises is that *non-English MPs* can vote on English-only laws. Your conclusion incorrectly states that devolution helps the English make their own rules. Focus on summarising your main argument and weighing up the two sources to reach a final, justified decision.
Refine Expression: Some sentences are grammatically awkward (e.g., "make policies specifically to them selfs," "develop a lack to produce a vacuum"). Read your work aloud to catch these errors and ensure your meaning is precise.

Candidate 86291

Word Count: ~362 words

I agree more with Anjali Sharma (AS) on that devolution has been a success for the UK. For example, when AS says that "devolved governments have been able to create policies tailored to their specific needs" she makes a compelling point as she is pointing out that devolution has made possible the ability for regional assemblies to create legislation which addresses specific problems that they have, which is overall quicker and more efficient for the constituents. It would have taken far longer to approve in Westminster, which is why devolving certain power keeps the local people more satisfied [crossed out] and that they can have their problems fixed sooner. However, one problem with this is that devolution can lead to political divisiveness, which slows down the country politically. Michael Davis (MD) points this out, saying "The 2014 Scottish independence referendum was a direct consequence of the powers granted to Scottish Parliament, and the issue continues to destabilise UK politics." AS makes another compelling point when she says that "devolution has allowed for different priorities to exist within one state... making the Union stronger and more adaptable for the 21st century" because she points out that devolution has allowed different parts of the country to focus on different, making the United Kingdom more efficient as a country more efficient. However, Michael Davis also makes a strong case against devolution being a success for Britain, particularly when he says "the infamous 'English question' remains unanswered", then detailing that a Scottish person can run for both Scottish and British Parliament, but an English person can only run for British Parliament, [crossed out] highlighting showing the lack of mutual exclusivity. This is a good point because MD talks about 'the unfairness that devolution has produced, which creates a serious democratic deficit and breeds resentment'. People may feel strongly about this issue, as it may directly impact them so it's fair to question it. Secondly, when MD says "the Assembly [in Northern Ireland] has been suspended multiple times due to political disagreements", he makes a compelling

Strengths

Clear Structure: You begin with a clear overall judgement and then logically analyse arguments for and against devolution. This makes your answer easy to follow.
Effective Use of Evidence: You consistently select relevant quotes from both writers and follow them up with an explanation in your own words, showing good comprehension of the source.

Targets

Develop Your Evaluation: Move beyond stating a point is "compelling" or "good". Explain *why* it is a strong or weak argument. For example, when MD mentions the 'democratic deficit', explain what this term means and why it is such a serious problem for a democracy.
Sustain the Argument to a Conclusion: Your answer ends abruptly. Ensure every point you introduce is fully explained. Crucially, you must write a conclusion that weighs up the arguments you have discussed and makes a final, justified judgement on the question.
Incorporate Own Knowledge: To reach Level 4, you must substantiate your points with specific own knowledge. For example, when discussing "policies tailored to their specific needs," you could have mentioned free university tuition in Scotland or the abolition of prescription charges in Wales as concrete examples of devolution's success.
Refine Factual Accuracy: Your explanation of the 'English Question' was slightly confused. The core issue (also known as the West Lothian Question) is that MPs from devolved nations can vote on matters that only affect England at Westminster, while English MPs have no say on devolved matters. Precision is key for top marks.

Candidate 9386

Word Count: ~105 words

Strengths

Use of Evidence: You effectively used the specific example of Scottish university tuition fees to provide strong, factual support for Dr. Sharma's argument.
Key Terminology: Your accurate use and explanation of the principle of 'subsidiarity' demonstrated excellent subject knowledge and added analytical weight to your points.
Clear Focus: Your paragraph is well-structured and remains focused on explaining one side of the argument clearly and logically.

Targets

Address Both Sides: Your top priority is to analyse the arguments of both writers. To move beyond Level 2, you must explain Michael Davies' perspective on the potential downsides of devolution.
Develop Evaluation: Answering the question "Has it been a success?" requires a judgement. After analysing both sides, you need to weigh them against each other (e.g., "Although Sharma's view is compelling, Davies' argument is more convincing because...").
Use Evaluative Language: Incorporate phrases like "On the other hand," "However," "A significant weakness in this view is..." or "While this is a valid point..." to signal to the examiner that you are comparing and judging the arguments.
Proofread for Precision: Your response contains minor errors (e.g., "policies policies," "as possible they affect as possible"). A quick proofread would improve clarity and professionalism.

Candidate 9785

Word Count: ~71 words

Strengths

Clear Stance: You begin with a clear and direct judgement on the question.
Core Understanding: You show a good grasp of the basic concept of devolution as the decentralisation of power.
Contextual Link: You correctly link the idea of devolution to the UK's unique structure as a 'group of countries'.

Targets

Engage with Both Sides: Your answer is entirely one-sided. To improve, you must also explain the arguments *against* devolution (e.g., from Writer B, Michael Davies), such as the risk of national breakup or policy confusion.
Use the Source: The question asks you to evaluate the views in the source. You must explicitly refer to Writer A (Dr. Sharma) and Writer B (Davies) and analyse their specific arguments.
Develop Your Points (P.E.E.L.): Your points are brief statements. Use the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link (P.E.E.L.) structure to develop them. For example, when you mention 'local issues', give a specific example like the Welsh Assembly banning smoking in public places before England did.
Substantiate Your Judgement: Your conclusion should be a final, reasoned judgement that weighs up the arguments you have discussed. It shouldn't just repeat your introduction. For example: "Overall, despite the risks highlighted by Davies, devolution has been a success because..."

Candidate 98726

Word Count: ~381 words

Anjali Sharma (AS) makes a good point in saying that devolution has had profound democratic success, strengthening the UK by making it more flexible and responsible to its diverse nations. The creation of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly allows specific nations to make policies that are more tailored towards themselves, for solving specific issues by creating polices from those most affected. For instance Anjali Mentions that the Scottish Parliament decided to abolish tuition fees-for and I also know that the Welsh Proudly decided to abolish prescription medication fees. However, as Micheal Davies says, these individualistic descisions create a democratic deficit but and breeds resentment between people in different nations. As he says, it creates a 'postcode lottery' where citizens rights can differ depending on where they were born - as because as I previously mentioned those born in places like Scotland do not have to pay for tuiton, however those born in England do. Anjali sharma also makes a good point in mentioning that devolution allows for different priorities to coexist in one nation state, making the union stronger & more adaptive. this is a valid point as I know that the different nations within the UK can now rely on eachother for financial support amongst other things. However, to some this isn't entierly fair. Money is divided between England and the devolved nations through a system called the Barnett formula, this formula calculates the amount of money that each nation should recieve. However under the current formula (despite having the highest population and highest income of all UK nations) England recieves the least lowest share of the funding. This may be viewed as unfair and as Micheal Davies says 'a stepping stone towards separation' as it amplifies the effect of the aformentioned 'postcode lottery' Anjali Sharma also makes a good point in saying that devolution has encouraged cooperative governance and created an essential framework for stability. I know this to be true as devolution has offered a compromise between those who want to seperate from the UK and those who want to remain united, therefore promoting interdependance between communities & therefore increasing stability by reducing conflict. However, as Micheal Davies says, this sense of stability doesn't always work in practice, for instance the Northern Irish Assembly has been suspended multiple times due to conflict between those with opposing political views, showing that without one clear concentrated power, conflict will arise & paralyse governance. Both writters make good points, however overall I am inclined to side with Micheal Davies as he makes several good points and backs them up with concrete evidence such as the closing of the Northern Irish Assembly & postcode lottery.

Strengths

Excellent Structure: You effectively structure each paragraph by presenting a point from one writer, adding your own knowledge, and then introducing a counter-argument from the other. This creates a clear and logical flow.
Use of Own Knowledge: You successfully integrate specific, relevant examples beyond the source material, such as Welsh prescription fees and the Barnett formula, to support your analysis and demonstrate strong subject knowledge.
Direct Comparison of Views: You consistently place the two viewpoints in direct opposition to each other within your paragraphs. This is a key evaluation skill and shows you are engaging with the debate in the sources.

Targets

Develop 'Sustained' Analysis: Instead of just stating a point (e.g., the 'postcode lottery'), explore its implications further. Ask yourself 'why?' and 'so what?'. *Why* does it breed resentment? How does this challenge the idea of a 'united' kingdom? Adding this depth will make your analysis more sustained.
Refine Academic Language: Avoid repeating phrases like "makes a good point." Try using more analytical vocabulary, such as: "Sharma contends that...", "Davies counters this by highlighting...", or "A significant argument from Sharma is...".
Strengthen Your Conclusion: Your final judgement needs more depth. Don't just state who you agree with and list their evidence. Explain *why* their evidence is more compelling or significant than the opposing view. Weigh the arguments against each other to create a more substantiated judgement.
Proofread for Accuracy: There are several spelling and grammar errors (e.g., 'descisions', 'entierly', 'recieve', 'writters'). Careful proofreading before you finish will improve the clarity and overall quality of your work.

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 12906

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 18720

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 20896

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 21687

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 21769

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 21770

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 28160

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4280

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4386

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4404

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4434

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4510

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4511

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4540

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4552

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4571

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4581

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 60179

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 6291

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 62978

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 6879

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 78910

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 79168

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 86291

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 9386

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 9785

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 98726

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback