Feedback Focussing on Evaluation — 15 Marker: The UK government has a duty to control immigration, even if this means turning away people who genuinely need help." How far do you agree?

Model Answer (Exemplar)

Evaluation Score: 15/15

Word Count: ~350 words (400–450 words are typical for a strong 15-mark response — aim for breadth and depth on both sides)

Strong, measured opening — immediately states a clear position that disagrees to a large extent, setting up an evaluative tone.I disagree to a large extent with the statement. While a government has a fundamental duty to manage its borders, turning away those who genuinely need help violates both international law and our moral obligations. Introduces specific legal knowledge. Naming the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and ECHR shows excellent subject knowledge.A primary reason against the statement is the UK's legal commitments. The UK is a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This means the government has a legal duty of 'non-refoulement' – not returning people to countries where their lives or freedom are threatened. Therefore, turning away genuine asylum seekers is not just morally questionable, it breaches international law. Evaluates the legal point by acknowledging the practical difficulty of implementation, showing balanced reasoning.However, it is true that processing these claims efficiently is highly complex and costly, leading to significant backlogs and tension in the current system. Develops the moral and practical argument regarding human trafficking. Shows understanding of current events (small boats).Furthermore, turning away vulnerable people without providing sufficient safe and legal asylum routes forces them to rely on human trafficking gangs. Desperate people fleeing war will continue to make dangerous journeys, such as crossing the English Channel in small boats. Fulfilling our duty to help genuine refugees by providing safe routes would undermine these criminal networks. Uses a strong evaluative transition to acknowledge the opposing viewpoint fairly.Despite this humanitarian perspective, one must acknowledge the practical pressures placed on the state. Engages directly with the FOR side — economic strain and democratic mandate. This ensures the answer is fully two-sided.There is a strong argument that a government is elected primarily to protect and serve its own citizens. High levels of uncontrolled migration can put significant strain on local public services, including the NHS, social housing, and schools. Furthermore, no country has infinite resources; managing immigration is essential to maintain social cohesion and ensure the economy can absorb new arrivals. Some argue that strict policies are necessary to deter illegal economic migrants from abusing the asylum system and taking resources away from the local population. Clear, well-substantiated conclusion. Weighs the two sides and delivers a final judgement based on the distinction between border control and refugee protection.In conclusion, I disagree with the statement. The UK government certainly has a duty to control immigration and prevent illegal entry; however, this must not come at the expense of those who genuinely need help. Border security and compassion are not mutually exclusive. The UK can, and legally must, operate a managed immigration system while still fulfilling its international obligations to provide a safe haven for those fleeing persecution.

Why this answer earned 15/15 (Level 4):

Convincing, sustained analysis of viewpoints on both sides — FOR and AGAINST arguments developed in equal depth.
Arguments evaluated and critiqued throughout — limitations acknowledged (e.g., the strain on public services and backlogs).
Specific, accurate evidence deployed: 1951 UN Refugee Convention, ECHR, non-refoulement, public service strain, and safe legal routes.
A clear, nuanced, well-substantiated overall judgement — separates the concept of general immigration control from abandoning asylum seekers.

📋 The Question & Indicative Content

Q03 — Paper 1 | Section 3.6 The UK's role in the rest of the world — 15 marks

"The UK government has a duty to control immigration, even if this means turning away people who genuinely need help."

How far do you agree with this view?
Give reasons for your opinion, showing that you have considered different views on the topic.
In your answer, you could consider: the UK's international obligations (e.g., human rights); the impact of immigration on public services and the economy; and the role of the government in representing its citizens.

📌 Indicative Content — arguments you could have used

These are not the only valid points — any well-reasoned argument is creditworthy.

✅ Arguments FOR the statement (control borders even if turning people away)

National sovereignty: A state must have control over its borders to maintain security and national identity.
Public services: High levels of immigration can place unsustainable pressure on housing, schools, and the NHS.
Democratic mandate: The government is elected to serve its own citizens first and must enact the policies voters demand, which often include stricter border controls.
Deterrence: Strict border policies discourage human trafficking and dangerous illegal crossings (e.g., small boats in the Channel).
Finite resources: No country has unlimited capacity; it is practically impossible to take in everyone who genuinely needs help worldwide without facing economic consequences.

❌ Arguments AGAINST the statement (do not turn away those in genuine need)

International Law: The UK is a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the ECHR, creating a legal duty to protect refugees (non-refoulement).
Moral responsibility: As a wealthy, developed nation, the UK has a humanitarian duty to protect those fleeing war, persecution, and torture.
Safe routes: Turning people away without offering safe and legal routes pushes vulnerable people into the hands of criminal smuggling gangs.
Economic benefits: Migrants and refugees often fill crucial labor shortages, pay taxes, and contribute positively to economic growth.
Global burden sharing: The vast majority of the world's refugees are hosted by poorer, developing nations; the UK should take its fair share of the global responsibility.

📊 Mark Scheme Level Descriptors

Level	Marks	What it looks like
4	12–15	Convincing and sustained analysis of both sides. Reasoned, coherent arguments showing good breadth and depth. A well-substantiated overall judgement.
3	8–11	Analysis of both sides evident but unsustained. Reasoned arguments present. A judgement given, although may not be fully evidenced.
2	4–7	Some analysis but focused mainly on one side. Some reasoning and coherence. A judgement given with limited substantiation.
1	1–3	Simple/generalised answer. Little analysis. Undeveloped, lacking reasoned arguments. Judgement missing or asserted without support.
0	0	No rewardable material.

Candidate 18926

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Two-Sided Argument: You successfully structured your answer to address both sides of the debate (the need for control vs. humanitarian duties). This is essential for moving beyond a basic answer.
Range of Impacts: You considered a good range of potential impacts, including economic (jobs, aging population), social (overpopulation, crime), and even environmental (carbon footprints), showing breadth in your thinking.

Targets

Use Specific Evidence: Your arguments are too general. Instead of just "human rights," name the Human Rights Act 1998 or the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. This adds authority and detail to your points.
Develop a Clear Judgement: Your conclusion was incomplete. To score highly, you must state your final position (e.g., "I agree to a large extent...") and then briefly explain *why* you find one side more convincing than the other.
Refine Key Terminology: Use precise Citizenship terms. For example, the idea that the government has the right to make immigration law is called 'parliamentary sovereignty'. Using correct terminology demonstrates deeper subject knowledge.
Complete Your Conclusion: Always ensure your final paragraph fully states and briefly summarises your overall argument. An unfinished conclusion cannot be credited as a substantiated judgement.

Candidate 20876

Word Count: ~269 words

To begin with, I agree to a large extent as the UK government has a duty to control immigration, even if its means turning away people who genuinely need help. To start off, one reason why I agree with the statement is to control population size. For example, we know that year by year the population of the UK is growing approximately by 5% because of the arrival of immigrants. This means that there is a lot of pressure on the secretary department as they may have to increase spending on houses. As a result, more houses will be used and which will eventually link to the increase in homeless as there might not be homes for everyone. Therefore, the UK government should control immigrant to prevent pressure on parliament, and to make sure taxes do not increase, Net migration is high which can impact taxes as they may have to increase. On the other hand, you could disagree with the statement as immigration should be allowed to help the economy and culture of the UK grow. For example, we know that migration comes from a mix of different people of different therefore there is variation in the UK. This allows childrens in both lower and upper schools to understand different cultures and backgrounds through mutual peer-to-peer interaction, increasing ethnic/culture awareness. Furthermore, well educated immigrants contribute positively to the economy as we know that doctors are needed in the NHS to provide for the elderly as the UK is a growing population. Therefore However we need to consider is that not all immigrants may contribute positively to both society and economy as they may be discriminated against and not welcomed, and they may be in a life of crime which can impact the economy and how society views them. In conclusion, although both sides have strong persuasive arguements, I lean more to agreeing with the statement as having too much in the country can lead to increasing taxes which means that the UK will lose their population.

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have used a classic essay structure with an introduction, a paragraph for the 'agree' side, a paragraph for the 'disagree' side, and a conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Two-Sided Argument: You successfully addressed both sides of the debate. This is essential for a "How far do you agree?" question and is required to move beyond a Level 2 mark.
Evaluative Language: You have started to use evaluative phrases like "I agree to a large extent" and "However we need to consider," which shows you are thinking like an analyst and weighing up different viewpoints.

Targets

Use Specific Evidence: Your points are good, but they need factual support. Instead of "population is growing by 5%", you could refer to official Net Migration figures. When discussing benefits, you could mention specific industries that rely on migrant workers.
Refer to Legal/Political Concepts: To reach the top marks, you must include relevant Citizenship concepts. For this question, you could have mentioned the 1951 UN Refugee Convention (the UK's legal duty to refugees) or the concept of parliamentary sovereignty (the government's right to make its own laws).
Develop Your Reasoning: Some of your links are too simple. For example, you link immigration directly to homelessness. A more developed explanation would be: increased demand on social housing → longer waiting lists for everyone → potential for increased homelessness. This shows deeper analysis.
Strengthen Your Conclusion: Your final justification ("the UK will lose their population") was illogical and weakened your overall argument. A strong conclusion must briefly summarise the debate and then explain *why* one side is more convincing than the other, using the points you have already made.

Candidate 26718

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a direct and clear statement of your opinion, which immediately tells the examiner your position on the question.
Relevant Arguments: You have identified two distinct and relevant arguments in favour of the statement: the potential for social conflict and the risk to national security.
Attempted Use of Evidence: You tried to support your point about security by referring to news reports. This shows you are thinking about how to back up your claims, which is a good habit.

Targets

Address Both Sides of the Argument: This is your most important target. To move beyond Level 2 (max 7 marks), you MUST also present the arguments against the statement. For example, discuss the UK's humanitarian duties.
Use Specific Evidence and Keywords: Instead of general references like "on the news," try to include specific legal or political terms. Mentioning the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998 would significantly strengthen your counter-argument.
Develop Your Points: Your arguments are brief. Try to explain them in more detail. For example, when discussing 'threats', explain *why* checks might be difficult and link this to the government's duty to protect citizens.
Improve Formal Language: Rephrase informal expressions like "carry something that could cause harm" into more academic language, such as "pose a threat to national security" or "compromise public safety."

Candidate 4131

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You have successfully included arguments for both sides of the statement. You argued for controlling immigration (e.g., stress on services, democracy) and for humanitarian duties (e.g., helping those in conflict). This is essential for a "How far do you agree?" question.
Clear Judgement: You start your answer with a clear, direct judgement ("I Partuirly agree"). This immediately tells the examiner your position and provides a focus for your argument.

Targets

Develop Your Points (PEEL): Your points are good starting ideas but need development. Use the PEEL structure (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link). For example, when you mention "stress on Services," provide a specific piece of evidence or explain *how* that stress occurs to make your argument more convincing.
Use Specific Terminology & Evidence: To reach higher marks, you must use precise citizenship concepts. Instead of just "human Rights," name the Human Rights Act 1998 or the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. Instead of "a say in how the country is run," use terms like parliamentary sovereignty or democratic mandate.
Structure and Signposting: While you use "however," your argument could be clearer. Try using phrases like "On the one hand..." and "On the other hand..." to structure your two sides. Then, use a concluding sentence that weighs the arguments, such as "On balance, I believe that..." to reinforce your judgement.
Proofread for Clarity: Several spelling errors (e.g., 'Partuirly', 'beleie', 'genionly', 'countrys', 'democractic') can make your argument harder to follow. Taking a minute to proofread will improve the clarity of your writing.

Candidate 4203

Word Count: ~285 words

Considering Other perspectives to this statement. I agree to an extent because there are some arguments for and against this statement. On one hand, I'd agree because the UK government has a job to do and they need to follow the laws. This means if citizens of the UK are struggling to get jobs and housing because of migration, the government should step up and do something about it as it could lead to tension such as protests against migration. I'd also agree with this statement because the duty of the government is to hear the publics opinion and act on it. So if the government is turning people away, it is part of there duty. Lastly, I agree with this statement because when there is more people coming to the UK it means there is a higher demand for a variety of things such as water, food, resources etc. This could put a lot of pressure on the government as they would have to spend a lot of money providing people with those things. On the other hand, I'd disagree with this statement because turning away from an opportunity of a better life is bad. People who migrate to the UK either asylum seekers or refugees can bring many benefits such as different cultural foods and items. This could create many jobs and attractions to the UK. Majority of the smartest, famous doctors and well educated people in the UK came from different countries. This shows that migrants could bring many benefits to the UK. Also people that migrate to the UK have a right to a better life and if the government is rejecting immigrants, they are going against people's rights. I would also disagree because when more people migrate to the UK, are more workers for jobs like, teaching, nurses etc. Overall I disagree with this statement because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and migrants could bring a variety of opportunities and advantages whilst bettering and changing their lives for the better.

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You have successfully structured your answer to consider both sides of the argument ('for' and 'against'), which is essential for a high-level response.
Clear Judgement: Your conclusion is effective. You clearly state your overall position ('Overall I disagree...') and support it by weighing up the arguments you've made.
Relevant Points: You raise several relevant points on both sides, such as the strain on public services and the economic and cultural benefits that migrants can bring.

Targets

Use Specific Evidence: To reach the top marks, support your points with specific examples. Instead of saying the government must 'follow the laws', name a relevant law, such as the Human Rights Act 1998, or an international agreement, like the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
Develop Your Points (PEEL): Expand on your ideas to show deeper understanding. For instance, when you mention 'tension such as protests', you could link this to the concept of community cohesion and explain *why* a perceived lack of control over immigration might fuel social division.
Use Precise Terminology: Elevate your academic language. Instead of saying people have a 'right to a better life' (which is not a legal right), refer to the specific right to claim asylum or the principle of 'non-refoulement' (not sending people back to danger).

Candidate 4229

Word Count: ~274 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You consistently state your opinion that the positives of immigration outweigh the negatives. This is a key skill for "How far do you agree" questions.
Two-Sided Argument: You successfully address both the benefits (economic, cultural) and the perceived drawbacks (community division, population increase) of immigration, meeting a core requirement of the mark scheme.
Use of Key Concepts: You correctly identify and attempt to use relevant Citizenship concepts like 'parliamentary sovereignty' and an 'uncodified constitution' to support your points.

Targets

Develop Points with P.E.E.L: Your points are good but need more depth. Use the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link structure. For example, when you say migrants fill jobs, give evidence (e.g., in social care or agriculture) and explain the impact (e.g., supporting the elderly and the economy).
Use Specific Legal Frameworks: You mention "laws... to protect them". To improve, name them. Refer to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) to make your arguments more precise and evidence-based.
Clarify Citizenship Terminology: You confused 'push' and 'pull' factors. 'Pull' factors attract people *to* a country (like better jobs in the UK). 'Push' factors force people to *leave* their home country (like war or persecution). Using these terms correctly will strengthen your analysis.
Structure Your Argument: Your essay jumps between points. For better clarity, try structuring your answer into clear paragraphs: 1) Arguments FOR the statement, 2) Arguments AGAINST the statement, and 3) A conclusion that weighs both sides to justify your final judgement.

Candidate 4238

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Two-Sided Argument: You have successfully structured your answer to look at both sides of the argument, which is essential for this type of question. You present a case for controlling immigration and then a counter-argument against it.
Use of Concepts: You have included relevant Citizenship concepts like 'sovereignty', 'public services', and the economic impact on the 'workforce'. This shows you understand the key themes of the debate.

Targets

Add Specific Evidence: Your points are too general. Name specific laws or treaties like the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998 to make your arguments more authoritative and detailed.
Develop Your Analysis: Instead of just stating a point (e.g., "Pressure on national services may also be relieved"), explain it further. For example, *how* are services like the NHS or schools affected? What is the counter-argument to this point? This is the difference between stating and analysing.
Write a Substantiated Judgement: Your answer needs a clear conclusion that weighs up both sides. Use phrases like "On balance...", "To a greater extent...", or "Although there are strong arguments for..., the most compelling reason is..." to show the examiner you are making a final, reasoned decision.
Improve Clarity and Precision: Some sentences are unclear. Re-read your work to ensure your points are expressed as clearly as possible. Use precise terminology, for example, instead of 'leadership of its own countries', use 'the supreme power to make laws within its own territory'.

Candidate 4251

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Two-Sided Structure: You have correctly structured your answer by looking at both sides of the argument. This is essential for a 'How far do you agree?' question and is a key skill for AO3.
Clear Initial Judgement: You start your essay with a direct answer to the question ("I disagree..."). This provides immediate clarity on your position.
Argument with Example: Your point about asylum seekers who have joined the army is a good attempt to use a specific example to support your argument against the statement.

Targets

Develop Arguments with P.E.E.L: Your points need more depth. Try using the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link structure to build your paragraphs. For example, state your point, provide a specific piece of evidence (like a law or statistic), explain how it supports your point, and link it back to the question.
Use Specific Citizenship Terminology: To achieve higher marks, you must use precise legal and political terms. For this topic, you could have mentioned the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, the Human Rights Act 1998, or the principle of non-refoulement.
Write a Concluding Judgement: Your essay ends after presenting the second argument. You need to add a conclusion that weighs up both sides and explains *why* you hold your opinion. For example, "On balance, while the strain on public services is a valid concern, it is outweighed by the UK's legal and moral duties..."
Improve Sentence Clarity: Some of your sentences are long and grammatically confusing, which can hide your good ideas. Focus on writing shorter, clearer sentences to make your arguments more powerful and easier for the examiner to understand.

Candidate 4252

Word Count: ~425 words

The UK gov't has a duty to control immigration even if it means turning away people who need help. This statement makes a strong argument and highlights problems we face today within the UK such as overcrowding. The UK does have a responsibility to have people away to prevent problems. However this statement it could be argued that the UK's economy is only as strong as it is today due to letting a lot of people into the country this helps to fill out job role's and bring new skills into the country and this is extremely important as the UK is a country which isn't known for its natural resources but the skills of its workers and its huge economy despite the smaller population compared to other country's and if the country didn't allow people in this would stop special skills like soft skills being brought in and other things effecting the economy. On the other hand if the UK slowed down on accepting people into the country it would allow for several things to be fixed for example the ever rising overcrowding problem and the money being spent on immigrants could be used to fix the UK's failing infrastructure improving the quality of life for the residents within the country. All though this argument holds merit it fails to take into consideration where most of the money from the UK is generated making this argument weak, and this is because without the immigrants who move into the country and pay taxes on their homes the UK's economy is heavily affected meaning things such as fixing infrastructure and improving the quality of life for current citizens are basically impossible without the extra money generated by immigrants. Furthermore the UK has a perspective not migration meaning their people is just as much people coming in as leaving the country as well as coming in. Meaning the immigration isn't the main core problem. Immigration is also shown to help the UK's ageing population as younger people are needed to work. In conclusion the UK allowing several people in instead of turning them away has several more benefits than turning them away such the ageing population being fixed the economy improving overtime which both helps people has a lot more downside. So I personally think the UK should allow a lot of people in.

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You successfully argued both for and against the statement. You explored key themes like the strain on public services versus the economic and demographic benefits of immigration.
Clear Judgement: You didn't just list points; you actively evaluated them. For instance, you labelled the argument about cost as "weak" and explained your reasoning, which is a high-level skill.
Logical Structure: Your use of phrases like "On the other hand" and "In conclusion" created a clear and easy-to-follow structure, guiding the examiner through your thinking.

Targets

Use Specific Evidence: Your arguments are logical but would be more powerful with factual support. For example, when discussing the UK's duty to help people, you could name the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which the UK signed.
Develop Key Terminology: You mentioned "perspective not migration". This was a good attempt to discuss net migration. Using the correct term and explaining it (the difference between immigration and emigration) would make your point much stronger.
Refine Sentence Structure: Some sentences are very long and combine multiple ideas. Try breaking them down into shorter, more focused sentences to improve clarity and impact.
Proofread for Precision: Small errors can distract from your excellent points. For example, "job role's" should be "job roles" (plural, no apostrophe) and "country's" should be "countries". A quick check can fix these.

Candidate 4304

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Two-Sided Argument: You correctly identified that this question requires you to look at both sides of the debate, providing arguments for controlling immigration and for its benefits. This is essential for a balanced answer.
Relevant Examples: You used good, specific examples to support your points, such as the strain on the NHS and schools, and the need for migrants to fill key jobs like nurses and doctors.
Clear Initial Judgement: You began your response with a clear statement of your opinion ("I belive that immigration should have limits"), which shows you understood the need to take a stance.

Targets

Develop Your Points (PEEL): Your points are good starting points but need more depth. Try using the PEEL structure (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link). For instance, when you mention NHS stress, you could add evidence like waiting list statistics to make your argument more convincing.
Use Key Terminology: To achieve higher marks, you need to use specific Citizenship vocabulary. For example, when discussing the duty to help people, you could mention the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998.
Write a Concluding Judgement: Your essay ends abruptly. You must add a conclusion that weighs up both sides and justifies your final opinion. For example: "On balance, while the economic benefits of immigration are clear, I believe the government's primary duty is to ensure public services are not overwhelmed..."
Improve Clarity: Some sentences are very long and contain multiple ideas, making them hard to follow. Try to use shorter sentences and proofread your work to correct spelling (e.g., 'believe', 'education', 'economic') to make your arguments clearer.

Candidate 61028

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Good Use of Legal Frameworks: You effectively used your knowledge of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and international law to build a strong argument about the UK's humanitarian duties.
Balanced Argument: You successfully addressed both sides of the debate, which is essential for a high-level answer. Using phrases like "To a certain extent..." clearly signposts your balanced approach.
Clear Judgement Stated: You begin each paragraph by stating your position on that particular side of the argument, which helps to frame your analysis for the examiner.

Targets

Develop a Concluding Judgement: Your answer needs a final paragraph that weighs up the 'agree' and 'disagree' arguments. For example: "In conclusion, while the government has a valid reason to control immigration to protect public services, this duty is outweighed by its legal and moral obligations under international human rights law..."
Improve Paragraph Structure: Your second paragraph mixes arguments for controlling immigration with points about the benefits and vulnerabilities of migrants. Try to dedicate each paragraph to a single, clear line of argument to make your analysis more sustained and easier to follow.
Use Specific, Up-to-Date Examples: To add depth, try to include specific examples. You could mention a country people are fleeing from (e.g., Sudan, Afghanistan) or a specific UK government policy that has been debated, such as the Rwanda deportation plan and the Supreme Court's ruling on it.
Refine Phrasing for Clarity: Some sentences were a little confusing (e.g., "Most individuals despise they do bring a lot to the economy"). Always take a moment to re-read your work to ensure your meaning is precise and clear.

Candidate 72189

Word Count: ~93 words

Strengths

Clear Point with Development: You make a clear point about immigration leading to overpopulation and develop it with specific examples like the strain on jobs and housing.
Chain of Reasoning: You successfully create a logical chain of reasoning, linking increased population to a lack of homes and then to increased government spending. This is a key analytical skill.

Targets

Analyse Both Sides: Your entire argument focused on reasons *for* controlling immigration. To move beyond Level 2, you must also analyse the arguments *against* it (e.g., our duties under the UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act).
Support Your Judgement: Your conclusion ("I disagree") was a simple statement. A strong judgement must be a mini-conclusion that explains *why* you have chosen one side over the other, weighing up the arguments you have already made.
Use Specific Evidence: To make your points more convincing, include specific evidence. For example, you could mention the 1951 UN Refugee Convention (for the 'disagree' side) or refer to specific government spending figures on housing (for the 'agree' side).
Avoid Contradictions: The main body of your answer argued for controlling immigration, but your conclusion disagreed with this. Ensure your final judgement logically follows from the arguments you have presented in your essay.

Candidate 72189

Word Count: ~145 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a clear line of argument ("I partially disagree"), which directly answers the question and provides a focus for your paragraph.
Two Distinct Arguments: You effectively support your judgement with two different points: one focusing on the economic benefits of immigration and another on the moral and humanitarian duty to protect refugees.

Targets

Address Both Sides of the Argument: To move beyond Level 2, you must analyse the other side of the debate. Why *does* the government have a duty to control immigration? Consider arguments about pressure on public services (NHS, schools), national security, or its democratic mandate to manage borders.
Use Specific Evidence: Your points are reasonable but need evidence to become powerful. Name specific laws like the Human Rights Act 1998 or international agreements like the 1951 UN Refugee Convention to make your arguments much stronger.
Develop Your Evaluation: Your attempt at evaluation ("However, some may argue...") is a good start. To improve, clearly state the counter-argument and then explain *why* your own view is more convincing, directly weighing the two points against each other.
Use Formal Terminology: Improve your academic language to make your points more precise. For example, instead of "helps cus there would be more people working," use terms like "contributes to the economy" or "fills labour shortages." Correct "economic misrants" to "economic migrants."

Candidate 79162

Word Count: ~249 words

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You have structured your answer well by looking at both sides of the argument. You present points for controlling immigration (e.g., strain on housing) and against it (e.g., economic contributions).
Clear Judgement: You start with a clear, evaluative stance ('I agree to an extent') and use evaluative language like 'However' throughout. This is essential for a 'How far do you agree?' question.

Targets

Use Specific Evidence: Your arguments are good ideas, but they need to be backed up with specific evidence. Instead of just saying 'they have rights', name the specific law, like the Human Rights Act 1998 or the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
Develop Your Points (PEEL): Try to develop each point further using a structure like Point, Evidence, Explain, Link. For example, after stating that immigrants can be doctors, you could explain how this helps fill specific shortages in the NHS, linking back to the benefit for the UK economy.
Define Key Terms: Show the examiner your precise knowledge by defining key terms. For example, explain the difference between an 'asylum seeker' (someone who has applied for protection) and a 'refugee' (someone whose application has been successful).
Improve Clarity and Precision: Some of your sentences are a little unclear (e.g., 'is taxes increase benifits will have to aswell'). Read your work back to ensure your reasoning is easy for the examiner to follow. Planning your points before you write can help with this.

Candidate 81097

Word Count: ~130 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a clear and direct judgement ("I disagree... to a large extent"), which is essential for a "How far do you agree?" question.
Attempted Use of Evidence: You tried to support your point by referencing a specific piece of legislation, the Equality Act 2010. Using legal frameworks is a key skill for high-level answers.
Evaluative Language: You use phrases like "to a large extent", "even though", and "However", which show you are thinking evaluatively and trying to weigh up different ideas.

Targets

Develop Both Sides: Your answer is one-sided. To move beyond Level 2, you must present developed arguments for *both* sides of the debate before reaching your conclusion. What are the arguments *for* controlling immigration?
Use More Relevant Evidence: While the Equality Act is relevant to UK law, the Human Rights Act 1998 or the 1951 UN Refugee Convention are far more specific and powerful pieces of evidence for this particular debate.
Avoid Generalisations: The claim that "most of the reasoning behind stopping immigration is because of race" is a very strong and unsupported generalisation. Base your arguments on specific policies or legal principles rather than broad assumptions.
Explain the Counter-Argument: Your final sentence introduces a counter-argument ("there are other reasons..."). Your next step should be to explain *what* those reasons are (e.g., strain on public services, national security) to create a balanced analysis.

Candidate 86091

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Argument Identification: You correctly identified a key argument for controlling immigration – the potential strain on public money and resources. This is a valid and relevant point.
Attempted Structure: You used the word "However" to try and build a balanced argument. This shows you understand that evaluative essays need to consider different viewpoints, which is a good starting point.

Targets

Address Both Sides: Your answer only argued *for* controlling immigration. To reach Level 3 and above, you *must* also include arguments *against* it, such as the UK's legal duties under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998.
Clarity of Stance: Your opening sentence said you "disagree" with the statement, but all your arguments actually "agree" with it. Ensure your position is clear from the start and that your arguments consistently support it.
Use Specific Evidence: Instead of general phrases like "money", strengthen your points by naming specific public services (e.g., NHS, schools, housing) or legal concepts (e.g., parliamentary sovereignty) to add depth and credibility to your analysis.
Develop a Supported Judgement: A top-level answer needs a conclusion that weighs up both sides and explains *why* one is stronger. For example: "On balance, while humanitarian duties are important, the government's primary responsibility to protect the welfare of its existing citizens means some control is necessary."

Candidate 92710

Word Count: ~29 words

Strengths

Relevant Argument: You correctly identified a key argument in the debate – the idea that money spent on immigration could be used to improve public services like housing and education for existing residents.
Clear Stance: Your short answer takes a clear position, arguing in favour of prioritising domestic spending, which directly supports the idea that the government has a duty to control immigration.

Targets

Address Both Sides: To score above Level 2, you MUST analyse the other side of the argument. For example, discuss the UK's legal duties under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998, which protect people who genuinely need help.
Develop Your Points (P.E.E.L.): A single sentence is not enough. Structure your paragraphs using Point, Evidence, Explain, Link. State your point, support it with a specific example or fact, explain how it answers the question, and link it back.
Include a Substantiated Judgement: A 15-mark essay requires a conclusion that weighs up both sides and answers the "How far do you agree?" part of the question. For example, 'On balance, I agree to a large extent because...' and then explain why one side is stronger than the other.
Use Specific Knowledge: To strengthen your arguments, include specific legal or political concepts. For the 'agree' side, you could mention 'parliamentary sovereignty'. For the 'disagree' side, you could mention the '1951 UN Refugee Convention' or the 'European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)'.

Candidate 92716

Word Count: ~131 words

Strengths

Balanced Approach: You correctly identified that this question requires you to look at arguments for and against the statement. Using "On the other hand" is good signposting to show you are changing perspective.
Clear Judgement: You begin your answer with a nuanced judgement ("I agree with the statement to an extent"). This is the correct structure for a high-level response.
Economic Awareness: You identify a key economic argument in favour of immigration – that immigrants can fill labour shortages and contribute to the UK economy.

Targets

Develop Your Points (PEEL): Your points are currently just statements (e.g., "reduces areas from being overpopulated"). You need to *Explain* them (How? Why?) and provide *Evidence* or an *Example* (e.g., mention strain on specific public services like the NHS or schools).
Use Specific Terminology: To achieve a higher level, you should incorporate key citizenship concepts. For this question, you could have mentioned the **1951 UN Refugee Convention**, the **Human Rights Act 1998**, or the principle of **parliamentary sovereignty**.
Sustain Your Argument: Your second paragraph, arguing for immigration control, is much shorter and less developed than your first. Ensure both sides of the argument are given similar weight and detail to create a balanced analysis.
Link Back to Your Judgement: A strong essay would weigh up the arguments in a conclusion to explain *why* you agree "to an extent". For example, you could conclude that while humanitarian duties are vital, a government must also manage its resources responsibly.

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

1. Lack of Specific Evidence & Terminology: The most common weakness was making general arguments without using precise, subject-specific keywords, laws, or conventions. This prevents arguments from being authoritative and detailed.
👉 Model: Instead of "there are laws for young people," a stronger sentence would be "The principle of doli incapax, established in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, presumes a child under 14 is incapable of criminal intent."
2. Underdeveloped Arguments (PEEL): Many students stated a point but failed to develop it with evidence or explanation. A good argument needs to explain the 'how' and 'why' to demonstrate analytical thinking, rather than just listing ideas.
👉 Model: Instead of "a lower age makes kids behave," a developed point is "Lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 12 could act as a more effective deterrent; this is because a young person would be more aware of severe consequences like a criminal record, which may discourage them from offending."
3. Weak or Missing Judgement: A large number of essays lacked a proper conclusion. To score highly, a final judgement must weigh up both sides of the debate and explain *why* one side is more persuasive than the other, directly answering the "How far do you agree?" question.
👉 Model: A strong concluding sentence would be: "On balance, while the complexities of adolescent brain development are a valid concern, the need for a clear legal boundary to protect society is the most compelling reason to maintain the current age of criminal responsibility."
4. One-Sided Arguments: Several students only argued one side of the case, either for or against the statement. A 15-mark essay requires a balanced analysis that explores the arguments on both sides of the debate before reaching a conclusion.
👉 Model: To show balance, one could write: "On the one hand, holding a 14-year-old accountable for their actions reflects society's need for justice; however, on the other hand, a focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment may be more effective at preventing reoffending in the long term."

Teacher Next Steps

1. Keyword Connector Drill: To fix the lack of specific terminology, give students a general statement on a mini-whiteboard (e.g., "The government has the ultimate power to make laws for its country"). They have 30 seconds to write down the correct Citizenship keyword (e.g., "Parliamentary Sovereignty"). Repeat for 5-6 key terms from the topic, such as Human Rights Act 1998, 1951 Refugee Convention, and non-refoulement.
2. P.E.E.L. Chain Challenge: To improve argument development, provide a simple 'Point' on the board (e.g., "Compulsory voting would increase turnout"). In pairs, students have 5 minutes to write the subsequent 'Evidence', 'Explain', and 'Link' sentences to complete the analytical chain. Cold-call pairs to share their chains and offer live feedback.
3. Argument Tennis: To practice building balanced arguments, split the class in two. Give a new debate topic (e.g., "Social media does more harm than good"). One side argues FOR, the other AGAINST. A student from one side 'serves' an argument, and a student from the opposing side must immediately 'return' with a counter-point. This fast-paced drill forces students to think about both perspectives.
4. Justification Scale: To strengthen concluding judgements, draw a line on the board from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree". Present two competing arguments from an essay. Ask students to stand where they are on the scale and use a sentence starter to justify their position: "On balance, while [argument A] is a valid point, I believe [argument B] is more convincing because...". This models the structure of a substantiated judgement.

Extended Writing Feedback

Teacher Access

Dashboard Unlocked

🧑‍🎓 Student Quick Access

📊 Data Export

⚠️ Safeguarding Alerts

Model Answer (Exemplar)

📋 The Question & Indicative Content

📌 Indicative Content — arguments you could have used

✅ Arguments FOR the statement (control borders even if turning people away)

❌ Arguments AGAINST the statement (do not turn away those in genuine need)

Candidate 18926

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 20876

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 26718

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4131

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4203

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4229

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4238

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4251

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4252

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4304

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 61028

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 72189

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 72189

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 79162

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 81097

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 86091

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 92710

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 92716

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

Teacher Next Steps