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: 12 Marker: Is the UK's unwritten constitution fit for purposeClass Eval Avg: 4.5 / 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 Developed Reasoning: Many students identified a point (e.g., the constitution is 'flexible') but failed to explain *why* this is a strength or weakness in practice. They needed to build a 'chain of reasoning' to show the real-world impact of the point. 👉 Model: Professor Reed's argument that the constitution is flexible is a key strength, as this allows Parliament to legislate quickly on modern issues, such as online safety, without the lengthy and rigid amendment process required by codified constitutions.
2. Insufficient Use of Own Knowledge: The strongest answers go beyond the source material. Most students did not include specific examples from their own knowledge (e.g., Acts of Parliament, court cases, conventions) to support their arguments, making their points too general and assertive. 👉 Model: While Dr Croft worries about weak checks and balances, this is challenged by the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, as seen in the 2019 prorogation case, which demonstrates a clear, independent check on executive power.
3. One-Sided or Unbalanced Arguments: A common issue was focusing entirely on one side of the debate, usually Professor Reed's. A strong evaluation must explore the strengths and weaknesses of *both* arguments in detail before reaching a justified conclusion. 👉 Model: Although Professor Reed praises the stability of an unwritten constitution, Dr Croft's concern about an 'elective dictatorship' is compelling, as a government with a large majority can pass laws that erode rights with little effective opposition.
4. Weak Evaluative Language: Students often used simple phrases like "I agree" or "This is wrong." To achieve higher marks, it is crucial to use comparative and analytical language that directly weighs up the two arguments against each other. 👉 Model: While Professor Reed’s point about flexibility is valid, Dr Croft’s argument about the lack of clarity poses a more significant threat to citizens' rights because it creates uncertainty about the limits of government power.
Teacher Next Steps
1. Chain of Reasoning Drill: Give students a simple point from the source (e.g., "The constitution is flexible"). In pairs, they must write a 3-sentence chain using "This means that..." and "Therefore..." to explain the impact. E.g., "The constitution is flexible. This means that Parliament can pass new laws without a special process. Therefore, it is fit for purpose because it can adapt to new challenges like terrorism or pandemics." Share the best examples.
2. Example Matching: Create a two-column table. In one column, list concepts from the essay (e.g., 'Checks and Balances', 'Statute Law', 'Common Law', 'Flexibility'). In the other, list jumbled-up specific examples (e.g., 'Human Rights Act 1998', 'Select Committees', 'Supreme Court prorogation case', 'COVID-19 emergency laws'). Students have 5 minutes to match the concept to the correct example and explain the link.
3. Argument Tennis: Divide the class in half. One side represents Professor Reed, the other Dr. Croft. The teacher 'serves' a concept (e.g., "Parliamentary Sovereignty"). The Reed side must state why it's a strength. The Croft side must immediately counter with why it's a weakness. Go back and forth for 2-3 'rallies'. This forces students to think from the opposing perspective.
4. Sentence Upgrader: Project simple, descriptive sentences on the board (e.g., "Reed says it's flexible, but Croft says it's unclear."). Provide a bank of evaluative phrases ("A more significant weakness is...", "While X is valid, it is outweighed by...", "This is less convincing because..."). In pairs, students have 5 minutes to rewrite the simple sentences into sophisticated, evaluative ones. Share the most powerful upgrades with the class.
Candidate 0197
Word Count: ~148 words
Evaluation Score: 5/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
9Q/C12
However, I disagree with writer Dr Julian Croft as he beliefs an unwritten constitution is dangerous for the modern world & has many weaknesses and i disagree with this as because i believe an unwritten constitution actually strengthens the government.
In conclusion, i agree with Proffesor Evelyn as our system can evolve organically to meet new challenges.
9Q/C12
I mainly agree with Professor Evelyn Reed as he thinks change shouldn't require constitutional crises.
Some people may agree with Dr Julian Croft more as he believes every citizen should be able to read & understand a written constitution.
I mostly agree with Professor Evelyn as i agree that unwritten constitution is one of its greatest strengths,an advantage of an unwritten consitution is how it is stable & flexible, creating a more effective system.This means that there's a far more democratic arrangement, which has provided stable governance for centuries.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear and consistent judgment, siding with Professor Reed. You have selected relevant points from the source to support your view, such as the constitution being 'flexible' and able to 'evolve organically'. Crucially, you also showed some balance by mentioning one of Dr Croft's arguments. To improve, you need to develop your reasoning by explaining *how* these points lead to a better system and directly challenge the opposing view, rather than just stating it.
Developing a point: Instead of "...i believe an unwritten constitution actually strengthens the government," try: "This strengthens the government because it can adapt quickly to new challenges, like passing anti-terror legislation, without being delayed by a rigid constitutional amendment process."
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly and consistently throughout your answer, leaving the examiner in no doubt about your position.
Use of Source Material: You effectively select arguments and keywords from Professor Reed's viewpoint (e.g., 'evolve organically', 'stable', 'flexible') to support your conclusion.
Balanced Structure: You acknowledge the opposing viewpoint by including an argument from Dr Croft. This is a vital skill for showing you have considered both sides of the debate.
Targets
Develop Your Points (The 'How' and 'Why'): When you make a point (e.g., it's 'flexible'), explain *why* this is a strength. For example: "This flexibility is a strength because it allows Parliament to respond to modern issues like online safety without a complex amendment process."
Use Evaluative Connectives: Instead of just stating the other side, challenge it directly. Use phrases like "While Dr Croft argues that..., this is less significant because..." or "A weakness in Dr Croft's argument is..." to turn description into evaluation.
Incorporate Own Knowledge: To reach the top marks, include specific examples. Could you name a type of law (e.g., Statute Law), a tradition (a convention), or a court ruling (Common Law) that shows the UK constitution in action?
Refine Sentence Structure: Avoid repetition like "i disagree with this as because i believe...". Try combining ideas into more powerful sentences. For example: "Disagreeing with Dr Croft, the unwritten constitution's flexibility is a key strength because..."
🛑 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 Points'. What does this mean you should explain?
2. Which of these is an example of an 'Evaluative Connective' as mentioned in your targets?
3. Your feedback praised your 'Clear Judgement'. What does this mean?
4. What is an example of 'own knowledge' you could add to an answer about the UK constitution?
5. How could you best 'Refine the Sentence Structure' of "i disagree with this as because i believe..."?
6. One of your strengths was 'Balanced Structure'. Why is this important?
7. The feedback mentions 'Statute Law', 'Common Law', and 'conventions'. What are these?
8. Your feedback praised your 'Use of Source Material'. This means you were good at:
9. What is the main purpose of turning a statement like "Some people agree with Dr Croft" into "While Dr Croft argues..., this is less significant because..."?
10. Based on all your targets, which action would most likely improve your score from a 5 to a 7 or 8?
Candidate 10897
Word Count: ~86 words
Evaluation Score: 5/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I believe Professor Evelyn Reed is correct is correct and the one I agree with the most.The reason why I believe this is because it comes with great strengths and is remarkably flexible.Codified (written) Constitutions are considered more difficult to change.That means the system can evolve organically.Uncodified constitut -ion also allows power not to be abused (be easily prevented).This combination of tradition, flexibility and accountability has improved and served th -is country well, providing stable and de -mocratic governance for centuries.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a good start by stating a clear judgement and selecting relevant evidence from Professor Reed's argument to support it. Your answer shows understanding of the benefits of an uncodified constitution. However, to achieve a higher score, evaluation requires you to weigh up both sides of the argument. Your response is entirely one-sided and does not engage with any of the criticisms raised by Dr. Croft, which limits the depth of your analysis.
Evaluation: While Professor Reed sees the uncodified constitution as preventing the abuse of power, it's crucial to consider Dr. Croft's counter-argument that this same flexibility could lead to an 'elective dictatorship' where a government with a majority can pass any law it wants, potentially harming citizens' rights.
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You begin with a clear and direct judgement, stating which view you agree with. This is a great start to an evaluation question.
Use of Evidence: You have selected several key arguments from Professor Reed's viewpoint, such as flexibility, tradition, and stability, to support your judgement.
Key Terminology: You correctly use terms like 'codified', 'uncodified', and 'evolve organically', showing your understanding of the topic.
Targets
Engage with the Counter-Argument: To improve, you must also discuss the arguments from the other side of the debate (Dr. Croft). Explain his concerns (e.g., that it is unclear or that rights are unprotected) and then explain why you still find Reed's view more convincing.
Develop Your Points (PEEL): Try to structure your points using the PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) method. After stating the constitution is 'flexible' (Point/Evidence), explain *how* this works in practice (e.g., quick changes during a crisis) and link it back to why this makes it 'fit for purpose'.
Introduce 'Own Knowledge': Incorporate specific examples from your own knowledge. For instance, when discussing checks and balances, you could name a specific check like 'Judicial Review' or the role of 'Select Committees'.
Proofread for Clarity: Read your answer back to catch small errors. For example, you wrote 'is correct is correct'. A quick proofread can make your writing more professional and easier to understand.
🛑 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 main weakness identified in your answer, according to the 'Engage with the Counter-Argument' target?
2. What is the first step in writing a strong evaluation answer, which was highlighted as one of your strengths?
3. What does the 'E' in the PEEL structure (mentioned in your targets) stand for?
4. Which of these is a specific example of 'own knowledge' you could have used to develop your point about checks and balances?
5. Dr. Croft warns of an 'elective dictatorship'. What does this term mean?
6. Your transcript included the phrase "is correct is correct". Which target specifically addresses how to avoid this type of error?
7. Which of Professor Reed's arguments did you correctly identify and use in your answer, as noted in your strengths?
8. According to the 'Develop Your Points' target, after stating that the constitution is flexible, what should you do next to improve your explanation?
9. You correctly used the term 'codified'. What is the key difference between a 'codified' and an 'uncodified' constitution?
10. Why is incorporating 'own knowledge', as suggested in your targets, important in a GCSE Citizenship essay?
Candidate 16908
Word Count: ~155 words
Evaluation Score: 5/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
and unable to meet certain requirements.
Overall I agree [crossed out: with] more with [crossed out: writer] Evelyn Reed due to the fact that an unwritten constitution allows the constitution to constantly evolve and streng then its abilities due to it being flexible. It [crossed out: has also been a] has also been a stable democratic government for yearsI mostly agree with writer Evelyn Reed. They suggest an unwritten constitution is one of the greatest powers the uk has to offer.I agree with this view because it means that the [crossed out: constitution] is able to constantly evolve and meet new standards. They also suggest robust checks and balances that prevents the abuse of power.I strongly agree with this as it makes the constitution fair.However, I disagree with the argument given by the writer Julian Croft, this is because they suggest that the unwritten constitution is an outdated relic.I disagree with this because [crossed out: without] it the constitution could be less flexible.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgment and selected relevant arguments from the source to support your view. You correctly identify points from both writers, which is a key skill. However, your evaluation is one-sided; you counter Dr. Croft's argument by simply repeating your point about flexibility, rather than engaging with his specific criticisms. To improve, you need to add your own specific knowledge (e.g., examples of checks and balances) and develop your counter-arguments with more depth.
Developing Counter-Arguments: Instead of "I disagree with this because it the constitution could be less flexible," you could write: "While Dr. Croft calls the constitution an 'outdated relic', I disagree. The flexibility he criticises is what allows for rapid legal changes, such as the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, without the lengthy process a written constitution would require. This adaptability is a strength, not a weakness."
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You state your overall opinion clearly at the start and throughout your answer (e.g., "I mostly agree with writer Evelyn Reed").
Source Selection: You have successfully identified and used key arguments from both writers to build your response, such as flexibility and checks and balances.
Targets
Develop Both Sides: Your argument against Dr. Croft is underdeveloped. Instead of just repeating your point about flexibility, try to directly challenge one of his specific claims (e.g., that rights are not protected).
Incorporate Own Knowledge: To reach the higher bands, you must include specific examples not mentioned in the source. For instance, when discussing 'checks and balances', you could name the Supreme Court's power of judicial review or the role of House of Lords scrutiny.
Use Evaluative Language: Move beyond "I agree/disagree." Use more analytical phrases like "A more significant weakness is...", "While Reed's point is valid, it overlooks...", or "Croft's argument is compelling because...".
Structure for Balance: Try a 'PEEL' (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) structure for each paragraph. Dedicate one paragraph to arguing for Reed and a separate, equally developed paragraph to arguing against Croft, before concluding with your final judgment.
🛑 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 the following phrases from your answer best shows a 'Clear Judgement', one of your identified strengths?
2. Your feedback praised your 'Source Selection'. What does this skill involve?
3. One of your targets is to 'Develop Both Sides'. How could you better challenge Dr. Croft's argument?
4. To meet your target 'Incorporate Own Knowledge', which of these is a specific example of a 'check and balance' you could have named?
5. Your feedback advises you to use more 'Evaluative Language'. Which of the following is the strongest example of this?
6. Your target 'Structure for Balance' mentions the 'PEEL' method. What does the 'E' in PEEL stand for?
7. What is 'judicial review'?
8. To effectively counter Dr. Croft's claim that the constitution is an 'outdated relic', you should:
9. Instead of writing "I strongly agree with this as it makes the constitution fair," which is a better, more academic alternative?
10. Why is it important to have a balanced structure, with a developed paragraph for each side?
Candidate 17629
Word Count: ~124 words
Evaluation Score: 4/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
Noah Q
17629
Date: 11/03/26
(Citizenship) 9Q/ci2
Professor Evelyn Reed is pro agreeing that the UK's Unwritten constitution is fit for purpose for many have a numerous reason while Dr. Julian Croft disagrees with many good points as well.
Although I agree with Professor Evelyn Reed because the UK's unwritten constitution does fit for purpose, examples like our constitution do robust checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. Another example is parliamentary sovereignty, this allows supreme legal authority in the hands of the elected House of Commons.
But However, I disagree with writer Dr. Julian. They suggest that parliamentary sovereignty creates risk of "elective dictatorship"while the house of Commons is made up of multiple people. Overall I agree with writer Evelyn because of the checks and balances to prevent abuse of power.
Quality of EvaluationUndeveloped. You have made a good start by identifying the two arguments and stating a clear judgement. You also use key terms from the source like 'checks and balances'. However, your reasoning is very limited. You state points rather than explaining them, and your attempt to challenge Dr. Croft's view on 'elective dictatorship' is based on a misunderstanding of the term. To improve, you must explain your points in more detail and engage properly with the arguments you disagree with.
Developing Evaluation: A better way to challenge Dr. Croft would be: "While Dr. Croft's concern about an 'elective dictatorship' is valid, Professor Reed's argument is stronger because institutions like the House of Lords and the Supreme Court act as significant checks on government power, preventing a single party from acting without scrutiny."
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You clearly state which writer you agree with at the beginning and end of your answer. This provides a clear structure to your evaluation.
Use of Source Material: You have successfully identified key arguments from the source, such as 'checks and balances' and 'parliamentary sovereignty', to support your points.
Targets
Develop Your Reasoning: Instead of just naming a concept like "checks and balances," you need to explain *how* it works. For example, name a specific check (like the House of Lords) and explain its role in scrutinising the government.
Engage with Counter-Arguments: Your dismissal of the 'elective dictatorship' argument was too simplistic. To evaluate effectively, you must show you understand the opposing view and explain *why* you find it less convincing, using logic or evidence.
Incorporate Own Knowledge: To achieve higher marks, you must include specific facts or examples not mentioned in the source. For example, you could mention a real Supreme Court case as evidence of judicial review in action.
Refine Sentence Structure: Avoid using redundant phrases like "But However". Choose one word ("But" or "However") to make your writing clearer and more professional.
🛑 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 a positive feature of your answer's structure, as highlighted in your Strengths?
2. One of your targets is to "Refine Sentence Structure". Why is the phrase "But However" incorrect?
3. The feedback suggests you need to "Develop Your Reasoning". What is the best way to do this?
4. Which of these would be a good piece of "Own Knowledge" to add to develop the point about "checks and balances"?
5. What does the term 'elective dictatorship' mean in the context of the UK constitution?
6. According to your Targets, how should you "Engage with Counter-Arguments" more effectively?
7. Which two key terms from the source did you correctly identify in your answer, as noted in your Strengths?
8. What is the main purpose of using "Own Knowledge" in a GCSE Citizenship essay?
9. One of your strengths was having a "Clear Judgement". Why is this important for an evaluation question?
10. Which of the following is NOT one of your specific targets for improvement?
Candidate 19207
Word Count: ~170 words
Evaluation Score: 4/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
well as the unwritten constitution.
Overall I agree with writer Professor Evelyn Reedbecause of the benefits and how the unwritten constitution has served us.I mostly agree with writer Professor Evelyn Reed.They suggest that a uncodified constitution is fit for purpose. They also suggest that codified constitutions were not fit for purpose. I strongly agree with this writer becauseuncodified constitutions are flexible and stable.This constitution has provided stability and democratic governance for centuries.However, I disagree with the argument given by the writer Dr. Julian Croft.They suggest that the unwritten constitution is dangerous work for the modern world.And I disagree with this because the unwritten constitution has served the country well for a long time.They also suggest that a written constitution would be strongerand I disagree with this because it is not flexible, however and it hasn't served the country as
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have a clear point of view and have correctly identified the main arguments from both writers. You use keywords like 'flexible' and 'stable' to support Professor Reed's view. However, your evaluation is currently assertive, meaning you state your agreement or disagreement without explaining *why* in detail. To improve, you need to engage more deeply with Dr. Croft's specific concerns and use your own knowledge to build a more balanced and evidence-based argument.
Developing Evaluation: Instead of "I disagree with this because the unwritten constitution has served the country well for a long time," you could write: "While it's true the unwritten constitution has provided stability, Dr. Croft's concern about it being 'dangerous' is valid. For example, without a codified constitution, citizens' rights (like those in the Human Rights Act 1998) could be overturned by a simple Act of Parliament, which supports his view that it is not strong enough to protect people from a powerful government."
Strengths
Clear Judgment: You state your overall opinion clearly at the beginning and maintain it throughout your answer.
Identifies Key Arguments: You successfully identified the core arguments of both Professor Reed (uncodified is 'fit for purpose') and Dr. Croft (it is 'dangerous').
Targets
Develop Your Evaluation: Move beyond assertion (e.g., "I disagree because...") to explanation. Explain *why* a point is strong or weak. For example, *why* is flexibility a good thing in practice? What problems can it cause?
Engage with the Counter-Argument: Instead of just repeating your own point, directly challenge the other writer's evidence. Dr. Croft worries about a lack of protection for rights; how would you specifically counter that point?
Incorporate Own Knowledge: To reach the higher marks, you must include specific examples. You could mention Parliamentary Sovereignty, the Human Rights Act 1998, or the role of the Supreme Court to support your points.
Proofread for Clarity: Your final sentence was incomplete. Always leave time to read through your answer to fix any grammatical errors and ensure your points are clearly communicated.
🛑 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 strengths was 'Clear Judgment'. Where was this best demonstrated?
2. What does the target 'Develop Your Evaluation' mean you should do?
3. Which of these is an example of 'Own Knowledge' you were advised to include?
4. Your final sentence was incomplete: "...it is not flexible, however and it hasn't served the country as". How could this best be corrected to make a clear point against Dr. Croft?
5. What does the term 'Parliamentary Sovereignty' mean?
6. A key target was to 'Engage with the Counter-Argument'. Which of Dr. Croft's specific points did your answer fail to address?
7. You correctly identified that Professor Reed believes an uncodified constitution is...
8. What is 'assertion' in the context of your feedback?
9. Which of these is the best example of a well-developed evaluative sentence, as encouraged by your targets?
10. Based on all your feedback, which action would have the biggest positive impact on your mark?
Candidate 20896
Word Count: ~50 words
Evaluation Score: 2/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
9Q ciz
I ~~get~~ agree withprofessor evelyn ~~because Reed~~ becauseThey sugest an uncodified constitution is fit for purpose and that professor evelyn agreed and because written codified constitutions are difficult to change.Therefore codified constitutions cannot enforce new challanges.They also suggest that legal authority rests with the elected house.
Quality of EvaluationLimited. This response shows a basic understanding of one side of the argument, correctly identifying that Professor Reed supports the current uncodified constitution. You have picked out some relevant points from the source, such as the idea that authority rests with the elected house. However, the answer does not address Dr. Croft's counter-arguments at all, which is essential for evaluation. The reasoning is undeveloped and lacks a clear, supported judgment.
Developing a balanced argument: "While Professor Reed argues the constitution is flexible, Dr. Croft would counter that this flexibility makes citizens' rights vulnerable, as they are not properly protected in a single, clear document."
Strengths
Identifying a Core Argument: You correctly identified Professor Reed's main point that the UK's uncodified constitution is 'fit for purpose'.
Using Source Evidence: You picked out a specific reason from the source to support this view – that legal authority rests with the elected house (Parliamentary Sovereignty).
Targets
Address Both Sides: Your answer only focused on Professor Reed. To evaluate, you must analyse the arguments from *both* writers (Professor Reed and Dr. Julian Croft). Always ask: "What is the counter-argument?"
Develop Your Reasoning: Instead of just stating a point, explain *why* it is a strength or weakness. For example, *why* is it a problem if a constitution is 'difficult to change'? Explain the impact. This is called creating an 'analytical chain'.
Use Evaluative Language: Use phrases like "A significant strength of this argument is...", "However, a key weakness is...", or "On balance, the most convincing view is..." to signpost your judgment.
Check Names and Spelling: You referred to "Professor Evelyn" instead of "Professor Reed". Always double-check the names in the source to ensure accuracy. Also, check spellings like 'suggest' and 'challenges'.
🛑 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. To improve your evaluation, what is the first thing you should do after explaining Professor Reed's view?
2. What does the term 'analytical chain' mean, as mentioned in your targets?
3. Which key concept, that you correctly identified, means that legal authority rests with the elected house?
4. How should the name "Professor Evelyn" be corrected for accuracy based on the source?
5. Which of these is the best example of 'evaluative language'?
6. You correctly identified that Professor Reed believes the UK constitution is...
7. The feedback mentioned a spelling error. How should "new challanges" be correctly spelled?
8. What does the term 'uncodified constitution' mean?
9. Your answer only looked at one side of the debate. Who was the other writer you needed to include?
10. Which sentence best 'develops the reasoning' for the point that a codified constitution is "difficult to change"?
Candidate 26190
Word Count: ~109 words
Evaluation Score: 3/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
AQCIL
Professor Evelyn Reed Says Yes whilst Professor Croft Says No. I personally agree with the professor.Professor ER Says that she they agree be believe yes because the framework and governance is stable but extremely flexible essentially saying that the Government can change and the anytime and the constitution can evolve over time without crisis.This is important because this means that the rules can change whenever.An unwritten constitution helps because it is easier to change.The reason some may disagree is because if the constitution is a mix of the past which have serves on key rules and rights that are scattered into different laws.
Quality of EvaluationUndeveloped. Your answer correctly identifies the main argument from Professor Reed about flexibility. However, it does not develop this point or provide a balanced view. The attempt to include Dr Croft's argument is very brief and unclear. Your overall judgment is asserted without any supporting reasons, which limits your mark to the lower bands. To improve, you must explain both sides in equal detail and then make a clear, well-supported final judgment.
Making a Supported Judgment: "Overall, I find Professor Reed's argument more convincing. While Dr Croft correctly points out that an unwritten constitution can be confusing because rights are 'scattered into different laws', the flexibility identified by Professor Reed is more significant. This ability to 'evolve over time without crisis' is a crucial strength, allowing the UK to adapt to new challenges effectively."
Strengths
Argument Identification: You successfully identified Professor Reed's main argument about the flexibility of an unwritten constitution.
Attempted Structure: You started to build a balanced answer by presenting one view and then introducing an opposing one. This is the correct structure to use.
Targets
Develop Both Sides: Your answer is very one-sided. You need to explain the arguments from Dr Croft in the same amount of detail as you did for Professor Reed to create a balanced response.
Clear and Substantiated Judgment: State clearly which writer you agree with and, crucially, *why*. Use evidence from the source to support your final decision (e.g., "I agree with X because their point about... is stronger than Y's point about...").
Use Evaluative Language: Instead of just describing the arguments, analyse them. Use phrases like "This is a strong argument because...", "However, a weakness with this view is...", or "This is more convincing than..." to show you are weighing up the ideas.
Proofread for Clarity: Several grammatical errors (e.g., "she they agree be believe", "change and the anytime") make your points difficult to understand. Reading your work aloud can help you spot and correct these 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 'Develop Both Sides'. How could you best achieve this?
2. Your feedback notes a strength in 'Argument Identification'. What was the main argument from Professor Reed that you correctly identified?
3. A key target is making a 'Substantiated Judgment'. Which of these is the best example of one?
4. Your feedback advises you to use 'Evaluative Language'. Which of the following phrases is the best example of this?
5. One of your targets is 'Proofread for Clarity'. How could you correct the phrase "she they agree be believe" from your answer?
6. To reach a higher mark band, what must you do after explaining both sides of the argument?
7. Your feedback praised your 'Attempted Structure'. What is the correct term for this type of 'for and against' structure?
8. What does it mean to 'evaluate' an argument?
9. Why is proofreading for clarity an important target for you?
10. What does 'substantiate' mean in the target 'Clear and Substantiated Judgment'?
Candidate 6078
Word Count: ~79 words
Evaluation Score: 3/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
Akof
In my opinion I agree with Professor Evelyn Reed,because the uk Constitution is more flexible and Stable without a Codified Constitution.I agree with this statement because the unCodified constitution gives more power to the public rather than the unelected Judges in Supreme Courts.I disagree with Julian Croftbecause he says that the government looks weak because the power is given to the publicwhich shows how he dose not want the public to have power.
Quality of EvaluationUndeveloped. You have made a clear judgement and attempted to justify it, which is a good start. However, your reasoning is very brief and only explores one side of the argument in any detail. Your analysis of Dr. Croft's view shows a misunderstanding of his point about the dangers of an 'elective dictatorship'. To improve, you need to develop your points with more detail and specific knowledge, and ensure you accurately represent both sides of the debate before reaching your conclusion.
Developing a Counter-Argument: A better way to challenge Dr. Croft would be: "While Dr. Croft argues that parliamentary sovereignty can lead to an 'elective dictatorship', I believe the current system has sufficient checks and balances, such as judicial review and the role of the House of Lords, which prevent the government from abusing its power. Therefore, his fears are overstated."
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You start your answer with a clear overall judgement ('I agree with Professor Evelyn Reed'), which is a great way to structure an evaluation.
Source Use: You have correctly identified a key argument from Professor Reed's viewpoint (flexibility and stability) to support your opinion.
Initial Reasoning: You provide a reason for your agreement by linking the uncodified constitution to giving power to the public. This is a good starting point for analysis.
Targets
Develop Both Sides: Your analysis is one-sided. To reach the higher marks, you must explain the arguments for *both* Professor Reed and Dr. Croft in more detail before concluding which one is stronger.
Accurate Interpretation: Your interpretation of Dr. Croft's argument is inaccurate. He is concerned about an 'elective dictatorship' (too much government power), not about being against public power. Always re-read the source carefully.
Use Specific Knowledge: Elevate your points by using specific citizenship concepts. For example, when discussing 'power to the public', you could use the term 'parliamentary sovereignty' and explain how it makes the government accountable to elected MPs.
Spelling and Grammar: Proofread your work for spelling errors, such as 'dose' which should be 'does'. Clear and accurate writing makes your arguments 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. One of your strengths was 'Clear Judgement'. What does this mean?
2. A key target was 'Accurate Interpretation'. What was Dr. Croft's *actual* concern?
3. The feedback suggests using the term 'parliamentary sovereignty'. What does this concept mean?
4. Which word was spelled incorrectly in your original answer?
5. What does the target 'Develop Both Sides' ask you to do?
6. You correctly used Professor Reed's argument about the constitution being...
7. What is an 'elective dictatorship'?
8. To improve your answer, the feedback suggests you could discuss 'checks and balances'. Which of the following is an example of a check on government power?
9. Your 'Initial Reasoning' was praised as a strength. What did you link the uncodified constitution to?
10. Based on all the feedback, what is the single most important action you can take to improve your evaluation score next time?
Candidate 60789
Word Count: ~28 words
Evaluation Score: 2/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
Overall I agree with professor Evelyn feelbecause it's easy to change law and more flexibleand it also gives power to the public
Quality of EvaluationUnderdeveloped. Your answer makes a clear judgment by agreeing with one of the writers, which is a good starting point. However, the response is extremely brief and does not develop the reasons for your judgment. You mention flexibility, which is a relevant point from the source, but you don't explain *why* this makes the constitution 'fit for purpose'. To improve, you must engage with both sides of the argument and use specific evidence from the sources to build a much more detailed and balanced conclusion.
Rewrite: For example, you could have written: 'While Dr. Croft raises a valid concern about the risk of an 'elective dictatorship', I ultimately agree with Professor Reed that the UK's uncodified constitution is fit for purpose. The key reason for this is its flexibility, which allows laws to adapt to societal changes without crisis, a point Reed makes effectively. This adaptability, combined with the democratic principle of parliamentary sovereignty, ensures that power rests with elected officials who represent the public.'
Strengths
Clear Judgment: You start with a clear evaluative statement ("Overall I agree..."), which is the correct way to begin an evaluation question.
Source Identification: You correctly identify a key argument from one of the writers (flexibility and ease of changing laws) to support your view.
Targets
Develop Your Points (PEEL): Your points are currently just assertions. Use the PEEL structure (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) to develop each idea. For example, *explain why* flexibility is a good thing for a constitution.
Engage with Both Sides: A strong evaluation must consider the counter-arguments. You need to explain why you disagree with Dr. Croft's points, not just ignore them. Show the examiner you have considered the other perspective.
Use Specific Terminology: Instead of "gives power to the public," use precise Citizenship terms like 'parliamentary sovereignty' or 'democratic accountability' to show your subject knowledge.
Increase Detail and Length: A 28-word answer cannot achieve a high mark. Aim to write at least two or three developed paragraphs, one for each viewpoint and a concluding judgment.
🛑 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 strengths was 'Clear Judgment'. Why is this a good way to start an evaluation answer?
2. One of your targets is to 'Engage with Both Sides'. What does this mean you should have done?
3. The feedback suggests using the PEEL structure. What does the 'E' in PEEL stand for?
4. A target is to use more 'Specific Terminology'. Which of the following is the most precise term for the idea that Parliament has ultimate legal authority?
5. You correctly identified that one writer argued the constitution is 'flexible'. Which writer was this?
6. What is the main problem with a very short answer, according to the 'Increase Detail and Length' target?
7. Dr. Croft's argument, which you needed to engage with, mentions the risk of an 'elective dictatorship'. What does this term mean?
8. The purpose of using the PEEL structure is to...
9. Your first strength was 'Clear Judgment'. Which of these phrases is an example of making a judgment?
10. To improve, you need to analyse a 'counter-argument'. What is a counter-argument?
Candidate 62791
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 6/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
Overall I agree think that having an unwritten constitution is more beneficialbecause it has provided stable and democratic governance for centuries, at the same time ensuring public bodies act lawfully and fairly.In my opinion I agree with the UK's unwritten constitution being fit for purposebecause it provides a framework for governance that are both stable, and remarkably and flexible.Its a dynamic mix of statue law, common law and convention.A reason why someone might agree with the following statment is because an unwritten constitution because it provides robust checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power.This ensures that power ultimetly lies with the peoples representatives.This ability to change without constitutional crises is a sign of a mature and effective system.
new paragraph
On the other hand when someone would disagree with the unwritten constitution being fit for purpose could be because its dangerously unfit for the modern world, its greatest weakness is lack of clarity.This makes having an unwritten constitution creates uncertainty about the true limits of government power.liberties are therefore not protected, they exist only at the pleasure of government.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. Your answer shows a clear understanding of the debate, addressing arguments from both sides. You start with a good, clear judgment and identify key points like flexibility (for) and lack of clarity (against). However, your evaluation is a little unbalanced, with more description on the 'for' side. To improve, you need to use more specific 'own knowledge' to substantiate your points and develop a more consistent line of reasoning throughout.
Developing Arguments: A more developed argument for the unwritten constitution could be: "Professor Reed's most persuasive point is that the constitution's flexibility, derived from statute law and convention, allows it to adapt without crisis. For example, the creation of the Supreme Court in 2005 was a major change that didn't require a full constitutional rewrite, demonstrating this adaptability in practice."
Strengths
Clear Structure: You begin with a clear overall judgment and use a 'for' and 'against' paragraph structure, which is easy to follow.
Identifies Key Arguments: You successfully identify central arguments from both sides of the debate, such as flexibility, stability, lack of clarity, and the vulnerability of rights.
Some Explanation: You don't just list points; you attempt to explain *why* they are significant (e.g., explaining that lack of clarity leads to uncertainty about government power).
Targets
Integrate 'Own Knowledge': To reach the higher bands, you must include specific, relevant examples from your own knowledge. For instance, mention the Human Rights Act 1998 when discussing rights, or a specific Supreme Court case when discussing checks and balances.
Develop Evaluation: Move beyond stating which side you agree with. Use evaluative language throughout (e.g., "A more significant weakness is...", "While flexibility is useful, the lack of clarity poses a greater threat because..."). This creates a 'sustained' evaluation.
Refine Sentence Structure: Some sentences are grammatically awkward or repetitive (e.g., "On the other hand when someone would disagree... could be because..."). Aim for clearer, more concise phrasing to make your arguments more powerful.
Substantiate Judgements: Your final judgement needs to be more than a summary. It should explain *why* one side of the argument is stronger than the other, weighing the points you've made. For example, *why* does flexibility outweigh the lack of clarity?
🛑 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 a key strength of your answer's structure?
2. What is an example of 'own knowledge' you could have used to support the argument about checks and balances?
3. What is the definition of 'sustained evaluation'?
4. How could the sentence "On the other hand when someone would disagree... could be because..." be improved?
5. What does it mean to 'substantiate' a judgment?
6. Which of these arguments did you correctly identify from Dr. Croft's (Writer B) perspective?
7. Which of these phrases is an example of good evaluative language?
8. You were praised for explaining the consequences of certain points. Why is explaining that 'lack of clarity leads to uncertainty' a good technique?
9. What is the Human Rights Act 1998, which was mentioned in your targets?
10. To improve your argument about the constitution's flexibility, which specific event could you have mentioned?
Candidate 67128
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 6/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I mostly agree with writer professor Evelyn Reed.They suggest that the UK's uncodified constitution is fit for purpose. I agree with this view because since the UK constitution is uncodified, that means that the constitution is flexible and can evolve over time without crisis.They also suggest that it provides stable and adaptable governance and I strongly agree because the constitution can be changed easily during crisis without struggles.Another reason why I agree with professor Evelyn Reed is because they state that the parliamentary soveignty is democratic, I agree with this because it places the ultimate power to the political party with the highest number of votes.However, I disagree with the argument given by Dr Julian Croft.They suggest that parliamentary soveignty creates the risk of an elective dictatorship where the government has too much power.I disagree with this because there are checks and balances, such as judicial review and select committees.They also suggest that a single constitution is needed for clarity and to protect the rule of law and I disagree with this because the UK constitution is based off centuries of tradition that provide a stable constitution.Overall I agree more with writer professor Evelyn Reed because of their statement on codified constitution
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a good attempt at evaluation. You clearly state your judgment and use arguments from both sources to support it. Bringing in your own knowledge of 'judicial review' and 'select committees' is a real strength. However, your evaluation is quite one-sided. Instead of just disagreeing with Dr Croft, try to weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of *both* sides to create a more balanced and reasoned conclusion. Your current arguments need more specific examples to substantiate them.
Developing a Counter-Argument: "I disagree with this because there are checks and balances, such as judicial review and select committees." could be rewritten as: "While Dr Croft raises a valid concern about an 'elective dictatorship', this risk is mitigated by checks and balances. For example, select committees can scrutinise government departments and judicial review can challenge the legality of government actions, proving that power is not completely unchecked."
Strengths
Clear Structure: You have a clear structure, dealing with Professor Reed first and then Dr Croft. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Use of Own Knowledge: You effectively brought in your own knowledge of 'judicial review' and 'select committees' to challenge an argument from the source.
Direct Judgement: You start and end with a clear judgement about which writer you agree with most, which directly answers the question.
Targets
Develop Your Points with Examples: Your points are good but asserted rather than explained. For instance, when you say the constitution is 'flexible', provide an example (e.g., the rapid law changes during the COVID-19 pandemic or the creation of the Supreme Court in 2009).
Create a More Balanced Evaluation: Instead of simply agreeing with one writer and disagreeing with the other, try to weigh up the arguments. Acknowledge the strengths in Dr Croft's argument even if you ultimately disagree (e.g., "While Dr Croft is right that rights can be unclear, the flexibility offered by Reed's view is more important because..."). This is called 'weighing up'.
Refine Your Conclusion: Your final sentence was a little confused. Ensure your conclusion accurately summarises your main point and correctly reflects the views of the writers you have discussed.
Check Key Terminology: Be careful with the spelling of key terms like 'sovereignty'. This shows precision in 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. How could you best develop the point that the UK constitution is 'flexible', as suggested in your targets?
2. What specific 'own knowledge' was highlighted as a strength in your answer?
3. What does the term 'weighing up' mean in the context of an evaluation question?
4. What was a key strength of your answer's organisation?
5. Your conclusion mentioned Professor Reed's "statement on codified constitution". Why was this a target for improvement?
6. What is the correct spelling of the key term you misspelled?
7. How did you make your overall opinion clear in the answer, which was noted as a strength?
8. One of your targets is to 'Develop Your Points with Examples'. Which of these is the best example of this skill in action?
9. To create a more balanced evaluation, what phrase could you use to acknowledge a point you then challenge?
10. Your feedback praised your use of 'select committees'. What is the main role of a select committee?
Candidate 68720
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 6/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
Amir Mbarak
9Q/Ci2
68720 13/02/26
I mostly agree with writer Evelyn Reed.They suggest that Britain's uncodified constitution is more viable and effective than an uncodified one.I agree with this view becausethe British Constitution is very flexible due to there not being one single, clear set of written rules.They also suggest that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is a key asset to the constitution as it ensures that the ultimate power is placed with the elected representatives of the people.This is a far more democratic, ~~consistent and one-sided, unbiased,~~ just and stable structure.However, I disagree with the argument given by writer Julian Croft.They suggest that Parliamentary Sovereignty creates the risk of an 'elective dictatorship', where the government has too much power.According to this ideology, election of representatives, as a whole, would pose a ~~risk~~ of an elective dictatorship.They also suggest that existing checks and balances, like judicial review, are too weak to truly limit government power andI disagree with this because over the years of reign of the uncodified British constitution, there has never been a major crisis regarding the checks and balances of the law, which means the current state of the constitution is much more fairer and ensures justice.Overall, I agree with writer Evelyn Reed as they have a stronger analysis over the effectiveness of the uncodified British constitutionwith points such as Parliamentary Sovereignty, the flexibility and adaptability and the effective checks and balances such as judicial review.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a good attempt to evaluate the arguments from both writers and have reached a clear judgment. You correctly identify the main points about flexibility and parliamentary sovereignty. However, your evaluation often asserts a view (e.g. "more fairer") rather than explaining *why* it is stronger. Your counter-argument against Dr Croft is based on a lack of major crises, which doesn't fully disprove his point about weak checks and balances. To improve, try to use specific examples from your own knowledge to support your claims.
Strengthening a Counter-Argument: Instead of "...there has never been a major crisis...", a stronger rebuttal to Dr Croft could be: "However, I disagree that checks and balances are too weak. For instance, the Supreme Court's rulings in the Miller cases (2017 and 2019) demonstrated that judicial review can effectively challenge government power, proving that powerful safeguards do exist within the current system."
Strengths
Clear Structure: Your answer is well-structured with a clear introduction, a paragraph for each writer, and a concluding judgment.
Good Source Comprehension: You have accurately identified and explained the key arguments from both Professor Reed and Dr Croft.
Consistent Judgment: You maintain a clear line of argument throughout, consistently favouring Professor Reed's view and stating this in your introduction and conclusion.
Targets
Develop Evaluation: Move beyond stating a point is "fairer" or "more democratic". Explain *how* and *why*. For example, *how* does parliamentary sovereignty make the system more democratic compared to an alternative?
Incorporate Own Knowledge: To reach the top marks, you must include specific examples not mentioned in the source. Think about recent Supreme Court cases (e.g., the Miller cases on Brexit), key Acts of Parliament (e.g., Human Rights Act 1998), or the role of select committees.
Strengthen Counter-Arguments: When you disagree with a writer (like Dr Croft), use a specific piece of evidence to challenge their point directly, rather than making a general statement.
Refine Terminology: Be precise with your language. The phrase "election of representatives, as a whole, would pose a risk" was a little unclear. The risk of an 'elective dictatorship' comes from the power a government with a parliamentary majority holds *after* an election.
🛑 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 "Incorporate Own Knowledge". Which of these is a specific example of own knowledge you could use?
2. According to your feedback, what does "Good Source Comprehension" mean?
3. To "Develop Evaluation," you should move beyond simply stating something is "more democratic." What should you do instead?
4. Your feedback suggests you need to "Strengthen Counter-Arguments." What is the best way to do this?
5. What does the term 'elective dictatorship' refer to?
6. One of your strengths was a "Consistent Judgment." What does this mean?
7. What is the main purpose of the Human Rights Act 1998?
8. A key strength was your "Clear Structure". What did this structure include?
9. What is 'Parliamentary Sovereignty'?
10. Your target to "Refine Terminology" highlighted an unclear phrase. Why is it important to be precise with terms like 'elective dictatorship'?
Candidate 72061
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 5/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
9Q/C12 page 1 Aaron Liu
I mainly agree with the writer professor Evelyn.They suggest that the unwritten constitution is the best option for its purpose. I agree with this view because the writer Evelyn has very strong evidence to back it, such as the ability to change without constitutional crisisthis shows a developed, flexible constitution.They also suggest that it is a dynamic mix of the statue law, common law and convention and I strongly agree with this because it makes the uncodified constitution flexible, adaptable.It also has served for over centuries, which kept our country stable.However, I disagree with the argument given by writer Evelyn.The writer John Croft states that the uncodified constitution is dangerously unfit for
9Q/C12 page 2
modern world due to the lack of clarity it contains.Thus contradicting professor Evelyn's statement.They also suggest that key rules, citizen's rights are scattered all over and vague on written constitutions.This shows that the uncodified constitution is not a good fit to the world.Overall I agree with professor evelyn's statementdue to the overwhelming amount of rock-solid evidence backing up her statement.This shows that the uncodified constitution has stayed uncodified for many reasons and not just laziness.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have a clear structure and correctly identify key arguments from both writers, such as the constitution's flexibility (Reed) and lack of clarity (Croft). Your answer makes a judgment and sticks to it. However, your evaluation is currently more assertive than analytical. To improve, you need to move beyond stating which evidence is "strong" and explain *why* it is strong by comparing the importance of different arguments. This will turn description into true evaluation.
Developing your Judgment: "Overall I agree with professor evelyn's statement due to the overwhelming amount of rock-solid evidence backing up her statement." Could become: "Overall, while Dr. Croft's concerns about clarity are valid, I find Professor Reed's argument more persuasive. The proven stability and flexibility of the UK constitution, which allowed for major changes like devolution without a crisis, seems a more significant real-world benefit than the theoretical clarity a codified constitution might offer."
Strengths
Clear Structure: You have a logical structure: Reed's view, Croft's view, and a final conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Source Identification: You accurately select key arguments from both sources, such as the flexibility of the unwritten constitution and its traditional, stable nature.
Targets
Develop Evaluation Beyond Assertion: Instead of just saying evidence is "strong" or "rock-solid," explain *why*. For example, why is flexibility more important than clarity in the modern world? This is called 'weighing up' the arguments.
Introduce Own Knowledge: To reach the higher marks, include specific examples. You could mention the Human Rights Act 1998 as a key 'statute law' protecting rights, or the 2019 Supreme Court prorogation case as 'common law' providing checks on power.
Refine Comparative Language: Instead of just saying one view 'contradicts' another, explain the tension between the ideas. For example: "While Reed praises the constitution's flexibility, Croft argues this same quality creates a dangerous lack of clarity, leaving citizens' rights vulnerable."
Attention to Detail: Be careful with names (it's Professor Reed and Dr. Julian Croft). Also, double-check your phrasing for clarity to ensure your points are precise and easy to understand.
🛑 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 strengths was 'Clear Structure'. What did this involve?
2. A key target is to move 'beyond assertion'. Which of these is an example of assertion?
3. What does the feedback term 'weighing up' mean?
4. According to your targets, which of these is a specific piece of 'own knowledge' you could use?
5. Your feedback suggests improving your 'comparative language'. Which sentence does this best?
6. What was the correct name of the writer who argued the constitution was fit for purpose?
7. You correctly identified that the constitution is a mix of statute law, common law, and convention. What is 'statute law'?
8. Which of your strengths involved picking out key ideas like 'flexibility' and 'lack of clarity'?
9. How could you apply the target 'Develop Evaluation' to Croft's argument about unclear rights?
10. What is the primary skill being assessed in this 10-mark 'evaluate' question?
Candidate 72609
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 5/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
Eren
9Q/ci2
I mostly agree with writer Lare Evelyn Reedthey suggest that it a strong framework for the government.I agree with this view asthe ability to change the constitution, without the rest of trouble.To add on to this, furthermore the checks and balances can successfully prevent abuse of power by member of parliament.These points make it a great addition and keeps the country stable.
I disagreed with the writer Julian Croftwho suggested it was untidy. They say its very old and not modernised.However Reworking the constitution could create huge problems and disagreements.The constitution also still benefits us and it being old isn't necessarily a bad thingas not only is it a collection of multiple rules made from experiences its also been improved over multiple decades.These are the primary reasons I didn't agree with him.
Overall I agreed with writer Evelyn Reed as its ability to be changed at any time and other factors outweigh its downsides.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have a clear structure, addressing both writers and reaching a justified conclusion. You correctly identify key arguments, such as the constitution's flexibility and the counter-argument about it being 'old'. To improve, you need to add specific own knowledge (like naming a check and balance, e.g., the Supreme Court) and develop your evaluative points with more detail, explaining *how* or *why* something is a strength or weakness.
Adding Specific Knowledge: "...the checks and balances, such as the role of the Supreme Court in judicial review or select committees scrutinising government departments, can successfully prevent the abuse of power by MPs."
Strengths
Clear Structure: You have a logical structure: agree with A, disagree with B, and then a final conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Direct Comparison: You effectively compare the two writers' views and state your own judgment clearly in relation to them (e.g., "I mostly agree with... I disagreed with...").
Targets
Use Specific Own Knowledge: To reach the higher marks, you must include specific examples from your own knowledge. Instead of just saying "checks and balances," name one, like 'judicial review' or 'select committees', and briefly explain its role.
Develop Your Evaluation: Explain your points further. For example, when you say the constitution "keeps the country stable," explain *how*. Does it do this by allowing for gradual change rather than revolutionary upheaval? This is called 'signposting' your reasoning.
Use Key Terminology: Incorporate subject-specific vocabulary. For example, instead of "ability to change," you could use terms like "flexible," "uncodified," or "can be amended by an Act of Parliament."
Refine Sentence Structure: Some sentences have minor grammatical errors (e.g., "they suggest that it a strong framework"). Reading your work aloud can help you spot where to add or remove words to make it flow better.
🛑 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. Your feedback says to 'Use Specific Own Knowledge'. Which of these is a specific example of a 'check and balance' you could have used?
2. According to Target 4, how should the sentence "they suggest that it a strong framework" be corrected?
3. Target 3 advises using 'Key Terminology'. What is the correct term for a constitution, like the UK's, that is not written in a single document?
4. One of your strengths was 'Direct Comparison'. What does this mean?
5. Target 2 suggests 'signposting' your reasoning. What does this involve?
6. What was identified as a key strength of your answer's structure?
7. If you wrote "Reworking the constitution could create huge problems," how could you best 'Develop Your Evaluation' as suggested in Target 2?
8. Why is it important to use key terminology like 'uncodified' or 'flexible'?
9. The phrase "without the rest of trouble" is grammatically awkward. Which is a better alternative suggested by the goal of 'Refining Sentence Structure'?
10. According to Dr Croft's argument in the source, why might an 'old and not modernised' constitution be a problem?
Candidate 76089
Word Count: ~135 words
Evaluation Score: 4/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I agree with professor Evelyn Reed becauseI provide framework that is for government governance that is both Stable and remarked flexibleAnd it provid Stable and Democratic governance for centurysIt gives alot of Information unlike rigid, Codified Constitut' and it is more harder.This also help because the Supreme Legal authorh reset with the election House of Commons that power lis with with the people represenso, this changes the Leader So People can vote for a new Lead-And There Constit Provid robus Checks and balanaTo Proven the power of abuse which means they can't overe There Power So They can't do things That other humans can't dobea all human have the Same right of other human being you have the Same right as everyone else no one is differ..
Quality of EvaluationSuperficial. Your answer shows some understanding of Professor Reed's arguments, using keywords from the source like 'stable', 'flexible', and 'checks and balances'. However, the evaluation is entirely one-sided as you do not engage with any of Dr. Croft's counter-arguments. Your explanations are very simple and lack the specific own knowledge (like naming a type of check and balance) needed to develop your points and achieve higher marks.
Developing a Point: Instead of just saying there are "robus Checks and balana", you could write: "The UK constitution provides robust checks and balances, such as judicial review, where judges can ensure the government acts lawfully, and powerful select committees, which scrutinise the work of government departments to prevent any abuse of power."
Strengths
Good Source Use: You have clearly identified and used some of the key arguments from Professor Reed's point of view, such as the constitution being 'stable' and 'flexible'.
Clear Judgement: You begin your answer with a direct judgement ("I agree with professor Evelyn Reed"), which gives your response a clear and immediate focus.
Targets
Develop Both Sides (Balance): Your answer only looks at Professor Reed's arguments. To achieve higher marks, you must also explain and evaluate the counter-arguments from Dr. Croft (e.g., the risk of an 'elective dictatorship' or that rights are not well protected).
Use Specific Own Knowledge (Depth): Your points are very general. To add depth, include specific examples. For 'checks and balances', you could have mentioned judicial review or select committees. For 'flexibility', you could mention how laws on devolution have been added over time.
Explain 'How' and 'Why' (Chain of Reasoning): You state that parliamentary sovereignty is democratic, but you need to explain this link more clearly. For example, explain *how* power resting with elected MPs makes the system accountable to the people.
Improve Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar (SPaG): There are several errors in spelling and grammar (e.g., 'provid', 'balana', 'Constitut'). Proofreading your work 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. To create a more balanced argument, which point from Dr. Croft should you have included?
2. According to your feedback, what is a specific example of a 'check and balance' you could have used?
3. How should the phrase "Provid robus Checks and balana" from your transcript be correctly written?
4. One of your strengths was 'Clear Judgement'. Why is this a good feature in an essay?
5. What does the term 'chain of reasoning' mean in your feedback?
6. Your feedback mentions 'devolution' as an example of the constitution's flexibility. What is devolution?
7. Which of these key terms from Professor Reed's argument did you correctly identify in your answer?
8. What is the main reason your evaluation was considered 'one-sided'?
9. Which of the following sentences best improves the 'chain of reasoning' for why parliamentary sovereignty is democratic?
10. Based on your feedback, what is the single most important action to improve your score significantly?
Candidate 78169
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 4/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I agree with Professor Evelyn. Reed the most.This is because I believe that the UK's
unwritten constitution means that there is less
conflict between people and the government.This
This makes the UK more democratic as the people
and those in power have less arguments about laws.However, Someone may disagree with the statementbecause an unwritten constitution so may limit
citizens rights.The citizens rights being limited due to
an unwritten constitution shows that in the case of
the peoples a written constitution may be better for the
people.Overall I agree more with Professor Evelyn.This
is because her new presents more things
which are important in our society, such as
a stable economy, and a stable democratic
governance for the upcoming generations.
Quality of EvaluationUndeveloped. You have the right structure for a 12-mark answer: you state your view, consider the opposing argument, and then reach a final conclusion. However, your points are not explained in enough detail. You mention ideas like 'less conflict' and 'limited rights' but you don't use specific evidence from the source or your own knowledge to explain *how* or *why* these things happen. To improve, you need to develop each point with more depth.
Developing a Point: Your sentence "an unwritten constitution so may limit citizens rights" could be improved like this: "Dr. Croft's argument that an unwritten constitution can limit citizens' rights is a strong one. For example, because our rights are not codified in a single document, a government with a large majority in Parliament could potentially pass laws that weaken protections, such as the right to protest, without a higher constitutional law to stop them."
Strengths
Clear Structure: You have correctly structured your answer with an introduction, a counter-argument, and a conclusion. This is the right format for an evaluation question.
Addresses Both Sides: You have successfully identified arguments from both Professor Reed and Dr. Croft, which is essential for a balanced answer.
Targets
Develop Your Points (P.E.E.L): Your points are currently just statements (e.g., "limit citizens rights"). You need to *Explain* them (how does it limit rights?) and provide *Evidence* (using a specific argument from the source or your own knowledge).
Use Specific Terminology: To get higher marks, use key terms from the source. Instead of "less arguments," refer to Professor Reed's ideas of 'flexibility' or 'stable governance'. Instead of just 'limiting rights', mention Dr. Croft's concern about 'parliamentary sovereignty' leading to an 'elective dictatorship'.
Incorporate Own Knowledge: A top-level answer requires you to bring in your own knowledge. Could you have mentioned a specific Act of Parliament (like the Human Rights Act 1998), a court case, or a political event to support your points?
Refine Your Conclusion: Your conclusion restates your opinion but doesn't fully explain *why* you find Reed's arguments more convincing than Croft's. A strong conclusion should weigh up the two sides and explain why one outweighs 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 targets is to "Develop Your Points (P.E.E.L)". What does the 'E' in P.E.E.L. stand for?
2. The feedback suggests using the term 'elective dictatorship'. Which writer's argument does this specific term support?
3. What is the main purpose of a conclusion in an evaluation question, according to your targets?
4. One of your strengths was "Clear Structure". What are the three parts of this structure?
5. Which of the following is the best example of 'own knowledge' you could have used to support Dr. Croft's argument about rights?
6. Your transcript says "her new presents more things". What is a clearer way to phrase this?
7. Instead of saying the constitution leads to "less arguments," which piece of specific terminology from Professor Reed's side would be better?
8. What does the term 'codified' mean in the context of a constitution?
9. One of your strengths is that you "Address Both Sides". Why is this important for getting a good mark in an evaluation question?
10. Which of these sentences best shows a point being *developed* with an explanation?
Candidate 78196
Word Count: ~154 words
Evaluation Score: 4/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
In conclusion I agree with prop 1Professor Evelyn Reed who agrees
with the statementbecause the
country can be improved.I mostly agree with writer Professor Evelyn Reedwho suggests that the UK's unwritten constitution fit
for purpose.I agree with this view becauseas the UK's unwritten constitution is not written
on a document it means that the UK system
can evolveand then set up a new
challenge.They also suggest that the UK
constitution provides checks and balanceswhich also means the courts hold government
to account ensuring public bodies (citizens)
can all be treated fairly by law.However, I disagree with the argument given bywriter Dr. Julian Gof Croft who suggests
the opposite of Professor Evelyn.I disagree
with him becauselaws by codified
-constitution can be very difficult to change.Secondly codified constitution will not be stable
as you wont be able to change laws
Quality of EvaluationUndeveloped. Your answer shows some understanding of the two writers' views, but your evaluation is limited. You state your own opinion but struggle to support it with clear, well-explained reasoning. Your points against Dr. Croft are confused and contradict each other, which weakens your overall argument.
Developing a Counter-Argument: "Secondly codified constitution will not be stable as you wont be able to change laws" could be rewritten as: "Furthermore, while Dr. Croft wants a codified constitution for clarity, this could create long-term instability. A codified constitution is often very difficult to amend, meaning it might not adapt to new social challenges, making it less stable in the long run compared to the UK's more flexible system."
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You state your overall opinion clearly at the beginning and throughout your answer, which gives your writing a clear focus.
Identifies Key Arguments: You correctly identify some of the main arguments from the source, such as the flexibility of an unwritten constitution and the existence of checks and balances.
Targets
Develop Your Reasoning: Instead of just stating a point (e.g., "it can evolve"), explain *why* this is a good thing. For example, explain that flexibility allows Parliament to respond quickly to new issues like online safety without a complex amendment process. This is called creating a 'chain of reasoning'.
Use Specific Own Knowledge: To reach the higher marks, you must include examples that are not in the source. For instance, when mentioning 'checks and balances', you could name a specific check like 'Judicial Review' or 'Select Committees' and briefly explain what they do.
Define Key Terms Accurately: You confused 'public bodies' with 'citizens'. Public bodies are organisations that are part of the state (like the NHS or the police). Using key terms correctly is essential for a clear argument.
Build a Balanced Argument: Your argument against Dr. Croft was confused. Plan your points before writing. A better counter-argument would be to acknowledge his point (e.g., about clarity) but then explain the downside (e.g., the risk of making the constitution too rigid).
🛑 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 a positive feature of your answer's structure?
2. What is a 'chain of reasoning'?
3. Which of the following is an example of 'own knowledge' you could have used to support the idea of 'checks and balances'?
4. What is the correct definition of a 'public body'?
5. To improve your argument against Dr. Croft, you should:
6. Your answer correctly identified that an unwritten constitution is seen as...
7. The feedback suggests using 'own knowledge'. What does this mean?
8. What does it mean to build a 'balanced argument'?
9. The feedback mentions improving your explanation of *why* flexibility is good. Which sentence best creates a 'chain of reasoning'?
10. Why was it incorrect to say 'public bodies (citizens)'?
Candidate 79628
Word Count: ~97 words
Evaluation Score: 5/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I mostly agree with writer Professor Evelyn reed.They suggest that the UK's unwritten constitution is flexible and fit for purpose.I agree with this view becausean unwritten constitution can easily evolve over time without crisis.They also suggest that it is a stable system.And I strongly agree with this becauseit has been built on centuries of tradition such as statue law, common law and conventions.However, I disagree with the argument given by the writer Dr. Julian Croft.They suggest that parliamentary sovereignty creates the risk of an 'elective dictatorship' where the government has too much powerand I disagree with this because the parliamentary sovereignty is democratic as it places ultimate power with elected representatives.They also suggest that existing checks
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a good start by clearly stating your judgment and using arguments from both writers to structure your answer. You successfully use Professor Reed's points about flexibility and tradition to support your view, and you even bring in some of your own knowledge. However, your evaluation of Dr. Croft's argument is less developed, and the answer is incomplete. To improve, you need to analyse both sides in more equal detail and develop your counter-arguments further.
Developing a Counter-Argument: "While Dr. Croft warns of an 'elective dictatorship', I would argue that parliamentary sovereignty is fundamentally democratic. It ensures that ultimate power rests with MPs who are directly accountable to the public through regular elections, which acts as a powerful check on government power."
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You begin with a clear and direct statement of your overall judgement ('I mostly agree with...'), which gives your answer a strong focus from the start.
Using Source Evidence: You effectively select key arguments from Professor Reed, such as the constitution's flexibility and its basis in tradition, to support your points.
Introducing 'Own Knowledge': You have started to include your own knowledge by correctly identifying examples of tradition like 'statute law, common law and conventions'. This is a key skill for top marks.
Targets
Develop Both Sides: Your analysis is currently one-sided. To achieve a balanced evaluation, you must give equal attention to Dr. Croft's arguments. Explain *why* he believes rights are unprotected or why checks and balances are weak, even if you plan to disagree with him.
Substantiate Your Rebuttal: When you disagree with a writer (your 'elective dictatorship' point), you need to explain your reasoning in more detail. Instead of just stating that parliamentary sovereignty is democratic, explain *how* it is democratic (e.g., through accountability at elections) and why this outweighs the risk Croft identifies.
Use Evaluative Language: Incorporate more evaluative phrases to deepen your analysis. Use words like 'however', 'a significant weakness is...', 'a more convincing argument is...' to compare the two viewpoints directly.
Complete Your Answer: Your answer ends abruptly. Ensure you write a full response, including a concluding summary that reaffirms your overall judgement based on the arguments you have discussed.
🛑 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 the following actions would best address the target 'Develop Both Sides'?
2. According to your feedback, what was the first thing you did well in your answer?
3. The feedback advises you to 'substantiate your rebuttal'. What does 'substantiate' mean?
4. Which specific pieces of 'own knowledge' were highlighted as a strength in your answer?
5. Which of these is an example of the 'evaluative language' your feedback encourages you to use?
6. What key component was missing from the end of your response because it was incomplete?
7. How could you have better challenged Dr. Croft's 'elective dictatorship' point?
8. You were praised for using evidence from Professor Reed. Which of her arguments did you correctly identify and use?
9. Why is it important to explain Dr. Croft's arguments in detail, even if you disagree with them?
10. What is 'Parliamentary Sovereignty'?
Candidate 81672
Word Count: ~166 words
Evaluation Score: 6/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
(A6boni Omoniyi) (Page Two)
Candidate number: 81672 Date: 17/10/22 (Citizenship) 9GCi2
Task: Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
Overall, I agree more with Professor
Evelyn Reedbecause they mention
the potential and flexibility of
the UK Constitution.
(A6boni Omoniyi)
Candidate number: 81672 Date: 17/03/22 (Citizenship) 9GCi2
Task: Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I mostly agree with Professor Evelyn Reed.They suggest that the UK's uncodified
Constitution is great because it is flexible.I agree with this statement because the
UK's Constitution can be changed at will
in case of a crisis.They also suggest that
the UK has a more democratic arrangement.I agree strongly because I believe that
the public should get a say in legal matters.However, I disagree with the argument
given by Dr Julian Croft,they suggest
that the UK's Constitution is unfit
for the modern world.I disagree with
this because the UK Constitution has
been a working system for multiple
generations.They also suggest that the
Constitution is 'lacking clarity'.I strongly
disagree with this because the UK Constitution
allows for organic evolutions.It is
also a mix of statute law, common
law and convention.
Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a well-structured answer that makes a clear and consistent judgment. You successfully use arguments from both sources to support your points and even include some of your own knowledge. The main area for improvement is the depth of your reasoning; you often state that you agree or disagree but don't fully explain the 'why' behind your judgment. Developing these explanations will push your evaluation into the higher mark bands.
Developing Reasoning: Instead of "I agree strongly because I believe that the public should get a say in legal matters," you could explain *how* they get a say: "I agree that this is a more democratic arrangement because parliamentary sovereignty means our elected MPs, who represent the public's will, have the ultimate power to make and change laws, ensuring the constitution reflects current values."
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You state your overall opinion at the very beginning and maintain this clear line of argument throughout your response.
Effective Structure: Your answer is logically structured. You analyse Professor Reed's arguments first, then use a clear connective ("However") to pivot to evaluating Dr. Croft's points.
Use of Source Material: You accurately identify and refer to the key arguments made by both writers, showing good comprehension of the source.
Targets
Develop Your Reasoning: When you agree or disagree, always explain 'why' in detail. For example, *why* does the constitution being a "working system for multiple generations" make it fit for the modern world? Explain the link between your evidence and your point.
Integrate Own Knowledge: You correctly stated that the constitution is a mix of "statute law, common law and convention." To improve, *use* this knowledge to support your argument. For example, explain how this mix allows for the "organic evolutions" you mention.
Use Key Terminology: To show deeper understanding, try to incorporate and briefly explain relevant key terms. For instance, when discussing democracy, you could have mentioned 'parliamentary sovereignty' as the mechanism that gives power to elected representatives.
Engage with Counter-Arguments: For top-level evaluation, show you understand the strengths of the opposing view before you challenge it. For example, "While Dr. Croft has a point that the lack of a single document can be confusing, this is outweighed by the benefit of flexibility..."
🛑 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 strengths was your 'Effective Structure'. Which word was highlighted as a good example of a "connective" used to pivot between arguments?
2. A key target was to 'Develop Your Reasoning'. What does this mean in practice?
3. The feedback suggested you could have used the term 'parliamentary sovereignty'. What does this term mean?
4. Your target 'Integrate Own Knowledge' focused on your point about "statute law, common law and convention". What were you advised to do?
5. What is 'statute law'?
6. The target 'Engage with Counter-Arguments' suggests a technique for higher-level evaluation. What is it?
7. Which of the following was identified as a STRENGTH in your answer?
8. The 'RAG Rewrite' section provided an improved sentence. What was the main purpose of this rewrite?
9. What is an 'uncodified' constitution, as mentioned in your answer?
10. Based on your feedback, which action would most improve your evaluation score next time?
Candidate 87610
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 5/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
Mikayla S.
9Q/Ci2
13/3/26
what the future can hold.
They also suggest that the unwritten constitution is relic because it is a great weakness and is a lack of clarity, key rules and citizens' rights are scattered across a jumble of different laws.Overall I agree with writer Professor Evelyn Reed
Mikayla S.
9Q/Ci2
13/3/26
I mostly agree with professor Evelyn Reedbecause they suggest that the unwritten constitution are easy to change, our system can evolve organically to meet new challenges.I agree with this view because written or codified constitutions are difficult to change therefore codified constitutions that cannot enforce new challenges.They also suggest that legal authority rests with the elected House of Commons, ensuring that power ultimately lies with the people's representatve.And I strong agree with this because this is far more democratic arrangement.However some may disagree with the arguement given by Professor Evelyn Reedbecause the suggest the unwritten constitution is a relic of the past that is dangerously unfit for the modern world,and I disagree with this because although we live in a modern world things can happen and we dont know
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have a clear point of view and have started to evaluate the arguments from the source. You successfully select points from Professor Reed's argument and explain why you agree with them. However, your attempt to bring in the counter-argument is not well developed. You identify Dr. Croft's point but your reason for disagreeing with it is too vague to be convincing, which makes your overall evaluation one-sided. To improve, you need to engage more deeply with the view you disagree with and use specific reasoning or examples in your rebuttal.
Strengthening Rebuttals: Your sentence "I disagree with this because although we live in a modern world things can happen and we dont know" could be rewritten for more impact. For example: "I disagree with this because the flexibility of our unwritten constitution, which allows it to adapt to modern challenges like Brexit or the COVID-19 pandemic, proves it is not just a 'relic of the past'."
Strengths
Clear Stance: You have made your overall judgment clear, stating that you 'mostly agree' with Professor Reed from the start.
Using Evidence: You have selected relevant arguments from the source to support your points, such as the constitution being 'easy to change' and power resting with the House of Commons.
Simple Evaluation: You have started to evaluate by explaining *why* you agree with a point, for instance, by stating that placing power with elected representatives is a 'far more democratic arrangement'.
Targets
Develop Both Sides: Your evaluation is one-sided. To improve, you must engage with the counter-arguments (Dr. Croft's view) in more detail. Explain *why* his points about a 'lack of clarity' are significant before you disagree with them.
Strengthen Rebuttals: When you disagree with a point, your reasoning needs to be specific. Your reason 'things can happen and we dont know' is too vague. Instead, use a specific example. How does the constitution's flexibility help when 'things happen'?
Introduce Own Knowledge: To reach the higher marks, you must include your own specific knowledge. For example, when discussing flexibility, you could mention how the constitution adapted to Brexit. When discussing rights, you could mention the Human Rights Act 1998.
Structure and Clarity: The first section of your answer was confusing as it mentioned Dr. Croft's arguments but then immediately agreed with Professor Reed. Start with a clear introduction that states your overall judgment, then explore each side before concluding.
🛑 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 a key strength of your answer identified in the feedback?
2. What does it mean to 'develop both sides' of an argument?
3. Your feedback criticised the reason "things can happen and we dont know" as being too...
4. The feedback praised you for using evidence from the source. Which of these is an example of that from your answer?
5. What is 'own knowledge' in a Citizenship essay?
6. According to your 'Structure and Clarity' target, how could you improve the opening of your answer?
7. What does the term 'evaluation' mean in this context?
8. Which of the following would be a stronger rebuttal to the claim that the constitution is a 'relic of the past'?
9. Your feedback suggests your argument was 'one-sided'. This means you focused too much on...
10. Which of these is a specific piece of 'own knowledge' you could have used to support Professor Reed's point about parliamentary sovereignty?
Candidate 89170
Word Count: ~152 words
Evaluation Score: 4/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
Nawan
9Q/ci2
I mostly agree with writer Professor Evelyn Reed.They suggest that the unwritten constitution is on of the UK's greatest strengths.I agree with this view because codyfied constitution is more difficult to change as we have the ability to change without a constitutional crises.And I agree strongly with this because if a decision has been made to help and it is not successful it is not hard to change.
However I disagree with the argument given by writer Dr. Sulean.They suggest that it is a great weakness and has a lack of clarityand I disagree with this because if it has a lot of pros that can keep the UK and it ensures that public bodies act lawfully and fairly.
Overall I agree with writer Professor Evelyn Reed because they talk about fairness, how the constitution can strengthen us.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgement and correctly identified a key idea from each writer, which is a solid start. However, your evaluation is underdeveloped because your reasoning is not specific enough. When you disagree with Dr. Croft's point on 'lack of clarity', you don't explain *why* it's not a weakness, you just state that there are other 'pros'. To reach the higher bands, you must directly challenge the writer's point with well-explained reasoning.
Evaluating an argument: "While Dr. Croft is right that an unwritten constitution can seem unclear, I disagree that this is a major weakness. This flexibility, as Professor Reed argues, is a key strength. For example, it allows Parliament to quickly pass laws in a crisis, like the COVID-19 pandemic, without being restricted by a rigid, codified document. This adaptability is more important than the absolute clarity a written constitution might provide."
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You start your answer with a clear overall judgement, stating which writer you agree with. This gives your answer a strong focus.
Identifies Key Arguments: You have correctly identified a key argument from both sources – the flexibility of the unwritten constitution (Reed) and its lack of clarity (Croft).
Targets
Develop Your Reasoning (P.E.E.L): Your reasoning needs more depth. After making a Point (P), provide a specific Example or Evidence (E) and then Explain (E) how this proves your point. For instance, when you say it's easy to change, you could mention how Parliament can pass a new Act of Parliament without a complex constitutional amendment process.
Directly Counter Arguments: When you disagree with a writer (like Dr. Croft), you need to challenge their specific point directly. Instead of just saying there are 'pros', explain *why* the 'lack of clarity' is not the weakness he claims it is. Does its flexibility outweigh the lack of clarity?
Use Specific Terminology: Incorporate key citizenship terms to show deeper understanding. Instead of 'it is not hard to change', you could use terms like 'flexible', 'adaptable', or refer to 'Parliamentary Sovereignty'.
Substantiate Your Conclusion: Your conclusion should be a summary of your main arguments. Briefly explain *why* you find Reed's argument more persuasive than Croft's, weighing up the points you have made in your main paragraphs.
🛑 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 strengths was having a 'Clear Judgement'. Where is this best shown?
2. According to the feedback, what does the 'E.E.' in the P.E.E.L. structure stand for?
3. Which of these is the best example of using 'Specific Terminology' to improve the phrase "it is not hard to change"?
4. What does it mean to 'substantiate' your conclusion?
5. A key target was to 'Directly Counter Arguments'. How could you have better countered Dr. Croft's point about 'lack of clarity'?
6. Your feedback mentions 'Parliamentary Sovereignty'. What does this term mean?
7. One of your strengths was identifying key arguments. Which writer argued the constitution was flexible, and which argued it lacked clarity?
8. Which of the following is a specific example you could have used to show the constitution's flexibility?
9. What is the main purpose of a conclusion in an evaluation essay?
10. The feedback corrected the name of the second writer. What was the correct name?
Candidate 89672
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 3/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I mostly agree with writer professor evelyn reed because they suggest that constitution is more flexibleI agree with this view because its true they also suggest that parliamentary sovereignty is democratic as it place ultimate power with elected representatives and I strongly agree with this because it democratic. However I disagree with the argument given by connor because they said there are effective checks and balance, such as judicial review and select commitees which they also suggest and I disagree with this statement because they are not said effective.
Quality of EvaluationUndeveloped. You make a clear judgement at the start and attempt to engage with both sides of the argument. However, your reasoning is based on assertion (e.g., "because its true") rather than explanation. There is also a significant misunderstanding of the source material, as you attribute Professor Reed's argument about checks and balances to Dr. Croft. To improve, you must explain your reasoning fully and ensure you are accurately representing the views in the source.
Substantiating Judgement: Instead of "I disagree with this statement because they are not said effective," you could write: "While Professor Reed argues that checks like judicial review are effective, I agree more with Dr. Croft's view that they are weak. For example, the courts can only recommend that Parliament changes a law that is incompatible with the Human Rights Act; they cannot force it, which limits their power."
Strengths
Clear Structure: You have a good basic structure. You state who you agree with, give a reason, and then use 'However' to introduce the opposing view. This is a great foundation to build on.
Use of Source Material: You have successfully identified and used two key arguments from Professor Reed's text (flexibility and parliamentary sovereignty) to form the basis of your answer.
Targets
Develop Your Explanation: Your explanations are currently simple assertions (e.g., "because its true"). You need to explain *why* you think this. For example, *why* is a flexible constitution a good thing? This is key for the 'Explaining clearly' skill.
Substantiate Your Judgement: When you make a judgement like "I strongly agree," you must support it with a reason or evidence. This is the core of evaluation. Avoid tautology, like saying something is democratic 'because it is democratic'.
Read the Source Carefully: You incorrectly stated that Dr. Croft (who you called 'Connor') argued for effective checks and balances. It was Professor Reed who said this; Dr. Croft argued they were weak. Accuracy is vital for high marks.
🛑 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 a key strength of your answer's structure?
2. The feedback says to "substantiate your judgement." What does 'substantiate' mean?
3. What was the main error in your discussion of the second writer (Dr. Croft)?
4. Which of these sentences best improves on your original point: "I agree with this view because its true"?
5. A "tautology" is when you repeat an idea. Which of your phrases was highlighted as a tautology?
6. What does the target "Develop Your Explanation" ask you to do?
7. One of your strengths was "Use of Source Material". What did you do well?
8. According to the feedback, who argued that checks and balances are WEAK?
9. An "assertion" is a confident statement of fact or belief without support. Which of your phrases was highlighted as an assertion?
10. The 'RAG rewrite' section provided an example of how to improve your evaluation. What did it do?
Candidate 98416
Word Count: ~180 words
Evaluation Score: 5/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
I mostly agree with writer Dr. Julian Croft.I agree because unwritten constitution is a relic of the past that is dangerously unfit for the modern world.It is because its greatest weakness is its lack of clarity.Key rules and citizens' rights are scattered accross a jumble of different laws, historical documents, and vague, unwritten conventions.This makes it inaccessible to the public and creates uncertainty about the true limits of government that every citizen can read and understand.Another way it doesn't fit its purpose is that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, far from being a strength, creates the risk of an 'elective dictatorship'.A government with a large majority can pass almost any law it chooses, even laws that might erode fundamental rights, without any higher constitutional authority to stop it.Our liberties, are therefore not properly protected - they exist only at the pleasure of the government of the day and
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. This is a developing evaluation. You have made a clear judgment and have done a good job of explaining the arguments from Dr. Croft's perspective, using key terms like 'parliamentary sovereignty'. However, the response is entirely one-sided. To improve, you must engage with the counter-arguments from Professor Reed to create a balanced analysis before reaching your final, substantiated conclusion.
Creating a Balanced Argument: "While Professor Reed makes a valid point about the flexibility of an unwritten constitution, I ultimately agree with Dr. Croft that it is unfit for purpose. The lack of clarity and the risk of an 'elective dictatorship' present a more significant danger to citizens' rights than the benefits of adaptability."
Strengths
Clear Judgement: You begin with a very clear and direct statement of your view ("I mostly agree with..."). This provides excellent focus for your answer.
Good Use of Source B: You have effectively selected and explained key arguments from Dr. Croft, such as the lack of clarity and the risk of an 'elective dictatorship'.
Use of Key Terminology: You correctly use important concepts like 'parliamentary sovereignty' and 'elective dictatorship' to support your points and show your understanding.
Targets
Analyse Both Sides: Your answer is entirely one-sided. To reach the higher marks, you must also analyse and evaluate the arguments from the opposing view (Professor Reed) before reaching your conclusion.
Develop a Balanced Conclusion: A strong conclusion weighs up the evidence from *both* sides. Explain *why* Dr. Croft's arguments are more convincing than Professor Reed's (e.g., "While flexibility is useful, the risk to rights is a more serious problem because...").
Incorporate Own Knowledge: To move beyond just using the source, add your own specific, real-world examples. For instance, when discussing 'elective dictatorship', you could mention a controversial law passed by a government with a large majority.
Proofread for Clarity: The final sentence of your answer is incomplete, and there are minor spelling errors ("accross"). Always leave time to check your work for accuracy and completeness.
🛑 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 action needed to make your answer more balanced?
2. What was identified as a key strength of your introduction?
3. A more 'developed and balanced conclusion' would...
4. Which specific argument from Dr. Croft (Source B) was highlighted as being well-explained in your answer?
5. What does the target 'Incorporate Own Knowledge' mean?
6. Which key piece of citizenship terminology was identified as a strength in your answer?
7. Why was 'Proofread for Clarity' one of your targets?
8. In the RAG box feedback, what does a 'substantiated conclusion' mean?
9. To meet the target 'Analyse Both Sides', which point from Professor Reed would you need to discuss?
10. Which of these would be the best piece of 'own knowledge' to add to your point about an 'elective dictatorship'?
Candidate 98716
Word Count: ~137 words
Evaluation Score: 5/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
can be removed by a simple Act of Parliament.
But on the other hand, some may say that unwritten constitution fits its purpose. This is because at its hearts lies the clear principle of parliamentary sovereignty.This means that the supreme legal authority rests with elected House of Commons.This is far more democratic arrangement that one where unelected judges in a supreme court have the final say on the validity of laws.In conclusion, I believe that UK's unwritten constitution does not fit its purposebecause it is inaccessible to the public and creates uncertainty about the true constitution that every citizen can read and understand.
Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a good start by identifying arguments from both sides of the debate and explaining the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. You also provide a clear concluding judgment. However, your answer is unbalanced. The main body of your text focuses heavily on the arguments for the unwritten constitution, but your conclusion supports the opposite view. To improve, you need to develop the arguments *against* the unwritten constitution within the main body of your answer, creating a more balanced analysis before you conclude.
Substantiating a Judgement: In conclusion, while parliamentary sovereignty is a democratic strength, the lack of clarity and accessibility for ordinary citizens is a more significant weakness. This uncertainty, coupled with the risk of rights being easily overturned, means the unwritten constitution is ultimately not fit for purpose in a modern democracy.
Strengths
Clear Structure: You have a clear structure, introducing an opposing view ("on the other hand") and finishing with a conclusion.
Explaining Key Terms: You effectively explained the core principle of 'parliamentary sovereignty', showing good understanding of a key concept.
Direct Judgement: Your conclusion makes a clear and direct judgement on the question, which is a key feature of an evaluative answer.
Targets
Develop Both Sides Equally: Your main paragraph only developed the argument *for* the unwritten constitution. To achieve a higher mark, you must give equal weight to the arguments *against* it (e.g., 'elective dictatorship', weak protection of rights) in the main body of your answer.
Use 'Evaluative Language': Instead of just describing the points, use comparative words to weigh them up. For example, "A more significant weakness is..." or "While this is a valid point, it is outweighed by the fact that...". This shows you are analysing, not just listing.
Substantiate Your Judgement: Your conclusion should logically follow from the arguments you have developed. Ensure the points you make in your main paragraphs directly support the final judgement you reach.
Incorporate Own Knowledge: To reach the top bands, try to include a specific example. For instance, you could mention the Human Rights Act 1998 as an example of a law that protects rights but could be repealed by Parliament.
🛑 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 strengths was 'Explaining Key Terms'. What is 'parliamentary sovereignty'?
2. Your first target is to 'Develop Both Sides Equally'. How could you have done this in your answer?
3. Which of the following is the best example of 'evaluative language' (Target 2)?
4. Target 3 is to 'Substantiate Your Judgement'. What does this mean?
5. According to your feedback (Target 4), which of these would be a good piece of 'own knowledge' to include?
6. One of your strengths was having a 'Clear Structure'. Why is this important in an essay?
7. The term 'elective dictatorship' is mentioned in your targets. What does it refer to?
8. Your answer begins with the fragment "can be removed by a simple Act of Parliament." Why is this a weak start to your answer?
9. Your feedback praises you for making a 'Direct Judgement'. Where should this judgement typically appear?
10. Based on your feedback, what is the single most important change you could make to improve your score?
Candidate 99628
Word Count: ~66 words
Evaluation Score: 6/10
View A(Professor Reed)
View B(Dr Julian Croft)
Evaluation(Judgement)
and balances are too weak to truly limit government powerand I disagree with this because there is effective checks and balances such as judicial review and select committees.
Overall I agree more with writer Professor Evelyn Reed because an unwritten constitution provides stable and adaptable governance.
<u>Organisation of ideas</u>
<u>Evaluation</u>
Quality of EvaluationPromising. You have the core skills for high-level evaluation. You directly address the debate, use evidence (including your own knowledge), and make a clear, substantiated judgment. This shows a good understanding of what is required. However, the answer is too brief to be considered a 'sustained' evaluation, which prevents it from reaching the top bands. You need to apply this excellent technique to several different arguments from the source to achieve a higher mark.
Developing a Point: My substantiated judgment is that Professor Reed's view is more convincing. While Dr. Croft rightly points out the risks of an 'elective dictatorship', the UK's unwritten constitution has proven its ability to provide stable and adaptable governance for centuries, evolving to meet new challenges without the need for major constitutional crises, which ultimately serves citizens better.
Strengths
Clear Judgment: You make a very clear overall judgment at the end, stating which writer you agree with and providing a direct reason from the source to support it.
Use of Evidence: You effectively use evidence from the source ('judicial review') and, crucially, your own knowledge ('select committees') to support your argument against Dr. Croft.
Direct Comparison: Your phrase "I disagree with this because..." is a great example of direct evaluation. It shows you are weighing up the two arguments rather than just describing them.
Targets
Develop Your Points (PEEL): Your points are good but need more development. Use the PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) structure to expand each argument. For example, after mentioning select committees, *explain* how they check power by questioning ministers and publishing critical reports.
Sustain the Evaluation: To reach the top bands, you need to make several developed points, not just one. Try to evaluate 2-3 different arguments from the source in detail to show a sustained analysis.
Use Evaluative Language: While you do this well once, try to incorporate more evaluative language throughout your answer. Phrases like "a more compelling argument," "this is limited because," or "a significant strength is..." will strengthen your analysis.
Structure and Signposting: A full answer would benefit from a brief introduction outlining your argument and 'signposting' phrases (e.g., "On the one hand," "However," "In conclusion") to guide the reader smoothly through your evaluation.
🛑 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. A key strength of your answer was your use of 'own knowledge'. Which example was this?
2. One of your targets is to 'Sustain the Evaluation'. What does this mean?
3. What does the second 'E' in the PEEL structure stand for?
4. Which of these is the best example of the 'evaluative language' you were asked to use more of?
5. One of your strengths was 'Direct Comparison'. What phrase in your answer showed this skill?
6. What is the main purpose of 'signposting' phrases like "On the other hand..."?
7. What is the primary role of a parliamentary 'select committee'?
8. Your final sentence was praised for being a 'Clear Judgment'. Why was it strong?
9. How could you apply the 'Explain' part of PEEL to your point about judicial review?