This interactive feedback provides detailed analysis of student essays with smart highlighting and instant pop-up comments.
📌 How to Use This Page:
📝 My Feedback: Enter your candidate number to view your personal feedback
📚 Resources: View class-wide analysis, source passages, and the model answer
🏆 Top & Middle Examples: Browse anonymised top 3 and middle 3 answers to learn from your peers
Mobile Users: Tap highlighted text to see feedback comments
Desktop Users: Hover over highlighted text for instant feedback
💡 Tip: The color-coded legend will stay visible as you scroll through student work.
Feedback Focussing on Evaluation
Topic: Has devolution been a success for the UK?Class Eval Avg: 5.8 / 12
🔒 This resource is restricted. Please unlock the 'Teacher View' tab first.
Learn from others: Browse anonymised examples from the top 3 and middle 3 answers to see what strong evaluation looks like. No candidate numbers are shown.
🔒
Teacher Access
Please enter the password to access class data and safeguarding alerts.
Incorrect password. Please try again.
✅
Dashboard Unlocked
Authentication successful. You can now view all restricted resources, download class data, and review automated alerts.
🧑🎓 Student Quick Access
Select a candidate to bypass the quiz and instantly view their fully annotated feedback card below.
📊 Data Export
Download a compiled spreadsheet containing Candidate Numbers, Marks, Percentages, and Projected 1-9 GCSE Grades.
⚠️ Safeguarding Alerts
The automated scanner flagged potential risk words in the following student responses. Click a candidate to instantly bypass their quiz and view their full script.
Model Answer (Exemplar)
Evaluation Score: 10/10
Word Count: ~340 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)
View A(Bridges)
View B(Kelly)
Evaluation(Judgement)
Hover text for comments
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 Substantiated Judgement: Many students ended their essays by simply stating which writer they agreed with, rather than weighing the arguments against each other. A strong judgement must explain why one perspective is more convincing, using the evidence already discussed. 👉 Model: While Michael Davies' concerns about national unity are valid, Dr. Sharma's argument is ultimately more convincing because the ability to create tailored policies, such as free university tuition in Scotland, provides tangible, everyday benefits to citizens that outweigh the more abstract risk of separatism.
2. Insufficient Analysis and Explanation: Students often described the points made by the writers without explaining their wider significance. To improve, they need to explain the consequences or implications of each point, answering the 'so what?' question. 👉 Model: Dr. Sharma argues that devolution allows for policies tailored to local needs; this is significant because it leads to a more responsive and democratic system where regional priorities, like public health initiatives in Wales, are not ignored by a centralised UK government.
3. Unbalanced Argumentation: A significant number of essays focused almost exclusively on one writer's viewpoint, failing to properly analyse and evaluate the counter-arguments. A top-level response must give balanced and detailed consideration to both sides of the debate. 👉 Model: In contrast to Dr. Sharma's focus on policy benefits, Michael Davies raises the critical issue of constitutional fairness, arguing that devolution creates an 'undemocratic deficit' where Scottish MPs can vote on English health matters, a problem for which there is no simple solution.
4. Weak Use of Specialist Terminology: Many responses used informal or vague language (e.g., "good points," "unfair for England"). To demonstrate expert knowledge, students should integrate precise, subject-specific vocabulary to describe complex constitutional issues. 👉 Model: Michael Davies' argument centres on the constitutional anomaly known as the 'West Lothian Question', which highlights the asymmetrical nature of devolution and the perceived lack of an 'English voice'.
Teacher Next Steps
1. Argument Scales Drill: Give students a worksheet with a large set of scales. On one side, they list Dr. Sharma's key arguments; on the other, Michael Davies'. They then write one 'weighing-up' sentence underneath that explains which side is 'heavier' and why, using phrases like "While X is important, Y is more significant because...".
2. The 'So What?' Chain: Project a simple point from a source (e.g., "Devolution allows different Covid-19 rules"). Ask the first student "So what?". They explain the implication (e.g., "It can create confusion for people travelling"). Ask the next student "So what?". They explain a further implication (e.g., "This undermines the idea of a unified UK response"). Continue for 3-4 steps to drill down into the significance.
3. Source Swap Debating: Divide the class in two. For 5 minutes, Team A must argue *only* from Dr. Sharma's perspective and Team B *only* from Michael Davies'. After 5 minutes, they swap roles. This forces every student to inhabit and articulate both sides of the argument in detail.
4. Terminology Relay Race: In teams, students send a 'runner' to the front to read a simple definition of a key term (e.g., "The problem of MPs from devolved nations voting on English-only laws"). The runner returns and relays the definition to their team, who must write down the correct specialist term (e.g., 'West Lothian Question'). First team with all terms correct wins.
Candidate 10629
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 7/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
Personally, I agree more with Dr Anjita Anjali Sharma.The reason I agree with her is because of her strong arguements and statistics.For example, Devolution makes the united kingdom much more flexible.To support this, the creation of the Scottish and Parliament and Welsh Assembly are clear responses of the peoples expressions during the 1998 referendums.Adding onto this, Devolving powers governments have been able to create policia relevant to their needs.For Example, In Scotland, the parliament wanted to abolish university tuition fees for Scottish students.That shows that devolving powers is a success and has been a success for the UK as it allows for the government to adjust to its electorates.On the other hand, some may disagree to the statement as it states National identity instead of satisfying them which can put the union at risk.This is evident today as when the Scottish independent Referendum was a direct consequence of the powers given to the Scottish Parliament.Another reason why people may disagree is because Devolution has become a stepping stone towards seperation and not a solution to itas devolution may lead the country into becoming its own independent country.Overall, I agree a lot more with Dr Anjali Sharma whilst Michael Davies had strong arguements too.
Quality of EvaluationGood. You have clearly understood the core arguments from both writers and have used specific, relevant examples to support your points, such as Scottish tuition fees and the independence referendum. Your structure is logical, addressing each viewpoint in turn. However, your evaluation is not fully developed. Your conclusion simply restates your opinion without explaining *why* Dr. Sharma's argument is more convincing than Michael Davies's, which limits your mark to Level 3. To improve, you need to weigh the evidence you've presented.
Concluding Judgement: Although Michael Davies rightly identifies that devolution has fuelled independence movements, Dr. Sharma's argument is more convincing. The ability for devolved assemblies to create tailored policies, like abolishing tuition fees in Scotland, is a tangible success that directly benefits citizens. This flexibility seems a more significant and immediate outcome than the ongoing, and so far unsuccessful, push for separation.
Strengths
Use of Evidence: You use specific and relevant examples (e.g., Scottish tuition fees, 1998 referendums) to support the arguments for devolution. This is a key skill for high marks.
Clear Structure: Your answer is well-structured, dealing with one viewpoint and then the other before concluding. This makes your argument logical and easy to follow.
Targets
Develop Your Judgement: Your conclusion needs to be more than a statement of preference. Explain *why* you find one argument more convincing by directly comparing the evidence you've discussed (e.g., 'While the risk of separation is serious, the everyday benefits of tailored policies are more significant because...').
Substantiate Claims: Avoid simply stating an argument is "strong". Explain what makes it strong. Instead of "her strong arguements", say "her argument is strengthened by the use of real-world policy examples...".
Refine Terminology & Phrasing: Proofread your work to correct typos ("arguements", "policia") and clarify sentences. For example, "National identity instead of satisfying them" could be rephrased as: "devolution can strengthen regional identities at the expense of a unified national identity."
Add Breadth: To reach the top level, you could briefly mention other aspects of devolution. For example, you could refer to the unique power-sharing arrangement in Northern Ireland or the ongoing debate about English representation.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. According to your feedback, what is the main weakness of your conclusion?
2. One of your strengths was "Use of Evidence". Which specific example was highlighted as being particularly effective?
3. The feedback suggests you should "substantiate" your claims. What does this mean?
4. One target was to "Add Breadth". Which of these would be the best way to do that?
Candidate 10869
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 7/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I agree with Anjali Sharma because that devolution has been a success for the UKbecause it gives the united kingdom Power and strengthand it is an honour that conroln to the national level are allowing decisions on crucial local issues and the creation of the scottish parliament had clear will of the people on the referendum in 1998.Governments have made policies for other peoples needs and its easy for tuition fees to be abolished so students can focus on education without any paying for fees but only in scotland.Also devolution has allowed many other different diversites to join in one state so everyone could pay respect and adapt in that type of state.Also to make the union stronger with different priorities.I also disagree becausedevolution has seperated people and could actually put the union at riskeven though we could see different type of cultures.Only scottish laws allow this not England laws which unstrengths the united kingdom and no mps that are english could say anything and devolution could lead to paralysis or a failure of governance
Quality of EvaluationGood. You have built a well-structured answer that considers arguments from both writers, which is a key skill. You make a clear judgement and support your points with specific evidence from the source, such as the Scottish referendum and tuition fees. To reach the higher levels, your analysis needs to be more developed. Instead of listing points, try to explain the impact of each one in more detail and use connective words to create a more sustained and flowing argument.
Developing Analysis: "Michael Davies would argue that policy differences can weaken the UK. For example, while abolishing tuition fees benefits Scottish students, this can create inequality and resentment in England, potentially undermining the sense of a united country."
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You begin with a decisive statement, immediately telling the examiner which writer you agree with and why.
Use of Evidence: You effectively selected specific examples from the source material, like the 1998 referendum and Scottish tuition fees, to back up your points.
Balanced Structure: Your answer is well-organised, with one paragraph for Writer A's views and another for Writer B's, showing you can consider both sides of a debate.
Targets
Develop Your Analysis: Move beyond stating points to explaining their significance. For example, *how* does having different priorities make the union stronger? Explain the link between your evidence and your argument.
Use Connective Language: To make your argument more sustained, use transition words and phrases. Words like 'Furthermore', 'However', 'As a consequence', and 'This demonstrates that...' will help link your ideas together smoothly.
Refine Terminology and Clarity: Proofread your work to correct spelling ('seperated') and clarify awkward phrases ('unstrengths the united kingdom'). Aim for precise language, such as 'weakens the unity of the UK'.
Substantiate Your Final Judgement: After discussing both sides, you need a concluding sentence that weighs the arguments and explains *why* you find Anjali Sharma's view more convincing, despite the risks Michael Davies points out.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. One of your targets is to 'Develop Your Analysis'. What does this mean in practice?
2. Which specific piece of evidence was highlighted as a key strength in your answer?
3. The feedback suggests using 'connective language'. Which of the following is the best example of this?
4. According to your 'Targets', what should you add at the very end of your answer?
5. What does the term 'devolution' mean?
6. Your feedback praised your 'Balanced Structure'. Why was the structure considered a strength?
7. The target 'Refine Terminology and Clarity' suggested a better phrase for "unstrengths the united kingdom". What was it?
8. What does it mean to 'substantiate' a judgement?
9. One of your strengths was your 'Clear Judgement'. Where in your answer was this most evident?
10. The 'RAG Rewrite' section provided an improved sentence. What skill did this rewritten sentence demonstrate?
Candidate 16079
Word Count: ~258 words
Evaluation Score: 5/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I mostly agree withDr. Anjali Sharma who belives that devolution is a good thing and strengthens The UK by making it more stable and responsive to its diverse nationsand I agree with these statementsbecause because The UK is connected but it also has independent nations with independent policys because because of diverlution UK is united not controled by one superior nation and devolution helps that by showing Scotland, wales and northan ireland more independent.But Britians parliment is incharge of resdual powers that like defence and taxes and that is because those catogorys effects everyone in the UK not just one independent nationand I belive that keeps the UKs share of power fair.Dr. Anjali also said allow devolution allows local decisions on crucial local issues to be made by those who are most effected by them.I think that is a strong point because as I said the UK is made up of independent nations and what might work in policys that might work in on nation or one might not work in another so diverlution respects that by allowing areas to make specific policys that works for them and there values too.For example in Scotland university is free and that reflects on there values and promoting priorites.One more point that made that I think is strong is that it creates a new framework essential for building stabilityand I think that strong because it gives nations in a way or nation there own independ creates stability and respect.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a good start by analysing several points from Dr. Sharma's argument and supporting one with a strong, specific example. Your own judgement is clear throughout the response. However, the analysis is entirely one-sided, as you do not engage with any of the counter-arguments from Michael Davies. To achieve a higher mark, you must evaluate both viewpoints to create a balanced and substantiated conclusion.
Evaluation Skill: While Dr. Sharma argues devolution creates stability by giving nations independence, it's also important to consider Michael Davies' view that it could lead to the UK's break-up. A more successful evaluation would weigh these two opposing outcomes to decide which is more likely.
Strengths
Engaging with the Source: You have clearly understood and used several key arguments from one of the writers (Dr. Anjali Sharma) to build your answer.
Using Specific Evidence: Your use of the specific example of free university tuition in Scotland is excellent. It shows you can support a point from the source with your own knowledge.
Clear Personal Judgement: You consistently state your own opinion (e.g., 'I agree', 'I think that is a strong point'), which is a key part of evaluation.
Targets
Address Both Sides of the Argument: To reach the higher levels, you must analyse the views of *both* writers. Your answer only discusses Dr. Sharma's points. You need to explain and evaluate Michael Davies' arguments as well.
Develop Your Evaluation: Instead of just agreeing with a point, try to explain *why* it is a strong or weak argument. Use phrases like 'This is convincing because...' or 'However, this argument is limited because...' to add more depth.
Improve Spelling and Grammar (SPaG): Pay close attention to spelling of key terms like 'devolution', 'policies', and 'parliament'. Reading your work aloud can help you spot repeated words like 'because because'.
Substantiate Your Judgements: When you make a judgement, support it with evidence or further reasoning. For example, when you say devolution is 'fair', explain *how* the balance between devolved and reserved powers creates this fairness.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. The main reason your answer was limited to Level 2 was because...
2. What specific piece of evidence was highlighted as a major strength in your answer?
3. Which of the following key terms from your answer was spelled incorrectly?
4. Which phrase would be best to add more depth to your evaluation?
5. What does it mean to 'substantiate' a judgement?
6. Your feedback noted that you engaged well with the source. Which writer's views did you focus on?
7. One target was to 'substantiate your judgements'. Which of your judgements needed more support?
8. To achieve a balanced evaluation, whose arguments must you also consider in your answer?
9. Which of these phrases from your answer shows a clear personal judgement?
10. The rewritten example in your feedback suggests a good way to create balance is to...
Candidate 16098
Word Count: ~157 words
Evaluation Score: 7/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
Michael Dawes has some good points as well like Devolution will lead to the Seperatists as the nationsand makes a good point because if every everyone is independent and nations in the union don't have the same policys or value then whats the point to being unitedbut I also disagree because devolution can also keep peace in and maintain the bond between the nationsbecause if everyone had their respected polices then it promotes stabilityand to choose we work together were it matters most and are seperate and indiver were it matters less makes a strength not a weakness.to conclude in conclusion I believe that devolution is a good thingand Dr. Anjali made good strong points in support to that and I mostly agree with themand Michael Dawes has strong pointsbut did not think about things socially and only politically and that makes some points weaker
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a good start at evaluating the two viewpoints. You correctly identify the core arguments and make a clear final judgement, siding with Dr. Sharma. A real strength is your attempt to critique Michael Davies' argument for being purely political, which is a sophisticated evaluative skill. However, your points lack development and substantiation. To reach the higher levels, you need to explain your reasoning in more detail and use specific evidence to support your judgements.
Clarity & Precision: "Michael Davies' argument that devolution could empower separatists is valid, as differing policies and values between the UK nations might undermine the purpose of the union."
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You state your final conclusion clearly and decisively, leaving the examiner in no doubt about your overall view.
Direct Engagement: Your answer directly addresses the points made by both writers, showing you have understood the core of the debate.
Evaluative Criteria: You attempted to judge Michael Davies' argument by a specific criterion (social vs. political), which is a high-level skill that shows you are thinking critically about the *quality* of the arguments.
Targets
Develop Your Points (PEEL): Your points need more explanation. Use the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link structure. For example, when you say devolution "promotes stability," provide evidence or explain *how* it does this.
Substantiate Your Judgements: When you make a strong claim, like Davies only thinking "politically," you must back it up. Explain what "socially" means in this context and what specific social factors he has overlooked.
Use Precise Terminology: Replace simple phrases like "good points" with more analytical language such as "a compelling argument," "a valid concern," or "a persuasive perspective." This makes your analysis sound more academic.
Proofread for Accuracy: Several spelling and grammar errors ("Seperatists," "policys," "indiver") make your work harder to read. Always leave time to read through your answer to correct these small but important mistakes.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. One of your targets is to use the PEEL structure. What does the 'E' stand for?
2. Your feedback says you need to "substantiate" your judgements. What does this mean?
3. Proofreading was listed as a target. Which of these words was spelled incorrectly in your answer?
4. A key strength of your answer was using an "evaluative criterion". What did you do?
Candidate 19678
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 7/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I agree with Dr. Anjali Sharma the most more than Michael Davies.However both writers state a good amount of good points.One reason why I agree with sharm is when they state "Devolution has been a profound democratic sucess, strengthening the united kingdom by making it more flexible and responsive to its diverse nations."I believe this makes alot of sense as I agree that the UK has made some devolution changes as the UK has a very spread out power system.However someone may disagree with the writer as only the UK parliament can make desicions for england as a whole. This does not show devolution as lots of power is held in one place only.A reason I may agree with Michael Davies is when they state "The system is also fundamentally unfair to england."I agree with this because I believe england should be making desicions for england and not the whole of the UK. England in result wouldn't have any control or power meaning Michael Davies would be correct.However I don't fully agree with him as england isn't the whole of UK, there are many places which are not in england- but are still in the UK, and because of that in those places devolution might be higher than others.So overall, I agree with Dr. Anjali sharma the most as she talks about the whole of the UK and not just the negatives in england like Michael davies.
Quality of EvaluationPromising. You have structured your answer very well, making a clear judgement at the start and end. You have also successfully analysed quotes from both writers and attempted to evaluate their arguments by considering counter-points. To improve, you need to add more depth to your analysis by using specific own knowledge (e.g., naming devolved bodies) and fully developing your counter-arguments to make them more convincing.
Developing Counter-Arguments: "However, a counter-argument is that devolution is incomplete. For example, while Scotland has its own Parliament, England does not have its own equivalent and is governed by the UK Parliament. This means key decisions for England, such as on health and education, are still made in Westminster, which supports the idea that too much power remains centralised."
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You begin and end your answer with a clear, well-supported judgement on which writer you find more convincing. This creates a strong, focused argument.
Use of Evidence: You effectively select and embed direct quotes from both sources to act as the foundation for your analysis.
Balanced Structure: Your answer is well-structured, giving consideration to both sides of the argument before reaching a final conclusion. This is essential for an evaluation question.
Targets
Develop Your Analysis: Move beyond just explaining what the quote means. Add your own specific knowledge to add depth. For example, when discussing devolution, you could name the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd, or Northern Ireland Assembly.
Strengthen Counter-Arguments: Your counter-arguments are a good starting point. To make them more convincing, explain precisely *how* they challenge the writer's view, perhaps using a phrase like "This undermines Sharma's argument because...".
Use Key Terminology: To access the highest marks, integrate precise Citizenship vocabulary. When discussing the issue of fairness for England, you could have mentioned the 'West Lothian Question'.
Improve Spelling and Grammar: Proofread your work to catch common errors like 'alot' (should be 'a lot'), 'sucess' (success), and 'desicions' (decisions). This makes your arguments clearer and more formal.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. According to your feedback, what is an example of a devolved body you could have named to add specific knowledge to your answer?
2. What key term relates to the "fundamentally unfair" system for England that Michael Davies discusses?
3. One of your main strengths was having a 'Clear Judgement'. Where in your answer did this appear?
4. How should the phrase "makes alot of sense" from your answer be correctly written to improve your formal tone?
Candidate 19726
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 7/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I mostly agree with Dr. Anjali Sharma who says devolution has been a success for the UK as she says'Devolved governments have been able to create policies tailored to their to their specific needs, which would have been impossible under a centralised system'this is true because devolved power in the three nations (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) consist oflocal government which can be seen as a benefit as the local government would know exactly what the country need seeing as they live there.Another reason you could say devolution has been a success for the UK is that the three countries should know what is needed for them rather than someone from the government in Westminster, such asHealth and Social Care and education & Training.However someone may argue devolution hasn't been a success for the UK like Michael Davies as he saysdevolution has created a deeply fractured and unstable political system he also says 'The 2014 Scottish independence referendum was a direct consequence of the powers granted to the Scottish parliament'this is backed up by evidence as studies say relationships between devolved governments and the UK is there are inequalities in fundings and the representation for citizens.The devolved powers also grant countries of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to hold a referendum to leave the United Kingdom.
Quality of EvaluationGood. You have structured your answer clearly, addressing both sides of the argument and using quotes from the sources effectively. You make a clear judgement at the start and use your own knowledge to give examples of devolved powers. To reach the next level, your analysis needs more depth. Instead of just stating a point, explain its impact in more detail. You also need to be careful with factual accuracy, particularly around complex issues like independence referendums. A concluding sentence that weighs up both arguments would strengthen your evaluation.
Substantiating a Judgement: Your weakest sentence is 'The devolved powers also grant countries of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to hold a referendum to leave the United Kingdom.' A more accurate and analytical rewrite would be: "While Michael Davies is right that devolution led to the 2014 independence referendum, this only happened because the UK Parliament granted temporary permission. This shows the ultimate power still rests with Westminster, but the existence of a Scottish Parliament has undeniably made the question of independence a constant political issue, supporting Davies' point about instability."
Strengths
Clear Structure: You use a clear "for" and "against" structure, signposting the counter-argument well with "However".
Effective Use of Sources: You select relevant quotes from both writers to support your points and build your arguments.
Application of Own Knowledge: You correctly identified examples of devolved powers like health and education, adding valuable detail to your answer.
Targets
Develop Your Analysis: Move beyond stating points to explaining their significance. For example, *how* have tailored health policies benefited Scotland? *Why* do funding inequalities create a "fractured" system?
Ensure Factual Accuracy: Be careful with complex constitutional facts. The power to hold a legally binding independence referendum is a 'reserved power' for the UK Parliament, not a devolved one.
Strengthen Your Conclusion: Your answer starts with a judgement ("I mostly agree") but doesn't end with one. Add a concluding sentence that weighs up the evidence and explains *why* you find one side more convincing.
Avoid Vague Language: Phrases like "studies say" are weak. If you can't recall a specific study, explain the *argument* itself (e.g., "This is supported by the ongoing debate over the Barnett formula and funding disparities...").
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. What word did you use to effectively introduce the counter-argument against devolution?
2. Which of these was a correct example you gave of a devolved power?
3. According to the feedback, which institution has the 'reserved power' to grant a legally-binding independence referendum?
4. The target "Develop Your Analysis" means you should...
5. What was missing at the end of your answer, according to the feedback?
6. Which phrase from your answer was highlighted in the feedback as being too vague?
7. What is a 'reserved power' in the context of UK devolution?
8. What was a key strength identified in your use of the sources?
9. The suggested 'RAG rewrite' of your weakest sentence aimed to improve what?
10. If you were to improve the phrase "consist of local government", what would be a more precise term for the governments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland?
Candidate 20967
Word Count: ~194 words
Evaluation Score: 5/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
Some people may say they agree with Dr Asali J Sharda as she says Devolution has been a success for the UK. She states that devolution has strengthened the United Kingdom by making it more flexible and responsive to its diverse nations. She also states that empowering the nations of the UK with greater self-governance, devolution has allowed different priorities to coexist within one state, which makes it a stable arrangement that acknowledges and respects national identity.However, some people may agree with Michael Dandy who says Devolution hasn't been a success for the UK. He states that devolution has created a deeply flawed and unstable political system. He says this because it allows Scottish nationalists demands and fuels their putting the very existence of the Union at risk.He also states that the system is also unfair to England. He says this because MPs from Scotland can vote on laws that apply to England but English MPs don't have a say on the same matters in Scotland.Overall, I agree that Devolution hasn't been a success in the UK because the countries in the UK don't have the same equalities as others.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have done an excellent job of clearly and accurately summarising the arguments from both sources, which is a vital first step. However, the answer currently stops short of genuine evaluation. Your conclusion states which side you agree with but doesn't explain *why* that argument is more convincing than the other. To reach the higher levels, you must weigh the two views against each other and use evidence from the text to justify your final, reasoned judgement.
Better Evaluation: "Overall, I find Michael Davies' argument more convincing. While Dr. Sharma makes a valid point that devolution makes the UK more 'flexible and responsive', Davies' concern about the system being 'deeply flawed and unstable' is more significant. The specific inequality he raises, where Scottish MPs can vote on English laws, creates a democratic imbalance that could fuel resentment and put the Union at risk, which is a far greater threat than the problems devolution aims to solve."
Strengths
Clear Summaries: You have accurately and clearly summarised the key points from both Dr. Sharma and Michael Davies, showing good comprehension.
Balanced Structure: Your answer is well-structured, giving equal space to both viewpoints before coming to a conclusion. This creates a logical and easy-to-follow response.
Targets
Develop Your Judgement: Your final paragraph needs to be a detailed evaluation, not just a single sentence. Expand on your reasoning and explain *why* you agree with one side more than the other.
Weigh Up the Arguments: Directly compare the points from the two writers. For example, does the flexibility mentioned by Sharma outweigh the instability mentioned by Davies? Explain your thinking.
Use Evaluative Language: Instead of "I agree that...", try using phrases like "The most convincing argument is...", "While Sharma's point is valid, Davies' concern is more significant because...", or "On balance, the evidence suggests...".
Substantiate Your Conclusion: Use the evidence you've already summarised to support your final judgement. Explicitly link your agreement with Davies back to the specific issue of Scottish MPs voting on English laws and explain why this is such a critical issue.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. According to your feedback, what does it mean to "develop your judgement"?
2. Which of these is the best example of "weighing up the arguments"?
3. One of your targets is to use "evaluative language". Which of the following phrases is the strongest example of this?
4. What does it mean to "substantiate" your conclusion?
Candidate 26817
Word Count: ~331 words
Evaluation Score: 6/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
So, Firstly I would like to say thatMiss De Sharma says yes to the fact
that Devolution has been a success for the UK.The reason for this is because, she says that
'Devolution has been profound for Democratic
success, it strengthens the UK by making
it more flexible and responsive to its diverse
nations'Well I don't think shes right
about this.This is because, she says that
Devolution is a cornerstone to peace.Devolution is not a corner stone
to peace.The reason for this is
because the unions had some conflict
with the way they may have
wanted the governance but the one
thing is they have no say
in the Scottish parliament.So I belive that I disagree
with Dr Anjali Sharmabecause she says that the sensible
arrangement that acknowledges and
respects national identity, making
the union stronger for the 21st
century.I really disagree with her
statement because the unions an't
really getting all the respects they needMy second part is based on what
Mr Davies has to say. Micheal Davies
says no that Devolution makes a
success.The reason why he says
this is because, he said that Devolution
has created a deeply fractured and
unstable political system.He had also
said it fuels them and it putting the
union at a high risk of not being there.I agree with what Davies had to say
because he is actually making a good
pointusing Devolution, it would put
the whole union at risk.This is a good
point because the union had
alot of conflicts with each other.And Mr Davie also said that 'the
Scottish MPs can vote on the
health care or education. But the
english MPs get to have no say in it.This tells me that Devolution is
the reason for serious Democratic Defect.
And breeds in resentment.So I belive
in my whole statement that Mr
Davies is correct.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have built a clearly structured answer that addresses both sides of the argument and comes to a final, clear conclusion. You are confident in using evidence from the source to show what the writers think. However, your own analysis is unbalanced; the reasoning you use to support Davies is much stronger than your reasoning for disagreeing with Sharma, which was based on a confusing and unsubstantiated point. To reach the next level, you must ensure every judgement you make is backed up by specific, well-explained reasoning.
Substantiating a Rebuttal: Instead of "the unions had some conflict...", you could write: "For example, while devolution aims to respect national identity, it can also create tension. The rise of nationalist parties like the SNP, who advocate for full independence, shows that devolution hasn't necessarily secured the Union or created universal peace, which directly challenges Sharma's view."
Strengths
Clear Structure: Your answer is logically organised. You deal with Dr. Sharma first, then Michael Davies, before giving a final, overall judgement. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Good Use of Evidence: You effectively select direct quotes and key points from both writers to build your arguments. Using the "Democratic Defect" example was particularly strong.
Targets
Develop Your Rebuttal: When you disagree with a view (like Sharma's), your own reasoning needs to be specific and explained. Your point about "the unions" was confusing. Try using a specific example, like the ongoing debate around a second Scottish independence referendum, to challenge the idea that devolution brings peace.
Substantiate Your Judgements: Avoid simply stating a point is good or that you agree. Explain *why* it's a good point using your own knowledge. For example, when you mention the "Democratic Defect," you could add that this is known as the 'West Lothian Question' and explain how it creates a sense of unfairness for English voters.
Use Precise Terminology: Be careful with your language. You referred to "the unions," which was unclear. In this context, you should refer to "the Union" (the United Kingdom) or specific political groups. Precise language makes your argument much stronger and more credible.
Proofread for Accuracy: Small errors like "shes", "an't", "belive", and "alot" can distract from your good points. Taking one minute to read through your answer at the end can help you spot and correct these.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. The feedback suggests you need to 'substantiate' your judgements better. What does 'substantiate' mean?
2. One of your strengths was having a clear structure. What was the structure you followed?
3. Your feedback noted that the term "the unions" was confusing. What would have been a more precise term to use when discussing the UK?
4. A target for you was proofreading. Which of the following words from your answer is spelled correctly?
Candidate 26891
Word Count: ~169 words
Evaluation Score: 4/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I agree withAnjali's argument that the UK has been a democratic success as shown in the past.I understand that the UK's history isn't perfect, no country's history is.I agree withAnjali's argument that in Northern Ireland,devolved government for devolution there would be worsand. conflicts happening everywhere.I disagree withMichael's argument that devolution has created a deeply fractured and unstable political system.This is because demands are not being met by the UK as some of them are unreasonable and some take a long, long time.I agree withMichael's argument that it is unfair that Scottish MPs get to vote on matters in England but not vice-versa.This is realy people are voting on an issue that doesn't affect them at all. This isn't fair.Finally I agree withhis point that in Northern Ireland, the politics are not stable because of devolution.I still believe that things can be changed in order to either improve the UK and other countries as a whole.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. Your response identifies points from both writers, which is a good start. However, the evaluation is a series of simple agreements and disagreements without much supporting evidence or explanation. A key weakness is the contradictory view on Northern Ireland, which suggests a lack of a clear, coherent argument. To improve, focus on substantiating each point with specific examples and ensuring your overall argument is consistent.
Coherent Argument: "I find Michael's argument about instability in Northern Ireland more convincing. While devolution aimed to bring peace, the power-sharing executive at Stormont has collapsed multiple times, most recently over issues like the Northern Ireland Protocol. This demonstrates that devolution, while a step forward, has not created a consistently stable political system, supporting Michael's view of a 'fractured' UK."
Strengths
Engaging with Both Sides: You directly address arguments from both Anjali and Michael, which is essential for a balanced evaluation.
Making Clear Judgements: You clearly state whether you "agree" or "disagree" with specific points, which forms the basis of an effective evaluation.
Targets
Substantiate Your Points: Instead of just agreeing, explain *why* you agree using specific evidence. For the point about Scottish MPs, you could mention the concept of 'English Votes for English Laws' (EVEL) and why it was introduced.
Develop a Coherent Argument: Your points on Northern Ireland contradict each other. Plan your overall argument first. Do you believe devolution has been a success or not? Make sure all your points support this central argument.
Use Specific Terminology: Improve the precision of your language. For example, when discussing Scottish MPs voting on English matters, use the term 'The West Lothian Question' to show deeper knowledge.
Refine Sentence Structure: Some sentences are unclear (e.g., "devolved government for devolution there would be worsand"). Read your work aloud to check it makes sense and is grammatically correct.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. What does it mean to 'substantiate' a point?
2. What is the specific term for the issue of Scottish MPs voting on English-only laws?
3. What was a key strength of your answer, according to the feedback?
4. Why was your argument about Northern Ireland considered contradictory?
Candidate 60982
Word Count: ~204 words
Evaluation Score: 6/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I agree with Michael Davis because I believe that the devolution made the UK worse instead of being a successbecause in 2014 Scotland Most of the power was granted to the Scottish Parliament making it unfair for other Wales, England etc.Also it is unfair that only Scotland MPs from Scotland get to vote on laws that only apply to England.Also in Northen ireland it was once divided between loyalist(want to remain in the UK) and republicans and two sides share power in the northern ireland assembly.Lastly in Wales it was an independent country until 1543 with its own language.Other people would disagree with this and agree with Dr Anjali sharma because they think that the UK has strengthen from that by making it more flexible and responsive to its diverse nations.Also, devolved governments have been able to create policies tailored to their specific needs.In Wales, laws are adapted to suit welsh circumstances but jurisdiction shared with England.By empowering the nations of the UK with greater self-governance devolution has allowed ~~for~~ different priorities to co exist within one state.Lastly in Northern ireland devolution was a cornerstone of the peace proccess creating a new framework, co-
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have built a structured response that considers both sides of the argument, which is the foundation of a good evaluation. You use some specific evidence, like the West Lothian Question, to support your points. However, your overall judgement is asserted at the start but not fully proven with well-developed arguments or a concluding summary. Some of your points are irrelevant or underdeveloped, which limits the depth of your analysis and keeps your answer in Level 2.
Developing Points: Your point, "Lastly in Wales it was an independent country until 1543 with its own language," was irrelevant. A better point would be: "For example, while devolution has given Wales a platform for its unique culture and language, some argue it hasn't gone far enough, leading to calls for more powers and creating ongoing constitutional tension."
Strengths
Clear Structure: You have organised your answer well, addressing Michael Davies' view first and then Dr. Sharma's. This two-sided structure makes your argument logical and easy to follow.
Use of Specific Evidence: You effectively used specific knowledge to support your points, particularly when you identified the 'West Lothian Question' (Scottish MPs voting on English laws) and the role of devolution in the Northern Ireland peace process.
Targets
Develop Your Points (PEEL): Some of your points are stated but not fully explained. For instance, you mention power-sharing in Northern Ireland but don't explain *why* this might be a success (stability) or a failure (gridlock). Use the PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) structure to add more depth to each argument.
Maintain Relevance: Ensure every point you make directly answers the question. The historical fact about Wales in 1543 was not relevant to the success of modern devolution. Always ask yourself, "How does this prove my point about devolution today?"
Substantiate Your Judgement: You made a clear judgement at the start but didn't return to it in a conclusion. A top-level evaluation needs a concluding paragraph that weighs up both sides and explains *why* you find one argument more convincing, fully justifying your final stance.
Complete Your Arguments: Your final point about Northern Ireland was very strong but was unfortunately cut off mid-sentence. Always proofread your work to ensure you have finished your sentences and fully made your case, as this lost you credit.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. According to your feedback, what does the 'E' in the PEEL structure stand for?
2. One of your targets was to "Substantiate Your Judgement". What does this mean you should do?
3. What was identified as a key strength in your answer's structure?
4. Why was your point about "Wales... an independent country until 1543" identified as a weakness?
5. The term "West Lothian Question" refers to the issue of...
6. What simple action could have improved your final point about Northern Ireland?
7. Which of the following is a key strength highlighted in your feedback?
8. The primary purpose of the PEEL technique is to...
9. Which of these would be the MOST relevant point to make about devolution in Wales?
10. The feedback states your answer is "Developing". This corresponds to which RAG rating colour?
Candidate 67012
Word Count: ~210 words
Evaluation Score: 7/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I believe that Anjali Sharma is slightly more correctas she states that devolution is a profound democratic success as it lets nations transfer power from central goverments to a regional body. It also lets regions to create policies for their countries personal needs.For example, Scotland and Northern Island introduced a number of new inatives; inotrition fees, free perscriptions, abolution of school tables and free nursing care for the elderly.Also, Scotland continued have a seat in the house of comons and are able to vote on matters that can affect British citizens. However, some may disagree as they believe that devolution has created an unstable political system.It can also be seen as unfair because England does not have its own asembly. The UK parliment makes all decisions that effects England.England have no say in what happens in the rest of the UK making it extremly unfair for citizens as that's just where they happen to live.Also as england has a bigger population, it recieves less split money than the other regions. In conclusion, I mostly believe with both argumentsas Anjali Sharma believes it is better for the nations different needs. While Micheal Davies thinks it is unfair and puts the union at complete risk.
Quality of EvaluationGood. You have successfully identified relevant arguments for both sides of the debate and supported them with some excellent, specific examples, particularly for Dr. Sharma's viewpoint. The structure is clear, which makes your points easy to follow. However, the analysis is not sustained, and the conclusion is a simple summary rather than a final, substantiated judgement. This, along with a slight confusion over which side the 'West Lothian Question' supports, holds the answer in Level 3.
Sustained Judgement: In conclusion, while Michael Davies' concerns about fairness to England are valid, the tangible benefits of devolution highlighted by Anjali Sharma, such as policies tailored to local needs like free prescriptions in Scotland, demonstrate a clear democratic success. Therefore, despite the tensions it creates, devolution has been more of a success than a failure because it has empowered the UK's constituent nations.
Strengths
Use of Specific Examples: Your use of concrete examples like "free perscriptions" and "free nursing care for the elderly" to support Dr. Sharma's argument is a major strength. This provides clear evidence for your claims.
Clear Structure: You have structured your answer logically, dedicating a paragraph to each viewpoint before your conclusion. This makes your argument easy for the examiner to read and understand.
Targets
Develop a Sustained Judgement: Your conclusion should be more than a summary. Weigh the arguments you've presented and come to a final, justified decision, explaining *why* one view is stronger than the other.
Avoid Contradiction: Your opening statement ("Sharma is slightly more correct") conflicts with your conclusion ("I mostly believe with both"). Ensure you maintain a consistent line of argument throughout your evaluation.
Refine Key Terminology & Spelling: Using precise terms like the 'West Lothian Question' (for Scottish MPs voting on English laws) and the 'Barnett Formula' (for funding) would add depth. Also, proofread for spelling (e.g., 'government', 'prescriptions', 'initiatives', 'abolition').
Deepen Analysis: To move into the top mark band, deepen your analysis. For example, when you say devolution creates an "unstable political system," briefly explain *how* it does this (e.g., by fuelling calls for independence).
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. One of your key strengths was using specific examples to support Dr. Sharma's view. Which of these was an example you used?
2. A key target is to "develop a sustained judgement". What does this mean?
3. Why was your conclusion identified as a key area for improvement?
4. What is the correct term for the issue where Scottish MPs can vote on English-only laws, but English MPs cannot vote on devolved Scottish matters?
5. Your feedback noted a contradiction in your argument. What was it?
6. To "deepen analysis" (a target), what could you have done after stating devolution creates an "unstable political system"?
7. Your feedback mentioned refining key terminology and spelling. Which word from your answer was spelled incorrectly?
8. Your answer had a clear structure, with one paragraph for each viewpoint. Why is this a strength?
9. What is the definition of 'devolution'?
10. You mentioned that England receives "less split money" despite its larger population. What is the name of the mechanism that determines this funding distribution?
Candidate 67801
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 6/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
Firstly, I agree with Dr Ayahas she makes several strong points in her argument, for example, she argues that 'Devolution has strengthened the UK'.OK! From my knowledge I should know that Brexit 'Devolution'is the process of decentralising power, which allows different parties to coexist in one place, creating a newer, more stable, society.Additionally, Dr Anjali Sharma also states that 'Devolution is the very statement, essence of a freedom and functioning society'.I like this statement because devolution allows possibly and gives people a chance to express their own and the United Kingdom political issues.However, I also agree with Michael Davisas he also makes some strong points. One point, I like is where he statesdevolution has created a deeply fractured and unstable political system'.I like this because there are real life examples within the UK. For exampleMPs in Scotland can vote on political issues in Scotland AND their own country, but MPs in England can't vote on political issues in Scotland.Additionally, Devolved powers and central powers have also been conflicting due to their own legislation, as there are some things that can only be voted on by MPs in England.Overall, I agree with Dr Ayah more than Richard Davis,as although there are many-
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have built a well-structured answer that considers both sides of the argument, using quotes from the source and your own knowledge effectively. However, your analysis lacks depth, and significant factual errors (like confusing Devolution with Brexit) undermine your argument. Critically, your incomplete conclusion means your final judgement is asserted rather than substantiated, which prevents you from reaching the higher levels of the mark scheme.
Substantiated Judgement: "Overall, I agree more with Dr Ayah. Although Michael Davies correctly identifies issues like the West Lothian Question, the benefits of a more localised democracy, as mentioned by Dr Sharma, are more significant. Devolution allows policies to better reflect the distinct needs of each nation, such as free university tuition in Scotland, which ultimately creates a more representative and, therefore, stable UK."
Strengths
Balanced Structure: You effectively dedicated separate paragraphs to argue for and against the success of devolution, creating a balanced and easy-to-follow response.
Good Use of Sources: You selected relevant and powerful quotes from both writers to act as the foundation for your points. This shows good comprehension of the source material.
Application of Knowledge: You successfully brought in your own knowledge of the 'West Lothian Question' to support Michael Davies's argument, which is a key skill for high-level answers.
Targets
Complete Your Conclusion: Your final sentence was cut short. Always ensure your conclusion fully explains *why* you have sided with one view over the other. A judgement without justification cannot score high marks.
Develop Your Points: After making a point, add a specific example. When you mentioned 'conflicting legislation', you could have discussed different Covid-19 rules or tuition fees in Scotland vs. England to make your argument more powerful.
Improve Factual Accuracy: Be precise with your terminology. You incorrectly linked Devolution with Brexit and made minor errors with the writers' names. These mistakes can undermine the credibility of your argument.
Refine Explanations: Your explanation of the West Lothian Question was a good start. For a top-level mark, explain it with more precision (e.g., "Scottish MPs in the UK Parliament can vote on matters like health and education that only affect England, whereas English MPs have no say over those same matters in Scotland.").
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. According to your feedback, what was the most critical reason your mark was limited?
2. One of your strengths was 'Application of Knowledge' for mentioning the 'West Lothian Question'. What is this issue about?
3. A key target is to 'Improve Factual Accuracy'. Which of these was a factual error you made?
4. The target 'Develop Your Points' suggests using a specific example for 'conflicting legislation'. Which is the best example of this?
5. What does the term 'substantiated judgement' mean?
6. What was a key strength of your essay's structure?
7. What is the correct definition of Devolution?
8. The 'RAG Rewrite' section provided a better version of your conclusion. What did it do differently?
9. One of your targets is to 'Refine Explanations'. How could you have explained the West Lothian Question more precisely?
10. Besides the major Brexit/Devolution error, what other minor accuracy issue was mentioned in your feedback?
Candidate 67892
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 5/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
DR. Shama [crossed out] (DR.S) has some good points but I agree with Micheal Davies (MD) more.The good points of DR.S are like "Transferred power from London to the national level, allowing crucial local issues to be made by those who are most affected by them" this is one of her good points as there is evidence for it.The Scots have free university tuition fees and the Welsh don't need to pay for pharmaceutical medicine.However if the UK as a whole passed those laws it would go into massive debt and not all the all the UK actually needs it.The 2016 Brexit referendum also is proof that we need devolved powers as most people outside of England wanted to stay in the EU.After the country left the EU the country needed a way for the kingdoms to stay united - devolved powers.On the other hand Micheal Davies says no and he also has good points, like the English Question.This is a prime example of too much devolved power/badly thought out. How is someone else allowed to vote in something that doesn't even effect them remotely.Another thing is that how is England putting
Quality of EvaluationPromising. You show strong potential by using specific own knowledge (e.g., tuition fees, prescriptions) to support the arguments from the source. Your evaluation starts well, with a clear judgement and some critical thinking about the consequences of devolved policies. However, the answer is unbalanced, focusing heavily on Dr. Sharma's view while leaving Michael Davies' arguments underdeveloped and incomplete. This lack of balance and depth prevents the answer from reaching the higher levels.
Sustaining an Argument: "Another thing is that how is England putting..." could be rewritten as: "Furthermore, Michael Davies' argument is strengthened by the financial implications of devolution, such as the Barnett formula. This mechanism is often criticised for allocating higher public spending per capita to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland than to England, raising questions about fairness and whether England is effectively subsidising the other nations."
Strengths
Evidence-Based Argument: You effectively used your own knowledge of specific policies (Scottish tuition fees, Welsh prescriptions) to substantiate the points made by Dr. Sharma.
Clear Initial Judgement: You began your answer with a clear statement of which view you found more convincing, which provides a good focus for your evaluation.
Targets
Develop Both Sides Equally: Your analysis of Michael Davies' view was very brief and incomplete. To get higher marks, you must give equal detail and evidence to both sides of the argument before concluding.
Sustain Your Argument to a Conclusion: Your answer ends abruptly. Ensure you complete all your points and write a concluding sentence that summarises your judgement based on the evidence you have discussed.
Define and Explain Key Terms: You mention the "English Question" but could strengthen your answer by briefly defining it (e.g., the issue of MPs from devolved nations voting on English-only laws) before explaining why it's a problem.
Use Formal Language: Try to replace informal phrases like "good points" or "badly thought out" with more academic language such as "valid arguments," "a significant drawback," or "a poorly conceived policy."
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. One of your main targets is to "Develop Both Sides Equally". What does this mean you should do next time?
2. Your feedback praised your "Evidence-Based Argument". Which of these was a specific example you used?
3. A target was to "Use Formal Language". Which of the following is the most academic alternative to "badly thought out"?
4. Why is it important to "Define and Explain Key Terms" like the "English Question"?
5. Your answer was not "sustained". What was the most obvious sign of this?
6. The "English Question" is also known by what name?
7. Your opening sentence, "I agree with Micheal Davies (MD) more," is an example of what?
8. The 'Rewrite' suggestion in your RAG rating mentioned the 'Barnett formula'. What is this related to?
9. Which of these is NOT a target for improvement listed in your feedback?
10. To move from Level 2 to Level 3, the most important thing you need to do is...
Candidate 67892
Word Count: ~57 words
Evaluation Score: 3/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
the most money into the union and getting the least benefits (no free uni, no free medicine, not even it's own Assembly.For these points I agree more with MD for just how unfair England has itbut my opinion could also be a bit biased as I live in Englandbut everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Quality of EvaluationUndeveloped. Your response shows you have understood one side of the argument, specifically Michael Davies' points about the perceived unfairness to England. You make a clear judgement and even acknowledge your own potential bias, which is a good starting point for evaluation. However, the answer is very brief and lacks the depth, balance, and evidence required for a higher mark. To improve, you must engage with both sides of the argument and use specific evidence to support your final judgement, avoiding generic phrases.
Substantiating a Judgement: Instead of "...everyone is entitled to their own opinion," a stronger conclusion would be: "Therefore, while my perspective as an English resident might create some bias, the evidence from Davies regarding the lack of an English Assembly provides a compelling reason to agree that the current devolution settlement is unsuccessful from an English viewpoint."
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You clearly state which viewpoint you agree with ("I agree more with MD"). This is the first step in any evaluation question.
Use of Source Evidence: You have selected specific points from the source (e.g., no Assembly for England) to support your argument.
Targets
Engage with Both Sides: Your answer only considers Michael Davies' arguments. To achieve a higher level, you must also analyse and evaluate the points made by Dr. Anjali Sharma.
Develop Your Points (PEEL): Your points are listed rather than explained. Use the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link (PEEL) structure to develop your arguments and show *why* the evidence is significant.
Substantiate Your Judgement: Avoid finishing with generic phrases like "everyone is entitled to their own opinion." Instead, weigh up the evidence from both sides to justify your final decision.
Improve SPaG: Pay attention to grammar, such as the correct use of "its" (belonging to it) versus "it's" (it is).
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. According to your targets, what is the most important thing you must do to improve your analysis in the next essay?
2. What does it mean to 'substantiate' a judgement?
3. One of your targets was SPaG. Which of these sentences uses "its" and "it's" correctly?
4. What does the PEEL structure, mentioned in your targets, stand for?
Candidate 68170
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 6/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I mostly agree with Anjali Sharmawho says yes, devolution has been a success for the united kingdom.This is because devolution has strengthened the country.For example we have been able to create policies which are tailored for there own specific needs.Another example is that the Scottish parliament decision to abolish university tuition fees for Scottish students is a policy that reflects the distinct properties of its electorate.On the other hand I somewhat agree with Michael Davieswho says no, devolution has not been a success for the united kingdom.This is because Davies says that the system is also fundamentally unfair to England and that overall it has more negative effect than positive effects on the united kingdom.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have built a well-structured answer that considers both sides of the argument. Your use of a specific example (Scottish tuition fees) to support Dr. Sharma's view is a real strength and shows good analytical skills. However, the analysis is unbalanced. Your consideration of Michael Davies' view is limited to repeating his claims without exploring the reasons behind them. To improve, you need to develop both sides with equal depth before reaching a more substantiated final judgement.
Developing Analysis: Instead of just stating Davies' point, you could explain it: "Michael Davies' argument that the system is 'fundamentally unfair to England' can be substantiated by the 'West Lothian Question'. This is where Scottish MPs can vote on English-only laws (e.g., health), but English MPs cannot vote on the same matters for Scotland, creating a democratic imbalance."
Strengths
Clear Structure: Your answer is logically structured. You start with a judgement, support it, and then use "On the other hand" to effectively introduce the counter-argument.
Use of Specific Evidence: Citing the abolition of university tuition fees in Scotland is an excellent, concrete example that gives real weight to your support for Dr. Sharma's argument.
Direct Judgement: You begin with a clear statement of your position ("I mostly agree with Anjali Sharma"). This immediately tells the examiner the direction of your evaluation.
Targets
Develop Both Sides Equally: Your analysis of Michael Davies' view is underdeveloped. Rather than just stating he finds it "unfair to England," explain *why*. Introduce concepts like the West Lothian Question to add depth and show a fuller understanding.
Substantiate Your Judgement: To achieve a higher mark, you need a concluding sentence that weighs up the evidence. Explain *why* the successes of tailored policies outweigh the problems of fairness, reinforcing your initial judgement.
Proofread for Precision: Your answer contains a common grammatical error ("there" instead of "their"). Taking a moment to proofread ensures your arguments are presented as clearly and professionally as possible.
Expand Beyond the Source: While you use a great example, try to show broader knowledge. Briefly mentioning other policy differences (e.g., prescription charges in Wales vs. England) could further strengthen your point about "tailored" policies.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. Which phrase in your answer was highlighted as being a good example of 'Clear Structure'?
2. According to your feedback, what specific concept could you use to develop Michael Davies' argument about unfairness to England?
3. The feedback identified a proofreading error. Which word was used incorrectly?
4. What is the main purpose of adding a concluding sentence, as suggested in the target 'Substantiate Your Judgement'?
5. Your use of the Scottish tuition fees example was praised as a strength. Why was this effective?
6. One target is to 'Develop Both Sides Equally'. This means your analysis of Michael Davies' view was too...?
7. What does the term 'devolved' mean in the context of UK politics?
8. A strength of your answer was its 'Direct Judgement'. Where was this judgement located?
9. The target 'Expand Beyond the Source' suggests another policy area that differs across the UK. Which was it?
10. To 'substantiate' a judgement means to...
Candidate 71684
Word Count: ~100 words
Evaluation Score: 4/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I agree withAbzall Sharma's point on if devolution has been successfull for the UK. This is because allowing to her 'devolution has provincesed coexisting with one state, but, respect for citizens may allow citizen/MP more comfortable to be a part of a country with good values. Furthermore she states that it is a mature and sensible arrangement that acknowledges and respects national identity'. This further extends on her beliefs about the good benefits of Devolution.On the other hand Michael Davies believes that devolution is only fuelling the wants of the nationalists and say Devolution is a stepping stone
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. Your answer identifies the two opposing viewpoints from the source material, which is a key requirement. However, the analysis is very brief and your own judgement is asserted ('I agree') rather than explained or justified. To reach the higher levels, you must develop your points further and create a substantiated conclusion that weighs up the evidence you have presented.
Substantiating a Judgement: "While I acknowledge Davies' concern that devolution could be a 'stepping stone' to independence, I find Sharma's argument more convincing. Her view that it is a 'mature and sensible arrangement' is stronger because it respects different national identities within the UK, which could lead to a more stable and united country in the long term, rather than fuelling division."
Strengths
Identifies Both Views: You clearly recognise the arguments of both Dr. Anjali Sharma and Michael Davies, which is the first step to a balanced answer.
Uses Source Evidence: You have selected direct quotes from the source to show what each writer believes, which is a crucial skill.
Targets
Develop Your Analysis: Instead of just stating what the writers believe, explain the *implications* of their arguments. For example, what is the impact of devolution being a 'stepping stone'? Why is respecting national identity a 'good benefit'?
Substantiate Your Judgement: You start with "I agree," but you don't explain *why* Sharma's view is more convincing than Davies'. A substantiated judgement weighs the two arguments against each other and explains which is stronger and why.
Write in Full Paragraphs: Your response is very short and ends abruptly. Aim to write a more developed answer, ensuring each point is fully explained in a structured paragraph to show depth in your reasoning.
Check for Accuracy: Pay close attention to details like names (Dr. Anjali Sharma, not 'Abzall') and ensure your sentences are grammatically complete. This improves the clarity of your argument.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. What does it mean to 'substantiate a judgement'?
2. Which of these is the best example of 'developing your analysis'?
3. What was a key strength of your answer, as noted in the feedback?
4. One target was to 'Check for Accuracy'. What was the specific name error mentioned in your feedback?
Candidate 76921
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 3/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I mostly agree withMichael Davis's [scratched out] devolution [scratched out] has not been a success for the UK.For example, when [scratched out] the Brexit referendum in 2016 occured the prime minister thought that we would [scratched out] vote to stay in the EU but the majority of votes were to leave and the prime minister said that if the majority of votes were to [scratched out] leave, then he would resign and he did.On the other hand,Anjali Sharma says devolution has been a success for the UK as it strengthens the UK by making it more flexible and responsive to its diverse nations. It devolution is also said to be essential for building stability.
Quality of EvaluationUndeveloped. Your answer shows an attempt to evaluate by stating a judgement and considering both sides of the argument. However, the main example you use (Brexit) is not relevant to devolution, which significantly weakens your argument. To improve, you must use specific, relevant examples related to the powers given to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and then explain *how* those examples prove or disprove the success of devolution.
Using Relevant Evidence: "I mostly agree with Michael Davies. A key example of devolution's failure is the tension it created, leading to the Scottish Independence Referendum in 2014. Although the 'No' vote won, the narrow margin and the ongoing calls for a second referendum show that devolution has arguably weakened the UK by encouraging separatism, rather than strengthening it."
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You begin with a clear statement of your opinion ("I mostly agree..."), which is a key feature of an evaluative answer.
Identifies Both Sides: You successfully identify and summarise the core arguments from both Dr. Sharma and Michael Davies, showing you have understood the source material.
Targets
Use Relevant Evidence: Your main example (Brexit) was not about devolution. You must use examples directly related to the transfer of power to Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland (e.g., different Covid-19 rules, the Scottish Independence Referendum, tuition fee policies).
Develop Your Analysis: After stating a writer's view, explain *why* it is strong or weak. For example, when you mention Dr. Sharma's point about flexibility, could you challenge it? Does this flexibility create confusion or inequality instead?
Define Key Terms: Ensure you have a precise understanding of key concepts. Your answer confused 'devolution' (transfer of power within the UK) with a 'referendum' on EU membership.
Structure for Evaluation: Use a clear structure for each point. The P.E.E.L (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) method will help you build a developed and well-supported argument.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. What is the correct definition of 'devolution'?
2. Which of the following is the MOST relevant example to use when discussing the success or failure of devolution?
3. The feedback suggests you should "develop your analysis". What does this mean?
4. What is the term for the part of your answer where you state your own opinion on the topic?
5. Who argued that devolution has been a success for the UK?
6. What do the two 'E's in the P.E.E.L method stand for?
7. The rewritten example in your feedback mentioned the Scottish Independence Referendum. Why was this used as an argument against devolution's success?
8. Your transcript contains the word "occured". What is the correct spelling?
9. If you were to challenge Dr. Sharma's view that devolution creates "flexibility", what would be a good counter-argument?
10. One of your targets was to use the P.E.E.L method. What is this method designed to help you do?
Candidate 78962
Word Count: ~171 words
Evaluation Score: 4/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I agree with Anjali Sharmabecause Devolution is good for our countryFor example decisions are made locally and it is rightly transfered power from London to a national level and devolved governments have been able to create policies tailored to their specific needs and they have a stronger sense of control by empowering the nations of UK with greater self governance and it can also reflect regional identiesI disagree with Michael Davies because devolution is good for sometimes and he also has a lot of bad pointsWhile Anjali Sharma has some good points and bad pointMichael Davies Las is that he said it has created a deeply fractured and unstable political systemI disagree with that since devolution makes a lot of benefitsand how they can create policies tailored to their specific needsbut some drawbacks are it creates business tensions, fuels independent debate and can create stabilitySo overall I agree with Anjali Sharma because she has good points and its more pros than cons
Quality of EvaluationAssertive. You have made a clear judgement and selected some relevant points from both writers to support your view. However, your evaluation is currently based on assertion rather than reasoned argument. To improve, you need to move beyond simply stating you agree or disagree and start explaining *why* using evidence and developing your points. For example, when you disagree with Michael Davies, you need to explain *why* his view of a 'fractured system' is wrong, perhaps by giving an example of successful cross-nation cooperation.
Substantiating a Judgement: "I disagree with that since devolution makes a lot of benefits" could be rewritten as: "I disagree with Michael Davies' point about a 'fractured system'. While there are different policies, the UK nations have often collaborated effectively, for example, during the initial stages of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, which was a UK-wide effort. This shows that devolution doesn't always lead to instability."
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You state your overall opinion clearly at the beginning and end of your answer, which gives your writing a clear direction.
Source Selection: You have successfully identified and used key arguments from Dr. Anjali Sharma's viewpoint to form the basis of your answer.
Targets
Develop Counter-Arguments: When you disagree with a viewpoint (like Michael Davies'), you need to do more than just state your disagreement. Explain *why* you disagree and try to use a specific example or reason to challenge their point. This is called 'rebuttal'.
Substantiate Your Points: Avoid making simple assertions like "devolution is good". Instead, build a chain of reasoning. For example: "Devolution can be seen as a success *because* it allows for tailored policies, *which means* local needs are met more effectively, *for instance* the abolition of prescription charges in Scotland."
Improve Coherence and Structure: Your answer jumps between points and can be confusing. Try to structure your paragraphs clearly: one for Sharma's view, one for Davies' view (including your rebuttal), and a conclusion that weighs up both sides to reach your final judgement.
Use Connective Language: Use words and phrases like 'However', 'On the other hand', 'Furthermore', and 'In conclusion' to link your ideas together smoothly and show the examiner you are building a structured argument.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. What does it mean to 'substantiate' a point?
2. One of the strengths highlighted in your feedback was that you...
3. Your feedback advised you to develop your argument against Michael Davies. What was his main point that you needed to challenge with evidence?
4. Which of the following is a connective phrase used to introduce a contrasting idea?
Candidate 8279
Word Count: ~213 words
Evaluation Score: 6/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
In the passage Dr. Anjali Sharma and Michael Davies can be considered as polar opposites. This can be seen where Dr. Anjali Sharma argues that devolution is a sucess and wants to delgate powers to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales but Michael Davies argues that Devolution is bad arguing Westminster should maintain uniform laws as it was. I personally believe Dr. Anjali Sharma has a more acceptable argument as I also believe that Devolution helps create stability as it allows equal democracy.On one hand, Dr. Anjali Sharma believes that "devolution has been a profound democratic sucess" and that it is "strengthening".I personally agree with this statement because of the different ways the entirety of the UK can change certain laws to fit their needs.For example Scotland's Parliament can control their education needs, which is why they abolished university tuition fees for their students allowing stability in the state.In Northern Ireland there were 2 sides with power and due to devolution it helped both of them co-operate to form stability as they now had more flexible laws changes that could fit both of their needs.Additionally, The 2016 referendum to leave Brexit is an example of devolution as it not only allowed England to vote on an important issue, but the entirety of the United Kingdom allowing them to view how others felt of this idea.However Michael Davies argues against this and says that its actually wrong and instead of causing stability it causes chaos within the UK which is a fairly good point for many reasons.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have produced a good analysis of Dr. Sharma's argument, supporting it with some strong and specific examples. This shows good understanding of one side of the debate. However, your answer is completely one-sided. The analysis of Michael Davies's view is limited to a single sentence with no explanation or evidence, which prevents you from accessing the higher levels of the mark scheme. A strong evaluation must analyse and weigh up *both* viewpoints before reaching a justified conclusion.
Developing Both Sides: "However, Michael Davies's argument that devolution causes 'chaos' also has merit. For example, different laws on issues like public health during the Covid-19 pandemic created confusion and inequality across the UK. Furthermore, the ongoing push for a second Scottish Independence referendum shows how devolution can fuel separatist movements rather than create long-term stability, directly challenging Dr. Sharma's view."
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You begin with a confident and clear personal judgement, which immediately tells the examiner your line of argument.
Good Use of Evidence: Your use of specific examples for Dr. Sharma's side, such as Scottish tuition fees and power-sharing in Northern Ireland, is excellent and demonstrates strong subject knowledge.
Targets
Develop Both Sides: Your analysis of Michael Davies's viewpoint is underdeveloped. To improve, you must explain *why* he might think devolution causes 'chaos', using potential examples (e.g., differing Covid-19 rules, calls for Scottish independence).
Ensure Factual Accuracy: Your example of the Brexit referendum was incorrect. A UK-wide referendum is not an example of devolution. Double-check that your evidence directly supports the specific concept you are discussing.
Structure for Balance: Use a clear structure like PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) for each paragraph. This would have helped you to build a developed paragraph for Michael Davies's view instead of stopping after the first point.
Write a Conclusion: Your essay ends abruptly. Add a concluding paragraph to summarise the two views and powerfully restate your final, substantiated judgement, explaining why one argument is more convincing than the other.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. One of your key strengths was "Good Use of Evidence". Which example was highlighted as being particularly effective?
2. A key target was to "Develop Both Sides". Which of the following would be the best way to start developing Michael Davies's argument?
3. Why was your example of the 2016 Brexit referendum factually inaccurate in this context?
4. What is the main purpose of a concluding paragraph, which was missing from your answer?
5. What does 'devolution' mean?
6. The feedback suggests using the PEEL structure. What does the first 'E' stand for?
7. Your feedback praised your "Clear Judgement" at the start. According to your targets, where else is it crucial to state your judgement?
8. What does it mean for a judgement to be 'substantiated'?
9. The 'RAG Rewrite' section in your feedback focused on improving which part of your answer?
10. To achieve a Level 3 or 4 mark, what is the most important change you need to make?
Candidate 82790
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 5/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
This can be seen where ~~the UK~~ Scotland can vote on laws mainly affecting England whereas England cannot do the same to Scotland.Michael Davies argues this because this could lead to a parliamentary ping pong between Westminster and the devolved parliaments causing mass confusion, legal inadequacy and mainly argues that this would be highly unfair to England as this would mean that devolution does not give power and instead takes it away from one country and passes it to another.Furthermore he states that "The 2014 Scottish independence referendum was a direct consequence".This is because by granting them the power to vote on this they could separate themselves causing legal instability and the power between Westminster and devolved powers would be unbalanced.In conclusion, I agree with Dr. Anjali Sharma over Michael Davies because although they both have great arguments and ideas, there are much more positives with devolution that I have seen.An example is allowing the whole of the UK to vote ~~like~~ on Brexit, allowing others to have a say on an important law and not just complete control in one parliament.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. Your analysis shows a good understanding of one side of the argument. You have clearly explained Michael Davies' concerns about devolution, using evidence from the source to support your points. However, the answer is unbalanced as it does not analyse Dr. Anjali Sharma's views at all. This means your final judgement is asserted rather than proven, and the example you used to support it (Brexit) was not relevant to the powers of devolved parliaments.
Substantiating a Judgement: "In conclusion, while Michael Davies raises a valid point about the unfairness of the 'West Lothian Question', I ultimately agree with Dr. Anjali Sharma that devolution has been a success. Sharma's argument that devolution brings decision-making closer to local communities, as seen with policies like free prescriptions in Scotland, outweighs Davies' concern. Therefore, despite the tensions it can create, devolution has been more beneficial than problematic."
Strengths
Clear Explanation of One View: You provided a detailed and accurate summary of Michael Davies' arguments against devolution, correctly identifying the 'West Lothian Question' as a central issue.
Effective Use of Evidence: You successfully integrated a direct quote about the Scottish referendum and explained its relevance to Davies' viewpoint.
Targets
Analyse Both Sides: To reach the higher levels, you must explain Dr. Sharma's arguments in a dedicated paragraph before you conclude. An evaluation needs to compare and contrast two opposing views.
Substantiate Your Judgement: Your conclusion should be a final verdict that weighs up the evidence you have already presented from *both* sides. Explain *why* you find one argument more convincing than the other.
Use Relevant Examples: Ensure any examples you use directly relate to the powers of devolved bodies (e.g., education in Scotland, health in Wales), not UK-wide events like Brexit.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. What was the core of Michael Davies' argument that you explained well?
2. To improve your mark, which writer's views did you need to analyse in more detail?
3. Why was the Brexit example considered not relevant to the success of devolution?
4. What does it mean to "substantiate" a judgement?
Candidate 86120
Word Count: ~307 words
Evaluation Score: 6/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I mostly agree with Michael Davies.This is because he argues that devolution hasn't been a success for the UK. It says that devolution puts the very existence of the Union at constant risk as it fuels nationalist demands rather than satisfying them it fuels them.I agree with this statement as he continues to say thatMPs from [from] Scotland can vote on matters concerning England but MPs from England can't do otherwise.This creates unfairness as it creates a rift between governments as there isn't a sense of equality [and] the powers and benefits other [other] MPs have on England isn't the same as the power that English MPs have.On the other hand, Dr Anjali Sharma argues against Michael Davies thatdevolution allows decisions [against] on crucial local issues to be made by those most affected by them.This means that every single country in the union is affected by the choices yet the powers that other governments have might not be given to other governments even though that is the main aim of devolution.Dr Anjali continues to say that this makes the union strongerand whilst devolved powers gives the members of the union more choice, if every power is reserved then the decisions made affect everyone the same which isn't a problem as they are part of one union.In conclusion, I believe that devolution hasn't been a successas powers are equally devolved and this creates a rift between governmentsas seen with Scotland in 2014.The devolution of power weakens the union as the sense of unity between isn't visible if every decision made isn't made and played the devolved isn't equally given to every member of the union.This is why I believe and agree with Michael Davies' point that devolution hasn't been a success for the UK.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have started to analyse the two viewpoints, showing a good understanding of Michael Davies' argument. You make a clear judgement and support it with points from the source and your own knowledge. However, your analysis of Dr. Sharma's view is less clear, and some sentences are difficult to understand, which weakens your overall evaluation. To improve, focus on explaining both sides with equal clarity before making your final, substantiated judgement.
Developing Clarity: "Dr. Sharma argues that local decisions should be made by local people. For example, the Welsh Senedd can make laws on education that are best for Wales, strengthening the Union by giving people more control. However, I believe this creates inequality, as Michael Davies points out with the West Lothian Question."
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You state your own opinion clearly at the beginning and end of your answer, which gives your response a strong and confident structure.
Effective Use of Evidence (View B): You have successfully selected and explained key arguments from Michael Davies' viewpoint, such as the 'West Lothian Question', to support your judgement.
Use of Own Knowledge: You support your conclusion by referencing a relevant real-world event (the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum), which shows you can apply your learning to the question.
Targets
Balance Your Analysis: Your explanation of Dr. Sharma's argument is much weaker and less clear than your analysis of Michael Davies'. Ensure you give equal attention and clarity to *both* sides of the debate to create a balanced evaluation.
Improve Sentence Clarity: Some of your sentences are long and grammatically confusing (e.g., "...the sense of unity between isn't visible if every decision made isn't made..."). Read your work aloud to check it makes sense and break down complex ideas into shorter, clearer sentences.
Define and Use Key Terms: You mention that powers are not devolved equally. You could strengthen this by using a specific term like 'asymmetrical devolution' (where different countries have different levels of power) to show deeper knowledge.
Develop Your Substantiation: To 'substantiate' means to prove your judgement. Instead of just agreeing with one side, weigh up the arguments. For example, acknowledge the strength of Sharma's point about localism, but then explain *why* you believe Davies' concerns about national unity are more significant.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. One of your key strengths was 'Clear Judgement'. Where was this most evident?
2. A key target is to 'Balance Your Analysis'. What does this mean you should do next time?
3. What is the definition of 'asymmetrical devolution', a key term suggested in your targets?
4. The feedback mentions 'substantiation'. What does it mean to substantiate your judgement?
5. Which piece of your own knowledge was highlighted as a strength?
6. The target 'Improve Sentence Clarity' suggests reading your work aloud. Why is this helpful?
7. Your analysis of Michael Davies' view was stronger than your analysis of Dr. Sharma's. What specific evidence from Davies did you use effectively?
8. How could this sentence from your answer be made clearer: "the powers and benefits other MPs have on England isn't the same as the power that English MPs have."?
9. Which of your targets is specifically about improving the quality and depth of your reasoning?
10. Your explanation of Dr. Sharma's view was identified as an area for improvement. What was her core argument?
Candidate 90123
Word Count: ~81 words
Evaluation Score: 4/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
R. page 3
In conclusion, The debate can be seen as a balance of fairness" versus "functionality"while managing multiple parliaments is very hard and consuming,the benefits have many layers of great good as well as checks and balances - including in a more democratic society are essential ultimately a balanced level of devolution maintains the rule of law and that legislation is versitille and robust to protect all thoughs in our communittee regardless of were you live.
Quality of EvaluationLimited. Your conclusion attempts to weigh up both sides of the argument and provides a final judgement, which is a key skill for evaluation. However, the analysis is superficial and lacks specific evidence from the source material. You mention 'functionality' and 'benefits' but don't explain what these are, using the writers' own words or ideas. Your judgement is asserted rather than explained, meaning you state *what* you think but not *why*.
Substantiation: For example, instead of saying devolution has 'many layers of great good', you could write: "Ultimately, while Davies' concern about legislative complexity is valid, Sharma's argument that devolution creates more responsive local laws, such as the carrier bag charge in Wales, is more convincing. This demonstrates that a balanced level of devolution can create robust legislation that better protects communities."
Strengths
Argument Framing: You effectively set up the debate as a conflict between two key ideas ("fairness" vs "functionality"). This is a strong analytical starting point.
Clear Judgement: You end with a clear, decisive overall judgement about the success of devolution, which is essential for a conclusion.
Targets
Use Specific Evidence: You must refer directly to the arguments or evidence used by Writer A (Dr. Sharma) and Writer B (Michael Davies). Instead of 'benefits', name a specific benefit Dr. Sharma mentioned.
Substantiate Your Judgement: After making a judgement (e.g., "devolution maintains the rule of law"), you must explain *how* or *why* this is the case, using evidence from the source or your own knowledge to support your claim.
Develop Your Analysis: Go beyond simple statements like "it is very hard". Explain the *implications* of this difficulty. For example, does it lead to legal confusion, higher costs, or inequality between UK nations?
Proofread for Accuracy: Check your work carefully for spelling and grammar errors (e.g., 'versitille', 'thoughs', 'communittee', 'were'). This will make your arguments clearer and more convincing.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. Based on the feedback, what does "substantiate" mean?
2. Which of these was identified as a Strength in your answer?
3. The feedback mentioned several spelling errors. What is the correct spelling of 'communittee'?
4. The feedback suggests you should use more "specific evidence". Which of the following would be the best example of this?
5. What is the main purpose of the "Develop Your Analysis" target?
6. Your final judgement was that devolution "maintains the rule of law". What was the main target for improving this judgement?
7. Which target specifically advises you to refer to "Writer A (Dr. Sharma) and Writer B (Michael Davies)"?
8. Why is proofreading for spelling and grammar important?
9. What does the term "rule of law" mean?
10. Your answer mentioned "checks and balances". What are checks and balances?
Candidate 90128
Word Count: ~367 words
Evaluation Score: 7/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
In the passage both Dr Anjali Sharma and Michael Davies can be seen to be polar opposites with Dr Anjal Sharma mainly being seen as a devolution modle supporter to here westm- were Sharm aargued for pride in devolution calling it a stregnth and something that is flexable, but with Micheal davis being seen more as a centralist model suporter were westminster holds the most powerwere I would say that both have strong points but were I would agree agree with Dr Anjal Docters Sharmas point of view / argument.
Firstly, Dr Anjal Sharma, argues that devolution is a "good thing", being very flexiable and versitile as the centralized system was too disconnected from regional needs. With Sharma believing that giving more power to citizens in lets say the union like Scotland wales and northern Ireland allows for rapid responses to local social and economic shifts, for example one great thing was brang from devolution was free tuition fees not compared to in England and tailored pollicies in education and healthcare ensure that the most effective way" to create a strong and thriving society is used.However critics argue this is creates a postcode lottery" which could be seen as a weak' point if it lead to unequal rights for citizens across the UK.
Conversey, Micheal Davis views the purposs of devolution as "bad" and fragmenting, because it undermines the saftey net" of a unified state.They argue that a large, centralized state is more influencal in maintaining a "better economic model" for the UK as a whole.Davies fears that the parliamentary ping-pong" between Westminster and devolved parliament leads to confusion and legal inadequacy.Davies suggest that a truly successfull is society is one that prioritizes well being of the whole community through one legeslating body bringing consistency and national legislation that prevent huge unfairness between borders.Boths views have distinct advantages and some big disadvantages.The "Devolution" view risks "Executive Dominance at a local level" while the "centralist" view can cause "gridlock" where regional concern are ignored by a distant London parliament.To improve this, the UK uses "Joint Ministerial commitees" to find the middle ground between local and regional governmentsmaking democracy more acountable and this ensures belonging and togetherness in a community and the UK.
Quality of EvaluationGood. You have clearly understood and explained the two opposing viewpoints on devolution presented in the source. You use evidence from the text well, such as 'postcode lottery' and 'parliamentary ping-pong', and you offer a clear judgement supported by your own knowledge. To reach the highest levels, your evaluation needs to be more sustained throughout the answer, rather than being mostly in the final paragraph.
Developing a Judgement: "While both writers present valid concerns, Dr. Sharma's argument for devolution appears more compelling. The flexibility to address specific regional needs, such as providing free university tuition in Scotland, demonstrates a tangible benefit that outweighs the potential for inconsistency, which as I will explore, can be managed through inter-governmental cooperation."
Strengths
Clear Explanation of Both Views: You accurately summarised the key arguments from both Dr. Sharma and Michael Davies, showing you understood the source material well.
Use of Evidence: You effectively selected and used specific quotes and concepts from the source, such as "postcode lottery" and "parliamentary ping-pong," to support your points.
Application of Own Knowledge: Your reference to "Joint Ministerial Committees" shows you are thinking beyond the source and applying your own knowledge to evaluate the situation, which is a high-level skill.
Targets
Sustain Your Evaluation: Instead of saving most of your judgement for the conclusion, try to evaluate points as you go. For example, when you mention the "postcode lottery," you could immediately weigh its significance against the benefits of tailored policies. This creates a more sustained analysis.
Develop Your Judgement: Your introduction states which view you agree with. Try to expand this into a clear line of argument. Explain *why* you find one view more convincing from the very beginning and then use the rest of your essay to prove it.
Refine Terminology: Be precise with your language. Instead of saying devolution is "good" or "bad," use more analytical terms like "effective," "democratic," "inefficient," or "divisive." This makes your argument sound more academic.
Proofread for Clarity: Several spelling and grammatical errors (e.g., "flexable," "stregnth," "Micheal Davis") slightly disrupt the flow of your argument. A quick proofread can help ensure your excellent points are communicated as clearly as possible.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. According to your feedback, what does the target "Sustain Your Evaluation" suggest you should do?
2. The feedback praised your use of evidence. Which specific phrase was highlighted as a good example from Michael Davies' view?
3. Which of these is an example of the more "analytical" language your 'Refine Terminology' target encourages, instead of "bad"?
4. Your use of "Joint Ministerial Committees" was praised as an example of what skill?
5. According to the 'Develop Your Judgement' target, where is the best place to start explaining *why* you agree with one side?
6. The 'Proofread for Clarity' target noted a specific name was misspelled. Which one was it?
7. Which writer argued that devolution was flexible and a "good thing"?
8. What is meant by the term "postcode lottery"?
9. How could you apply the 'Proofread for Clarity' target to the word "stregnth"?
10. What is "Executive Dominance," a risk you mentioned in your conclusion?
Candidate 91826
Word Count: ~289 words
Evaluation Score: 10/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I agree withMichael Davies who says and I quote 'devolution has created a deeply fractured and unstable political system'.This is shown as rather than satisfying nationalist demands it only further fuelled them to sight-see full independence.This was shown in the 2014 referendum, where the scottish only by a small margin voted against independence.This shows that the current political system is only hanging on by a thread and one small move for a scottish don't live could cause a full-scale independence movement.Another example of the devolution system being unstable is that when Westminster makes a decision that affects anyone everyone, all countries of the UK might disagree with it creating instability.An example of this was the 2016 decision for Brexit which was finalised in 2020. Whilst most of the English people agreed with it a large number of Scottish and people from Northern Ireland did not want to leaveshowing that devolution was a 'stepping stone towards separation'.Some may argue that people like'Devolution has been a profound democratic success, strengthening the UK by making it more flexible and responsive to its diverse nations.She used the example of how the Scottish Parliament used their new found power to abolish university tuition fees for Scottish studentshowever I would argue that decisions like these create resentment and undemocratic deficit between the countries in the UK as they are not receiving the same benefits as their counterparts further destabilising the UK.In conclusion, although devolution has provided many benefits such as allowing decisions on local issues that would've been impossible under a centralised government, it has created deep resentment and created a deep political disparity between members of the UK.
Quality of EvaluationExcellent. This is a convincing and sustained evaluation that meets the Level 4 criteria. You establish a clear line of argument from the very first sentence and support it consistently with well-chosen evidence. Your ability to directly rebut the counter-argument by re-interpreting its evidence is a sign of sophisticated analytical skill. You successfully argue that devolution, far from being a success, has been a destabilising force, and you substantiate this judgement effectively throughout.
Clarity & Precision: "This is shown as rather than satisfying nationalist demands it only further fuelled them... This was shown in the 2014 referendum, where the scottish only by a small margin voted against independence."
Could be rewritten as: "This is demonstrated by the fact that, rather than satisfying nationalist demands, devolution appears to have fuelled the desire for full independence. For example, the 2014 Scottish independence referendum was only narrowly defeated, suggesting the UK's political unity is fragile and that nationalist sentiment remains a powerful, potentially destabilising force."
Strengths
Sustained Argument: You maintain a clear and consistent line of argument throughout your answer, starting with a clear judgement and supporting it logically to the end.
Effective Use of Evidence: You use specific, relevant examples like the 2014 and 2016 referendums and the Scottish tuition fees policy to effectively substantiate your points.
Strong Rebuttal: You successfully challenge the opposing view (Dr. Sharma) by turning its own evidence (tuition fees) into a point that supports your argument about resentment and division. This is a high-level skill.
Targets
Clarity of Expression: Some phrases are slightly awkward or contain typos (e.g., "to sight-see full independence", "a scottish don't live"). Focus on using precise, formal academic language to make your excellent points even clearer.
Develop Breadth: To elevate your response further, you could briefly mention other devolved areas. For instance, a quick reference to the unique situation in Northern Ireland (e.g., power-sharing) or Wales would add greater breadth to your analysis of the UK as a whole.
Define Key Concepts: You use the phrase "undemocratic deficit". Briefly explaining what this means (e.g., a feeling that democratic structures don't properly represent the people) would demonstrate deeper conceptual understanding and add more analytical weight.
Acknowledge Nuance: Your conclusion briefly notes the benefits of local decision-making. Expanding slightly on this nuance—acknowledging that 'success' can be measured in different ways (e.g., politically unstable but democratically responsive on local issues)—would make your evaluation even more sophisticated.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. The feedback praised your 'Strong Rebuttal'. What does 'rebuttal' mean in the context of an essay?
2. One of your targets is 'Clarity of Expression'. How could the phrase "to sight-see full independence" be best improved for academic writing?
3. Which piece of evidence was highlighted as being used effectively in your rebuttal against Dr. Sharma's argument?
4. A target for improvement was to 'Develop Breadth'. Which area was suggested as an example to include?
5. What does the term 'democratic deficit', which you were encouraged to define, generally refer to?
6. One of your key strengths was having a 'Sustained Argument'. What was the central argument you sustained throughout the essay?
7. How does the feedback suggest you could add more 'Nuance' to your conclusion?
8. You used the 2016 referendum as evidence. This referendum was about the UK's membership of what organisation?
9. Applying the target of 'Clarity of Expression', which of these sentences is the most formal and precise?
10. What is the central tension regarding devolution that is explored in your essay and the feedback?
Candidate 97128
Word Count: ~225 words
Evaluation Score: 7/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I agree that devolution is good for society because it gives power a more diverse look by spreading it out through the region.It also makes sure that everyone through the region is seen as an equal with everyone else.Dr Anjali Sharma says yes that devolution has been successful because it is made it more flexible and responsive to its diverse nations.I agree with this because the power is being spread out.She also says that devolved governments can create policies to their specific needs for everyone which is good because that means everyone can have their own specific policies that helps their <s>own</s> own part of the region.However Micheal Davies has good points aswell.He says that people in Scotland can vote for things in England, but people in England can't vote for stuff in Scotland.This is a good point because it shows us that devolved powers can lead into some inequality between boths parts of the region.He also says that their assembly has been suspended multiple times due to a disagreement.<s>Therefore</s> This shows us that the current system may cause conflict between the different parts.In conclusion, I agree with Anjali <s>Sharma</s> Shrama because she says how <s>the</s> devolved powers have impacted the UK positvely.I understand that devolved powers have had negative impacts, but these p
Quality of EvaluationGood. You have clearly understood and explained the arguments from both Dr. Sharma and Mr. Davies, which is a key skill for this question. You use evidence from the source to support your points and attempt to analyse what this evidence means (e.g., linking the West Lothian Question to 'inequality'). To improve, your evaluation needs to be more developed; instead of just agreeing with one side, try to weigh up the arguments against each other directly to form a more balanced and substantiated conclusion.
Substantiated Judgement: In conclusion, while Michael Davies raises a crucial point about inequality through the West Lothian Question, the ability for devolved nations to create policies for their specific needs, as highlighted by Dr. Sharma, is a more significant success. This flexibility suggests that despite its flaws, devolution has been a positive step towards a more responsive UK.
Strengths
Clear Source Comprehension: You accurately identify and explain the main arguments from both writers in the source material.
Balanced Structure: You have structured your answer well, giving equal attention to both the positive and negative views on devolution before attempting a conclusion.
Initial Analysis: You make good attempts to analyse the evidence, for example by linking Michael Davies' point about voting to the concept of 'inequality'.
Targets
Develop Your Evaluation: Instead of just stating which side you agree with, try to "weigh up" the arguments. Explain *why* Dr. Sharma's point about tailored policies is more convincing to you than Mr. Davies' point about inequality. Use phrases like "While X argues..., Y's point is more significant because..."
Use Connective Language: To make your argument flow better, use more sophisticated connectives. Instead of starting a new paragraph with "However...", try phrases like "Conversely," or "On the other hand,". The sentence starting "This shows us..." could be integrated into the previous one for a stronger analytical link.
Substantiate Your Judgement: Your conclusion needs to be a summary of your reasoning. It should briefly explain *why* you've reached your decision, referencing the arguments you've just discussed. Avoid simply restating your opinion.
Attention to Detail: Proofread your work for spelling and grammar errors, such as the spelling of "Sharma" and the use of "aswell". This improves the clarity and formality of your writing.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. Which of these was highlighted as a strength in your feedback?
2. What does it mean to "weigh up" arguments in an evaluation?
3. Which of the following is a more sophisticated connective to introduce a counter-argument than "However"?
4. What is the main purpose of a conclusion in an evaluation essay?
5. How was the name "Dr. Anjali Sharma" misspelled in your answer?
6. In your feedback, you were praised for linking Michael Davies' point about voting to the concept of 'inequality'. What is this skill called?
7. What does the word "substantiate" mean in the phrase "substantiate your judgement"?
8. The feedback suggested a rewrite for your conclusion. What was the key improvement in the suggested rewrite?
9. Your feedback praised your "Balanced Structure". Why is this important for an evaluation question?
10. The feedback suggested integrating the sentence "This shows us..." into the previous one. Why would this improve your writing?
Candidate 98607
Word Count: ~312 words
Evaluation Score: 6/12
View A(Dr. Anjali Sharma)
View B(Michael Davies)
Evaluation(Judgement)
Dr Anjali Sharma has both good and bad points. An Example of a point made by her is that allowing decisions on crucial issues to be made by those work who are most affected".This is a strong point as it there is a issue it is harder to adress with a central government.However one negati- weak point made by Dr. Sharma is that a devolved government "is a mature and sensible arrangement".This is a weak point as it is unclear where different laws are as there is multiple laws and different parliments. This makes it more difficult for the community.Michael Davis also has much some strong and weak points. One example of a weak point would be "devolution has created a deeply fractured and unstable political system".This is a weak point as it parliment was centralised in westminister then it will weaken the current mps decisions as he/she will not be fully aware of what is going on in other location leading to him not being able to adress local issues.One strong point made by mr Davies is that "mps from Scotland" can vote on laws that apply only to England".This is a strong point as people in England can only vote on English laws but also Scottish and other people may not know what is required more.Both Dr Anjali Sharma and Micheal Davies have their own opinions however some of their beliefs are similar on how a devolved power adresses issues in a specific area which is a strong point.However, other areas should not be able to vote on different locations laws as they dont have an understund of the issues.Both Dr Anjali Sharma and micheal Davies has strong and weak point.I slightly agree with Dr Sharma even though i still disagree with some points made by her and agree with some points made by Davies.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a good attempt to analyse both sides of the argument, correctly identifying strong and weak points from each writer. Your response shows understanding of the source material. However, your own evaluation often lacks depth, and your arguments need to be explained more clearly and coherently. Your final judgement is asserted rather than proven by the evidence you have discussed, which limits your mark to the top of Level 2.
Substantiating a Judgement: Instead of "I slightly agree with Dr Sharma even though i still disagree with some points...", a stronger conclusion would be: "Overall, while Michael Davies raises a crucial constitutional issue with the 'West Lothian Question', Dr Sharma's core argument that devolution empowers local communities is more convincing. The benefits of local knowledge and tailored policies seem to outweigh the political inconsistencies that Davies highlights."
Strengths
Balanced Analysis: You successfully identified and commented on both positive and negative points for Dr. Sharma and Michael Davies. This shows you have understood and engaged with the whole source.
Identifying Key Issues: You correctly picked out two of the most important arguments in the devolution debate: the benefit of local decision-making and the problem of the 'West Lothian Question'.
Targets
Develop Your Explanations (PEEL): When you state a point is strong or weak, your explanation needs more detail. Try using the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link structure to build your paragraphs and make your reasoning clearer to the examiner.
Substantiate Your Judgement: Your final conclusion must be a reasoned decision based on your analysis. Instead of just stating who you agree with, explain why their argument is stronger overall, weighing it against the other side's points.
Use Specific Terminology: To achieve higher marks, use precise academic language. For example, the issue of "mps from Scotland can vote on laws that apply only to England" is known as the 'West Lothian Question'. Using this term shows deeper knowledge.
Proofread for Clarity: Some sentences are difficult to understand due to grammatical errors (e.g., "it parliment was centralised..."). Reading your work aloud before finishing can help you spot these mistakes and improve the coherence of your argument.
🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback
To see your final mark, essay annotations, and RAG breakdown, you must answer 4 questions based on your Strengths and Targets above. You need at least 3/4 to unlock.
1. What does the target "Substantiate Your Judgement" mean you should do in your conclusion?
2. The specific term for the issue where Scottish MPs can vote on English-only laws is...
3. Which of the following is a key 'Strength' identified in your feedback?
4. The PEEL structure is recommended to help you with which target?
5. What does the 'E' in PEEL stand for?
6. Which sentence from your transcript contains a grammatical error that affects clarity?
7. To 'substantiate' a point means to...
8. A key target for you is to improve the 'coherence' of your argument. What does 'coherence' mean?
9. Based on the feedback, which part of your essay was the weakest?
10. One of your strengths was 'Identifying Key Issues'. Which two issues were specifically mentioned in your feedback?