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 16927

Word Count: ~477 words

Despite native British citizens having negative effects as resources that are crucial for standard of living taken away and the uprising of extremist groups due to this, I disagree as I think the UK should tolerate the Right to life and carry on the tradition of immigration. I disagree because the one of the UK's core democratic values that makes it a great state is being able to respect the Right to life. By preventing and controlling immigration the head of immigration are preventing and humans that are threat to persecution in other countries perhaps due to sexuality, war or a better standard of living or religion, some being protected in the Equality Act of 2010. This is a sustainable point as the UK needs to allow immigrants, even if that means they become assylum seekers they are in a safe environment where they aren't tortured and ultimately being able to express their right to life. In real life scenarious many people from highly islamic states like Iran and Afghanistan currently are oppressed due to not being able to express themselves being very fearful. This is why we must take in people in need. However some may disagree with my view as British citizens are held accountable as services and jobs are taken from them. For example when immigrating to the UK to live the expensive life of London you must have a job (some immigrants having up to 3). Other people may see this as arrogant and selfish as they are depriving British people from potential jobs even though they've been living there for hundreds of years. Furthermore, in London due to the high migration of immigrants & coming to the UK this has resulted in a shortage of council flats. This has severely decreased the standard of living as some families are left homeless and helpless emphasing this compelling argument. Another reason why I disagree with the statement is due to long past of taking in migrants. For example, after WWII due to the heavy artillery strikes from bombs the infrastructure after 1945 was destroyed leaving collapsed buildings and shattered shops due to road rubble blocking entrances. This led to immigration policies allowing people from all over the world most notably from the Commonwealth. This led to buildings being rebuilt and also the windrush generation white descendents from today go back when immigrants were needed to improve the country significantly. This is a impressive point as without groups of people from the windrush & and asian communities not only improving the country but leading to the introduction of diverse communities leading to integration and successful integration of different backgrounds and cultures. After viewing both sides of the argument, although the import of immigration have led worsened conditions for natives and uprising of extremist groups I still disagree as the benefits of different cultures and listening to the right of life has made the UK a better country ultimately.

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You have successfully structured your essay to analyse both sides of the debate. You dedicate a full paragraph to the counter-argument (strain on services) before returning to your own view, which demonstrates strong essay writing skills.
Clear Judgement: Your own opinion is stated clearly in the introduction and reinforced in the conclusion. You consistently argue your case while still acknowledging the other side, which is a key feature of good evaluation.
Use of Examples: You have used relevant examples to support your points, such as the post-WWII Windrush generation to show the historical benefits of immigration, and people fleeing Iran/Afghanistan to highlight the humanitarian need.

Targets

Incorporate Specific Legal Frameworks: Your point on the 'Right to Life' is good, but to make it more powerful, you should name the specific laws. Refer to the Human Rights Act 1998 (which protects the right to life and freedom from torture) and the UK's duties as a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
Develop Counter-Arguments Further: Your paragraph on the negative impacts is a good start. To improve, link the strain on public services to the government's democratic duty to protect existing citizens. You could also mention the concept of parliamentary sovereignty – the idea that Parliament has the ultimate power to create and enforce immigration laws.
Refine Terminology & Accuracy: Be precise with your language. The 'Windrush generation' refers to people who arrived from Caribbean countries between 1948 and 1971. Being factually accurate is important. Also, ensure you understand the legal difference between an 'asylum seeker' (someone who has applied for protection) and a 'refugee' (someone whose application has been successful).
Strengthen Evaluative Language: In your conclusion, explicitly state *why* one argument is stronger than the other. For example: "While the strain on public services is a significant short-term challenge, it is ultimately outweighed by the UK's binding legal and moral obligations under international human rights law, which are fundamental to its status as a democratic nation."

Candidate 19672

Word Count: ~454 words

I somewhat agree with this statement as immigration is a very important factor that can affect others in the long run if not properly controlled. One reason why I agree with this statement is due to financial and social state of the UK. It is a high income country with a lot of opportunities that make it attractive for immigrants to go to. Such as economic or refugees and with high immigration it needs to be controlled as if there is too many people in the UK it can put pressure on public services such as schools, healthcare and housing and due to a result of this pressure the government will need to apply more tax money on this services which would recieve scrutiny from the public which may drop their chances of being in power the next election if it is not handled accordingly to the public's satisfaction. However it could be argued that immigrants are helpful to the job industry as they are most likely going to work in jobs a citizen of the UK wouldn't usually go due to the opportunities which helps the economy but if the jobs for low pay if these jobs are being taken by immigrants resulting on a lot of jobs being 'occupied' it can cause conflict within the public leading to a lot of danger and potentially high crime rates. Another reason why I agree with this statement is because of the safety of the public some immigrants may not come to the country to achieve a peaceful life or a better future but to create danger such as terrorism acts or fleeing from their crimes that they have known they are guilty for a criminal act such as murder, arson etc without adequate protection and power to control it can put the country in danger from exposing government secrets or terrorist attacks. On the other hand some people may agree with the statement of the 1951 refugee convention stating that the UK to protect those fleeing prosecution such as those escaping from the death penalty which the UK does not support and will protect the individual however in cases of a net migration surplus there needs to be an alternative solution that the UK has to make such as safely sending them to another safe country such as France or Germany who also accept immigrants or unfortunately send them away. A surplus in net migration can be expensive to the country as the UK has to pay an increase of one thousand immigrants in 2023 which cost them £6-700 million pounds so poor immigration duty control is not substantial. In conclusion I agree with this statement that the UK government has a duty to control immigration as good and proper control allows the UK to be in good order without any conflict and pressure with public services, social and the country and even with those who need help there can be other solutions instead of putting pressure on the country.

Strengths

Clear Structure and Judgement: Your essay is well-structured with a clear introduction, paragraphs for your main points, and a conclusion. Your overall judgement is consistent and supported by your arguments.
Developed 'For' Arguments: You effectively explain the reasons for controlling immigration, particularly the chain of reasoning from pressure on public services to higher taxes and public dissatisfaction.
Use of Counter-Argument: You show good evaluative skill by using phrases like "However..." and "On the other hand..." to introduce and engage with the opposing view, creating a balanced discussion.

Targets

Develop the 'Against' Argument: The humanitarian side of the debate is brief. To improve, add more specific legal and ethical points. For example, you could discuss the Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 3: freedom from torture) or the principle of 'non-refoulement' from the 1951 Convention.
Use Specific and Accurate Evidence: You tried to use a statistic about cost, which is great, but it lacked precision. Aim for verifiable facts. For instance, you could mention the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling that the Rwanda deportation scheme was unlawful as a key piece of evidence.
Refine Terminology: Use more precise Citizenship vocabulary. Make a clear distinction between 'immigrants' (who move for various reasons, often economic), 'asylum seekers' (who have requested protection), and 'refugees' (whose request has been granted).
Strengthen the Conclusion: Your conclusion summarises your view well. To make it more evaluative, explicitly weigh the two sides against each other. For example: "While the strain on public services is a valid concern, it must be balanced against the UK's binding legal obligations under international law..."

Candidate 20179

Word Count: ~614 words

Despite the importance of national sovereignty and the country's priorities over its own people, I do disagree with the statement because the UK has been one of the most accepting communities in the last century, especially through the Commonwealth and laws that protect immigrants. One reason why I disagree is because the UK has made many laws in the past and accepted human rights that protect people's right to life, including immigrants. This was in the 1951 Refugee Convention where the UK had promised to protect people fleeing from persecution and in the 1998 Human Rights Act, the UK universally declared a set of inalienable rights that belong to everyone. This strong point on the UK would be extremely hypocritical if they had rejected refugees due to their promises, so they are obliged to help immigrants. Another reason why I disagree is because immigrants are one of the largest tax contributors in the nation despite being a minority in the UK. They also provide a diverse skillset to the UK which can increase the size of the workforce. People often argue that immigrants leech off of the welfare state, but this is factually incorrect as they actually have a higher contribution in taxes than they receive in public services. The UK has a strong history of accepting people from other countries even when the country was in a crisis or a bad state, they had still welcomed immigrants. They use through the Commonwealth where the UK had a perpetual debt to these late former colonised countries, so they had owed them by allowing free immigration, migration and emigration to the UK without question. Asylum seekers are protected by law as they are not allowed to be rejected by multiple other countries as they lose their right to life and shelter, so the UK has an obligation to protect that. On the other hand, some may argue that the UK is the house of the nation's people and agree with the statement as they see that immigration is not the nation's problem, so why should they allow the immigrants to come? This argument is weak as it undermines how the UK has a social reputation internationally that it has to politically uphold even if it is through accepting immigrants to seem socially responsible and be reputable and respected. Often the general view or stance of the government is based off of the public view/pressure which is a strong argument as a democratic nation like the UK should uphold the public's view in order to create a just, fairer system. However even if the public's stance on immigration is to limit or control it, the government shouldn't listen as these views often come from extremist parties that reflect a very small minority of the people's opinion which isn't reflective of public opinion. This principle is called 'democratic accountability' but if the government's promise and ideological beliefs do not line up with public opinion, they are less likely to listen to them. People also agree that the immigration puts a lot of pressure on the welfare state or services like the NHS, council housing or charities, which puts a lot of stress on both workers and the government. This point is weak as the NHS should be over-equipped and highly staffed in order to adapt to the pressure from crises like immigration. This is the same for charities like as there are countless NGO's that provide for immigrants like SMASH that helps children and or Red Thread that provides clothes for refugees. Our community is well adapted and prepared so who is to say that immigration is a problem? In conclusion, although the argument about public pressure, stress on the welfare state or national prioritisation, I still strongly disagree with the statement as the UK has a moral and legal obligation to support immigration and migrants are extremely helpful to the economy and diversity of society. But how is anyone an immigrant? "No-one is an immigrant on stolen land".

Strengths

Clear & Consistent Judgement: You establish a clear and consistent argument against the statement from the very first sentence and maintain this position throughout your essay, which is key for a high-level response.
Use of Specific Evidence: You effectively use specific legal frameworks, such as the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Human Rights Act 1998, to support your main arguments. This adds weight and authority to your points.
Economic & Historical Context: You broaden your argument beyond just legal duties by including economic points (tax contributions) and historical context (the Commonwealth), showing a good range of knowledge.

Targets

Develop Counter-Arguments Fairly: When you introduce an opposing view (e.g., pressure on the NHS), try to explain it as a valid concern before you challenge it. Instead of calling it 'weak' immediately, explore why someone holds that view, and then use your evidence to counter it more analytically.
Avoid Sweeping Generalisations: Your point that anti-immigration views "often come from extremist parties that reflect a very small minority" is a generalisation. For a top-level answer, be more precise. You could instead discuss how governments must balance public opinion, which can be influenced by media narratives, with their legal obligations.
Refine Use of Key Terms: You mention 'democratic accountability'. This is a great concept to use! To improve, explain it more clearly in the context of your argument. For example: "...this is called democratic accountability, where a government is expected to act on the views of the electorate. However, this can conflict with..."
Strengthen the Conclusion: Your conclusion summarises your points well. To improve, avoid adding new, unexplained statements at the very end (e.g., "No-one is an immigrant on stolen land"). Instead, use the final sentence to powerfully restate your main judgement by weighing the most important factors.

Candidate 28916

Word Count: ~110 words

Strengths

Balanced Structure: You correctly identified that this question requires a two-sided response. Using "However" to pivot to the counter-argument is a good technique.
Use of Key Knowledge: You included a crucial piece of legal evidence – the 1951 Refugee Convention. This demonstrates good subject knowledge and strengthens your argument.

Targets

Develop Your Points (P.E.E.L): Your points are currently listed rather than explained. Try using the P.E.E.L structure: make your Point, Explain it with detail, add Evidence or an example, and then Link it back to the question.
Substantiate Your Judgement: You state "I disagree" at the start, but a top-level answer needs a conclusion that weighs both sides and explains *why* one is stronger. For example: "On balance, while pressure on services is a concern, it is outweighed by the UK's legal duties..."
Use Specific Evidence: To make arguments more convincing, add specific data or examples. For the 'public services' point, you could mention NHS waiting lists. For the 'taxes' point, you could refer to a study from the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Clarity and Precision: Some phrasing is a little unclear (e.g., "turning peo-ple"). Aim for precise, formal language. Instead of "the government has other things to worry about", specify what those moral or legal obligations are.

Candidate 35678

Word Count: ~293 words

I agree to an extant that the government has a duty to control immigration because if they don't there will be a increase in populations and job oppurtunities will stay the same. This means that the rate of people being homeless will significantly increase as well as crime. Studies show that when people are in a vulnerable place or at a place of need crimes are commited to cure the pain. However alot of people come from countries that participate in war and they flee because they need shelter and a place to stay Although maintaining the immigration in the UK has many benifits turning down the people that serely needs help could be considered as morally wrong. I suggest this because Mothers and kids flee war countries of war and abuse or enslainment to have a chance of a better life and they are turned down because of where they come from and there ability to be granted a work visa or permission to stay in the UK. So if we analyse how the government is controling migration we would look at border control and the police as a whole try there best to refuse imigrants from coming but dont really take inititave of why. Economically, it plumits the UK financial system because there will be an increase in population howere products stay the same. Culturally the UK will become more diversed than it already is become more different and many more languages spoken. This would have a positive influence on certain parts because more people and tourist will want to visit due to the good and different oppurtunities it bring. However the law states that without a work permit or visa staying inside another country for a long period of time goes against alot of rules and is in fact illegal due to the way countries are structured and organised this will not be Demands will increase like housing, education, NHS and unemployment will increase. Rates of pay may reduce if economic migrants work for lower wages challenges may cause tentions and increase support for extreme groups. Thaddeus McCorbon

Strengths

Two-Sided Argument: You have successfully addressed both sides of the debate, which is essential for a 'How far do you agree?' question. You consider both the government's need to control borders and the humanitarian need to help people.
Identifies Key Issues: You correctly identify several relevant issues, such as the potential impact on jobs, public services (housing, NHS), the economy, and the moral arguments around helping refugees fleeing war.

Targets

Use Specific Evidence: Your points are very general (e.g., "Studies show..."). To improve, use specific examples, laws, or concepts. For instance, when discussing the duty to help, you could mention the 1951 UN Refugee Convention as a key legal duty the UK has.
Develop Your Points (PEEL): Instead of listing several points in a row (like in your final paragraph), pick one, explain it with evidence, and link it back to the question. For example, when you mention the NHS, explain *how* it would be strained and *why* this supports the argument for government control.
Clearer Structure: Your essay jumps between 'for' and 'against' points, especially in your fourth paragraph. Try structuring your answer with clear paragraphs for each side of the argument before reaching a conclusion. This makes your reasoning much easier to follow.
Substantiate Your Judgement: You start with a judgement ("to an extant") but don't return to it in a conclusion. A strong answer needs a concluding paragraph that weighs up both sides and explains *why* you agree to a certain extent, justifying your final position.

Candidate 4150

Word Count: ~327 words

I disagree with this statement as although immigration can seem like it harms society overall I believe it benefits society more than it harms it. One reason why I disagree with this statement is because of the UK's reputation. For example the UK is known for accepting immigrants. This is a valid and strong point because the UK is known for having a history of welcoming those fleeing from conflict or persecution. These refugees and asylum seekers are protected under the 1951 Refugee convention which obliges the UK to protect those from persecution. However on the other hand you could argue that the Government has a duty to control immigration because it affects things like public services and housing. This could lead to an increase in homelessness and people not receiving the help that they need as they are in higher demand. This is a strong point as immigration increases the population however this depends on how many people have left the country. Furthermore you could still argue that the UK Government has a duty to control immigration and this could be argued because the since more people would be in the country there would be need to be more fundings put into these public services. This can be considered a strong point because the immigrants create more pressure on hospitals and schools which leads to an increasing usage of tax payers money. However this point is flawed and this is because migrants come into the country normally are accepting to jobs which means that they ultimately boost the economy. These migrants are called economic migrants who migrate to the UK to work. This is a strong point due to the fact that these migrants contribute more than they recieve in public services. This is proof that the positives of migration outweighs the negatives. In conclusion I overall disagree with this statement as immigration is actually a good thing and actually the government duty is not to turn the migrants and immigrants/refugees away but its to accept them and protect and house them.

Strengths

Clear Structure: Your answer is logically structured with an introduction, balanced paragraphs, and a conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Effective Rebuttal: Your use of phrases like "However this point is flawed" shows excellent evaluative skill. You directly challenge a counter-argument rather than just listing points.
Balanced Argument: You successfully explored arguments both for and against the statement, considering the strain on public services as well as the UK's reputation and the economic benefits of migration.

Targets

Develop Points with Specific Evidence: When you mention the '1951 Refugee Convention', explain a key principle like 'non-refoulement' (the rule that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats). This adds authority and depth to your argument.
Use Precise Terminology: To sound more like an expert, use specific Citizenship terms. For example, instead of just "the government has a duty," you could refer to 'parliamentary sovereignty' (Parliament's supreme power to make laws) or the government's 'democratic mandate' to control borders.
Avoid Repetition: Your second and third paragraphs both discuss the strain on public services. Combine these points to make your argument more concise, freeing up space to introduce a different point (e.g., the risk of human trafficking without border controls) to show more breadth.
Strengthen Your Conclusion: Your conclusion is clear, but could be more evaluative. Briefly weigh the arguments against each other, for example: "While the strain on public services is a valid concern, the UK's legal obligations under international law and the significant economic benefits from migration ultimately outweigh these pressures."

Candidate 4164

Word Count: ~423 words

Refugee convention Geneva Convention Various methods immigration has been treated massively, being beneficial to the UK to develop economically. However mass immigration legally creates problem for the government such as immense preasure on national organisations such as the NHS. Here I will argue both arguements as to whether the UK has a duty to control immigration, even if it means turning away people away. Despite people arguing otherwise, it is indisputable that immigration has allowed the UK to evolve in terms of economics and tolerance. During WW2, England were forced to rely on the men from the British empire, making foreign countries such as Nigeria a big contributor to the rebuilding of the day. Additionally common wealth countries were brought into England to repair the damages, particularly the windrush generation. This allowed england to not only physically repair but also economically. [Page 2] Immigration has therefore previously been proven to benefit the UK massively. However if you were to interpret it differently, it is equally as justifiable to argue that England is obliged to helping refugees in the refugee convention 1951 which is further reinforced by the human rights act which lawfully follows the declaration of human rights. Therefore, for the UK to turn people away, it would be justifiable to infringe the integrity and credibility of our laws if the UK is unable to follow them. Furthermore, building on previous points, allowing immigrants to migrate into England, England has been able to develop one of our British Values of respect and tolerance, seen especially in cities such as London. Despite the government having a diplomatic duty, others in the human rights act and the establishment of the citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies 1971, immigration causes problems thus the government also have a duty to reflect on [Page 3] For example, the rapid increase of migration has lead to increased preassures on national organisations. For a decade now the NHS has been overworked and is no longer serving as a sufficient service. Additionally, the UK has to fund for housing, which is scarce as it is. On top of this, immigrants bring children and families who under the human rights act have the right to an education which only means finding jobs for education, classrooms are more packed, weakening the effectivness of having one teacher for two to three per class. In addition to this, you could argue that refugees ignore safe neighbouring countries as they are attracted to the welfare support provided by the government, as the cost of living rises. Different values within communities can differ, causing tension and segration between people.

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You have successfully argued both sides of the debate, which is essential for a 'how far do you agree' question. You clearly outlined the economic/cultural benefits before discussing the pressures on public services.
Use of Legal Frameworks: You correctly identified key legal and historical points, such as the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Human Rights Act, and the Windrush generation, to support your arguments. This shows good subject knowledge.

Targets

Develop a Concluding Judgement: Your essay ends abruptly. To reach the top marks, you must include a concluding paragraph that weighs up the arguments you've made and comes to a clear, justified decision on 'how far' you agree with the statement.
Sustain Your Analysis: Your points are good, but they need more depth. For example, when you mention the NHS is overworked, you could also analyse the significant contribution of immigrant workers to the health service to create a more nuanced (balanced and detailed) argument.
Use Specific Evidence: To make your arguments more convincing, try to include more specific examples or data. For instance, you could name a specific government policy (like the Rwanda plan) or a country that many refugees are fleeing from (like Afghanistan or Syria).
Improve Spelling and Clarity: There are several spelling errors (e.g., 'preasure', 'arguements', 'segration'). Proofreading your work will make your arguments more professional and easier for the examiner to understand.

Candidate 4199

Word Count: ~433 words

Refugee convention 1951 nationality act windrush, carribeans people who genuinely need help repair draft or WW1+2 I partially agree that the UK government has a duty to control immigration, even if it means turning away people who genuinely need help. However I would also argue that the UK government has a duty to protect immigration. For example the refugee convention 1951. This act is put in place to not only protect but respect immigrants etc One reason why I mostly disagree with this statement is because it is not only a duty to control but it is a duty to protect. For example, many immigrants, refugees, migrants come to the UK as economic migrants. I believe that economic migrants have multiple positive effects on the UK. Such as coming to a whole new country where they have to start fresh and work jobs people don't want and work hours people don't want. Another adwantage could be the skill and knowledge they come with that helps enhance the UK and make them more educated. This leads onto my next point on why I believe the UK government not only has a duty to control immigration but also has the duty to protect it. An example could be windrush. Windrush was the process where in which Carribeans human rights discrimination travelled to the UK after WW2 to help repair and support the UK in becoming a better place. Therefore I mostly disagree that at any point anyone should be turned away especially people who genuinely need help. It could heavily be argued that without immigrants, migrants and refugees the UK may be slightly undeveloped and have a lack of economic support and or progress. On the other hand I partially agree with this statement. I partially agree because without the UK government taking in people there will be more resources, such as money, jobs, food and opportunities for UK citizens. It would also lessen the chances of discrimination in the community. Overall I mostly disagree that the government has a duty to control immigration, even if it means turning away people who genuinely need help. I mostly disagree as everyone is born and entitled to human rights. It could be argued that turning away people who genuinely need help is a breech of their human rights and is unfair.

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You consistently use evaluative language (e.g., "mostly disagree", "partially agree") to make your position clear throughout the essay, which is key for a high mark in AO3.
Use of Specific Examples: Your use of the Windrush generation and the 1951 Refugee Convention are excellent choices. They ground your arguments in real-world events and legal frameworks, showing good subject knowledge.
Logical Structure: The essay is well-structured. You use signposting phrases like "On the other hand" and "This leads onto my next point" to guide the reader through your argument logically.

Targets

Develop Both Sides Equally: Your argument against the statement is detailed and well-supported, but your argument for it is very brief. To reach the top level, you must explore both sides with similar depth and evidence.
Explain Legal Frameworks: You correctly identify the 1951 Refugee Convention, but you could strengthen your answer by explaining its key principles, such as 'non-refoulement' (the duty not to return a refugee to a country where they are in danger).
Use More Precise Terminology: The terms 'immigrant', 'refugee', and 'economic migrant' have distinct legal meanings. Using them more precisely would show a more sophisticated understanding of the topic.
Strengthen Your Conclusion: Your conclusion restates your opinion well. To elevate it, briefly weigh up the arguments from both sides before explaining *why* the humanitarian duty outweighs the need for control in your final judgement.

Candidate 4225

Word Count: ~331 words

I agree to a certain extent that the UK government has a duty to control immigration, however, I strongly disagree with the fact that they need to turn people away who genuinely need help due to laws such as the Human Rights Act in 1998. For example, The Human Rights Act 1998 binds the UK by law to recognise certain rights such as the right to life, the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom of expression. It also knows that the UK is signatory to the Refugee Convention 1951 to protect refugees. However, whilst people may forget is that migration may also be a challenge as tensions may increase and increase support for extreme groups. On the other hand, some may argue that turning away people who genuinely need help should be allowed if the government has full control over migration. For example, many people migrate for different reasons, economic, environmental and political reasons. Some may argue that the UK has to accept the ones who may help in society such as, helping economy grow through work and rent. Also sharing cultures. People believe that if you turned migrants away it may be not making a impact on society. Another factor, the proper migrants may leave for push factors. To evaluate this concept, I would argue that this idea undermines the Equality Act made in 2010 which gave everyone fresh move of a democracy. It should only be right that everyone gets a equal amount of treatment. Another reason why I would agree with the first part of the statement is due to the change in UK population. The UK has a right to accept people from all different cultures or places so they could have a diverse society. For example, diversity, tolerance and respect is enhanced through sharing cultures which allows for mutual understanding between UK citizens. Migrants may have specialist skills in shortage areas such as doctors or teachers. In conclusion, I agree with the fact that the UK government has a duty to control immigration, however, I disagree with the idea that if it means turning people away because everyone has key rights (Human Rights Act 1998) and it also undermines the UK's idea of democracy and equality.

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You establish a clear and nuanced opinion in your introduction and conclusion ("I agree to a certain extent... however..."), which is essential for a high-level response.
Use of Legal Frameworks: You correctly identify and use key legislation like the Human Rights Act 1998, the Refugee Convention 1951, and the Equality Act 2010 to support your arguments.

Targets

Paragraph Cohesion: Ensure the evidence within a paragraph directly supports the point you make in its first sentence. Your fourth paragraph, for example, starts by saying you'll argue FOR control but then gives reasons FOR immigration.
Develop Your Points: Instead of just stating an idea (e.g., "tensions may increase"), explain it further. For example, you could link this to perceived pressure on public services like schools or the NHS to show *why* tensions might rise.
Clarity of Expression: Some sentences are a little unclear (e.g., "gave everyone fresh move of a democracy"). Re-read your work to check your meaning is precise. The Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination, promoting a fairer society.
Define Key Terms: You mention "push factors" but don't explain what they are. Briefly defining terms like this (e.g., 'reasons that force people to leave their home country, such as war or famine') shows deeper understanding and makes your argument stronger.

Candidate 4226

Word Count: ~415 words

The UK government has a duty to control I disagree, the UK government has a duty to control immigration, even if it means turning away people who genuinely need help. This is because not all immigrants who are turned to the UK illegally seek asylum as their home country is either in a humanitarian crisis or war has broken out. The immigrants leave for better life or safety for their family and raise their children in a better environment. Over hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrive in the UK every year and the UK isn't a big country to hold every single person. The immigration the UK has right now is limited to housing spaces for its own citizens to even hold more people. Immigrants arriving in the UK has a big impact on the social culture as it shapes the country from its original culture adding more diverse attitudes, food and even festivals. The UK doesn't have enough money to support pay these cultural celebrations. The census happens every 10 years in the UK and the growing amount of immigrants come to the UK shapes and changes the census adding more diverse backgrounds. Asylum seekers are questioned upon their arrival and this is used to check where they came from, how they got here, their reason for leaving and what they are coming to the UK for. Some asylum seekers and refugees have to wait for a long time to achieve their asylum. Some are rejected also. They are also made to work to live here. Immigrants also increase the spending of the UK on issues like housing and increase in public institutions such as public transport and the NHS this has to be funded more for the increase. Asylum seekers also had to come to the country to look for professional help for their medical issues as their country took either costs money to pay or it has been destroyed by war and they can't attend. The NHS provides free healthcare service making it available to immigrants arriving The The UK has to also consider human rights as they apply to every individual from birth. They hold the right for education it could be denied education or unable in their country. The UK government might turn them down if they think it is safe for them to return to the country they had arrived from as long as they think the country is safe enough for them. In conclusion the government does have the duty to control immigration, even if it means turning away people who genuinely need help as it can effect the economy and it can damage the people in the UK.

Strengths

Two-Sided Argument: You successfully presented arguments for both sides of the debate. You discussed the strain on public services (for control) and the humanitarian reasons for allowing immigration (against control), which is essential for a balanced answer.
Clear Judgement: Your conclusion provides a clear and direct answer to the question, stating your final position and briefly summarising your reasoning. This is a key evaluative skill.
Use of Examples: You used specific examples like housing, the NHS, and public transport to support your points about the impact of immigration. This makes your arguments more concrete and believable.

Targets

Develop with Specific Evidence: Your points are good but could be stronger. Instead of just saying "human rights," you could name a specific law like the Human Rights Act 1998 or an international agreement like the 1951 UN Refugee Convention to add authority to your claims.
Sustain Evaluation: Try to weigh up arguments against each other *during* your essay, not just at the end. For example, "While the UK has a duty under international law to help refugees, the government must also balance this with the finite capacity of its public services." This shows higher-level analysis.
Use Precise Terminology: To sound more like an expert, use specific Citizenship terms. For example, distinguish between an 'asylum seeker' (someone who has applied for protection) and an 'economic migrant' (someone moving for work).
Improve Clarity and Structure: Your opening sentence ("I disagree, the UK government has a duty...") was confusing and contradicted your conclusion. Plan your argument first to ensure your introduction clearly states your position and your paragraphs follow a logical order.

Candidate 4249

Word Count: ~248 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a clear stance ("I do somewhat disagree"), which immediately tells the examiner your line of argument. This is a key feature of a good evaluative essay.
Use of Evidence: You correctly identify the UK's legal obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention. You also use historical evidence effectively by referencing the post-WW2 appeal to Commonwealth countries.
Range of Arguments: You successfully developed several distinct arguments to support your view, including economic benefits (filling skill shortages), cultural enrichment (diversity), and moral duties (Commonwealth history).

Targets

Develop Both Sides Equally: Your main target is to provide a balanced analysis. Your argument for controlling immigration was just one sentence. You need to write a full paragraph explaining *why* a government has a duty to control its borders (e.g., strain on public services, national security, democratic mandate).
Use Specific Terminology: To add academic weight, try to include more precise terms. For the 'agree' side, you could discuss 'parliamentary sovereignty'. For the 'disagree' side, you could mention the 'Human Rights Act 1998' or the principle of 'non-refoulement'.
Structure for Balance: Use clearer 'signposting' to guide the reader. For example, start your paragraphs with phrases like, "On the one hand, a key argument for controlling immigration is..." and "On the other hand, the UK has legal and moral obligations that challenge this duty..."
Substantiate Points: Your point about migrants having "specialist skills" is good. To make it even better, you could 'substantiate' it further, for example: "...such as doctors and nurses, which is crucial for an understaffed NHS." This adds specific detail to a general claim.

Candidate 4267

Word Count: ~306 words

I believe the UK does have a duty to control immigration even it means turning people away who genuinely need help due to the fact many immigrants do not help the UK economically and over populate the UK. Immigration since the UK is a democratic country many Asylum seekers which try to escape war and dictatorship are welcome to the UK however many immigrants claim to seek asylum and instead live of tax payer money and do not contribute to help the UK economy. This causes people in the UK who pay taxes to have prejudice or discriminate many immigrants. However many immigrants change the UK by social cohesion and change culture in the UK for the positive, one main place is London which is one of the most diverse places in the city. Over immigration in the UK has also lead to the public demands increasing like the NHS where many people have to wait in qouis due to many some people who say that immigrants take advantage over free healthcare. However many nurses and doctors are immigrants also which improve the UK economy majorly but also make hospitals less have less waiting time due to many people are economic migrants which fill in jobs for people jobs many people dont want to complete like cleaners and school teachers. Having immigrants which are economic migrants improve the UK's economy by saving money on training people when its more cost efficent to have someone abroad work in the UK. Another element on immigration is the demand of building more homes and more schools for families, the mass production of new buildings is making it less affordable for people who are born are from the UK which causes disagreements, some UK immigrants do not benifit the UK in any aspects and instead take advantage for a job the goverment, this is causing an uprise in political parties like restore UK and reform which plan to impliment immigration control agents which would risk many economic migrants being or asylum seekers being put back in to danger, which would go against the human rights act which gives people the right to live.

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You effectively present arguments for both sides of the debate, discussing both the pressures and the benefits of immigration. This is crucial for AO3.
Clear Judgement: You state your opinion at the beginning, providing a clear line of argument for the examiner to follow throughout your response.
Range of Ideas: You cover a good range of themes, including economic impacts (both positive and negative), strain on public services (NHS, housing), and social/cultural effects.

Targets

Use Specific Evidence: Your points are good but would be much stronger if supported by specific facts, statistics, or examples. For instance, when discussing the NHS, you could mention the percentage of staff who are immigrants.
Reference Legal Frameworks: You mention the Human Rights Act, which is great! To improve, name the specific law or convention (e.g., the 1951 UN Refugee Convention) and the relevant article to make your point more precise and authoritative.
Structure for Clarity: Your ideas sometimes jump between 'for' and 'against'. Try structuring your answer more clearly, for example, by having one paragraph for arguments 'for', one for arguments 'against', and a final paragraph for your overall conclusion.
Develop a Concluding Judgement: While you start with a judgement, a strong essay ends with a conclusion that weighs up the evidence presented on both sides and explains *why* you have reached your final, substantiated decision.

Candidate 4268

Word Count: ~254 words

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You effectively present arguments for both sides of the debate, discussing both the humanitarian reasons to accept people and the practical pressures on public services. This is a key requirement for a "how far do you agree" question.
Use of Specific Knowledge: You correctly identify and name the 1951 Refugee Convention. Using specific legal frameworks like this is a great way to support your arguments and move beyond simple opinion.
Attempted Evaluation: You use phrases like "however what we failed to mention is..." to challenge your own points. This shows you are thinking evaluatively, which is the core skill being tested (AO3).

Targets

Develop Your Points with Evidence: To make your arguments stronger, add specific examples. When mentioning human rights, you could name the Human Rights Act 1998. When discussing pressure on services, you could mention a specific government policy designed to control immigration (e.g., the Rwanda plan).
Clarify Your Judgement: Your introduction and conclusion are a little unclear. Start with a clear line of argument, e.g., "To a large extent, I disagree that the UK should turn away people in need because..." and ensure your conclusion weighs the arguments to explain *why* you have reached your final decision.
Use Precise Terminology: Instead of "sort of Immigrants entering refugees", use more precise terms like "asylum seekers" or "refugees". Also, be careful with grammar; for example, "does'nt" should be "doesn't" and "have came" should be "have come".
Strengthen Your Conclusion: Your conclusion should be a summary that weighs your main points against each other. Explain *why* one side of the argument is more convincing than the other, rather than just stating that both sides exist.

Candidate 4283

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a very clear and direct answer to the question ("I disagree..."), which is a great way to start an essay.
Counter-Argument Included: You correctly included an opposing viewpoint ("However, some people may disagree..."). This shows you understand the need for a balanced argument to achieve higher marks.
Use of Legal Frameworks: You attempted to use a key piece of legislation, the Human Rights Act, to support your argument. This is exactly the kind of evidence needed for a top-level response.

Targets

Develop Both Sides: Your argument against controlling immigration is detailed, but the argument for it is limited to one sentence about taxes. To improve, add more detail to this side, discussing things like national security, the capacity of public services (schools, housing), or the government's duty to manage its borders.
Explain Legal Links: You mentioned the Human Rights Act, but didn't clearly explain *how* the 'right to life' counters the argument about taxes. Always explain the connection: e.g., "The HRA's 'right to life' means the UK has a legal duty to protect people, which can be seen as more important than economic concerns."
Use Specific Evidence: Your points are good but general. Strengthen them with specific examples. Instead of just "experience in healthcare," you could mention "the significant number of doctors and nurses in the NHS who are immigrants."
Refine Your Conclusion: Your conclusion restates your opinion. A top-level conclusion should briefly weigh the two arguments you have discussed. For example: "On balance, while the economic pressures are real, they are outweighed by the UK's legal and moral obligations under international law."

Candidate 4328

Word Count: ~400 words

I agree to a large extent that the UK government has a duty to control immigration but not if it means turning away people who genuinely need help. This is because allowing in immigrants can have both a positive but negative impact on society, yet we must protect peoples rights. I believe that the UK government has a duty to control immigration because a major immigration (allowing a large amount of immigrants) can drastically increase the population which can be seen as a negative & in some cases. This is because eventhough this means more job positions can be filled out, the more people in the UK means we need more essentials such as housing. This not only would be in high demand but if this cannot be met then it can lead to an increase in homelessness unless there pressure is exerted on the government such as strikes. But yet again it can be a positive because this would be a breach in peoples right to a shelter/home. Yet again this is a positive as more people mean more jobs being taken by economical migrants. This could help reduce tax and inflation in certain cases but also reduces the money spent from the government on people to study at university. As well as that migration can increase the sense of cohesion in society as immigrants are people from different backgrounds and ethnicities. This means that there would be more diversity in communities as we would be exposed to all different types of cuisines, music, clothing attires and much more. This has been evident since after the windrush (mass migration of carribean people). On the other hand, I do believe in most cases it is immoral to turn away people who genuinely need help. This is because of the push factors that have caused them to leave their home country such as a war and conflict, famine, hunger or perhaps destruction caused from natural disasters. Therefore the UK government should make it their responsibility (as well as other countries intact) to welcome and protect all immigrants. As well as that, asylum seekers should gain some leniency when being dealt with as eventhough by law they're supposedly classified as 'illegal' without a passport or document. Because once in the UK everyone should be under the protection of the equality Act 2010. But it is understandable why in some cases we need to turn away people as they may negatively affect society. For example its believed that crime rates could rise causing fear and danger in society against citizens.

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start with a clear and nuanced judgement ('I agree to a large extent... but not if...'), which directly answers the question and provides a strong framework for your essay.
Two-Sided Argument: You successfully explore arguments on both sides of the debate, discussing the potential strain on public services like housing as well as the humanitarian duty to help those fleeing conflict.
Use of Concepts: You effectively use concepts like 'push factors' (war, famine) and consider different types of impacts, such as cultural cohesion (diversity, cuisines) and economic effects.

Targets

Incorporate Specific Legal Frameworks: To reach the top level, you must use specific laws and conventions. Instead of just mentioning 'rights', name the Human Rights Act 1998 (especially Article 3) or the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which legally obligates the UK to protect refugees.
Develop and Clarify Analysis: Some of your points become confused. For example, you state that a breach of housing rights is a 'positive'. Be precise: explain how the duty to protect rights challenges the argument for controlling immigration. Always link your points clearly back to the question.
Add a Concluding Paragraph: Your essay ends abruptly on a new point about crime. A strong evaluative essay needs a conclusion that weighs up both sides of the argument you have presented and explains why you have reached your final, justified judgement.
Use Contemporary Examples: While 'Windrush' is a valid historical example, your argument would be stronger with more recent evidence. You could mention government policies like the Rwanda deportation scheme and the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling that it was unlawful.

Candidate 671a8

Word Count: ~128 words

Strengths

Relevant Argument: You have correctly identified a relevant argument against the statement by focusing on the economic benefits of migration, specifically mentioning how skilled migrants can support the NHS.
Rights-Based Focus: You have started to think about the topic in terms of rights ("Human and Moral and legal rights"), which is a key concept in this area of citizenship and a good foundation for your argument.

Targets

Address Both Sides: Your answer is entirely one-sided. To move beyond Level 2, you *must* analyse the arguments for the statement as well (e.g., the government's duty to control borders, potential strain on public services).
Use Specific Evidence: Support your points with specific examples or laws. When you mention "legal rights," you could name the Human Rights Act 1998 or the 1951 UN Refugee Convention to add weight to your argument.
Develop a Clear Judgement: A "How far do you agree?" question requires a clear, concluding judgement. This should weigh up both sides of the argument and explain *why* you find one side more convincing than the other (e.g., "On balance, I disagree to a large extent because...").
Structure and Clarity: The response is written as a single block of text. Try to structure your answer into clear paragraphs, with each paragraph focusing on a different point. This will make your argument easier to follow.

Candidate 67198

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Stance: You begin with a direct and unambiguous judgement ("I wholeheartly disagree"), which clearly answers the question.
Relevant Definitions: You correctly identify and define different categories of migrants (Economic migrants, Asylum seekers, Refugees), showing good foundational knowledge.

Targets

Develop Both Sides of the Argument: Your answer is entirely one-sided. To score highly on a 'How far do you agree?' question, you MUST analyse arguments for the statement (e.g., the strain on public services, the government's duty to protect borders) as well as against it.
Use Specific Evidence: Your points are reasonable but general. Strengthen them by referring to specific laws (e.g., Human Rights Act 1998, 1951 UN Refugee Convention), statistics, or real-world examples to substantiate your claims.
Structure for Evaluation: A good structure is to present one side, then the other (using words like 'However' or 'On the other hand'), and finally conclude with a substantiated judgement that weighs up the evidence you have presented.
Proofread for Clarity: The final sentence ("So them migrants") is incomplete, and there are several spelling and grammar errors (e.g., "wholeheartly", "immigrates", "there country"). Proofreading ensures your arguments are communicated clearly.

Candidate 67676

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Two-Sided Structure: You clearly address both sides of the argument ("I disagree..." and "I also can see why people could agree..."). This is essential for a "How far do you agree?" question and gets you into the middle mark bands.
Clear Judgement: You state your personal opinion at the beginning and end of the response. This shows the examiner you have a clear point of view and have answered the question directly.
Use of Rights-Based Arguments: You have started to use the concept of human rights to support your argument, for example by mentioning the "right to have a family." This is a good way to build a persuasive case.

Targets

Use Specific Terminology: Instead of general phrases like "we have the human right," name the specific law, like the Human Rights Act 1998, or the key international agreement, like the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. This adds authority and precision.
Distinguish Migrant Types: Be clear about the difference between an asylum seeker (someone fleeing persecution) and an economic migrant (someone seeking better jobs). The question focuses on those who "genuinely need help," which primarily refers to asylum seekers.
Develop Your Points: Instead of just listing pressures like "less jobs, houses ect," explain the impact. For example: "This can lead to increased competition for social housing or longer waiting times for NHS appointments, which can affect community cohesion."
Write a Substantiated Conclusion: Your conclusion should briefly weigh up the two sides and explain *why* you have reached your judgement. Avoid just repeating your opinion. Explain why the arguments for your side are stronger than the arguments against.

Candidate 67898

Word Count: ~120 words

Strengths

Argument Structure: You have started to structure a two-sided argument by using the phrase 'On the other hand...'. This is a key skill for a 'how far do you agree' essay.
Range of Impacts: You have considered different types of impact, including social benefits ('be more Social') and negative pressures (public services, crime). This shows you are thinking about the wider consequences of immigration.

Targets

Use Specific Evidence: Your points need to be supported by accurate facts, not generalisations. For example, the main Windrush generation arrivals were between 1948-1971. Using correct evidence makes your argument much more convincing.
Develop Your Points (PEEL): Each point needs more explanation. Try using the PEEL structure (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link). For your point on public services, *explain* how they are strained and *link* this back to why a government feels a duty to control immigration.
Refer to Citizenship Concepts: To reach the higher levels, you must use key terms. Discuss the government's legal duties under laws like the Human Rights Act 1998 or international agreements like the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
Make a Clear Judgement: The question asks 'How far do you agree?'. You must state your own opinion in a conclusion, explaining which side of the argument you find more convincing and why. For example: "On balance, I agree to a greater extent because..."

Candidate 68124

Word Count: ~401 words

even if it may put strain on UK citizens, I believe the UK has a duty to not control immigration, but to care for those affected by a conflict or poverty across the world. The UK should not ignore its obligations on the world stage as a top powerful and influential country. Therefore I disagree to a moderate extent rather than totally to a total extent since mass migration definitely has its downsides. One reason why the UK has chosen to care for those affected by conflict or poverty across the world is because of the fact that the UK is a well developed country with healthy institutions. It is ranked 18th out of approx. 200 on the Democracy Index and has a HDI of around 1. The UK was also played a major role in the history of many developing nations, often revolving around colonialism. This would make the UK an attractive place to live since its government structure, while it has flaws, considers popular will much more than any other government. It's also not too surprising for the UK to be a migration target since it was played such a big role in modern history. Overall, this for this point is strong because it accurately shows how because of the UK's democracy as well as its power and influence, should be more welcome to migrants internationally. One reason people may disagree with me is because they say all the entry-level jobs have been taken by migrants. They aren't totally wrong because a very large percentage of the entry-level jobs in the UK (cashier, warehouse worker, etc.) are occupied by these of a migrant worker. This can undoubtably deter some of other jobseekers who may not have significant work experience (young people) and prevent them from acquiring experience. Migrants can also be willing to be paid a lower wage than their more native peers, therefore companies will hire them in order to save on cost salary costs. In this situation they are treated like cheap labour to be exploited rather than genuine employees. While these issues are quite endemic in the UK, we can try injecting liquidity into the British economy to stimulate the job growth so everyone has a chance to suceed. This point and this point made to counter anti-immigration is therefore not the best. Overall, while migration can place burdens on the UK, the UK is a powerful nation on the global stage and thus, according to human rights obligations, must care for the less fortunate globally.

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You establish a clear and nuanced position from the very beginning ('disagree to a moderate extent') and maintain it through to your conclusion.
Balanced Argument: You effectively explore both sides of the debate, presenting a case for humanitarian responsibility and then fairly considering the economic counter-arguments about jobs.
Use of Context: You successfully bring in relevant contextual factors, such as the UK's high HDI, democratic status, and historical colonial role, to support your main argument.

Targets

Incorporate Legal Frameworks: To elevate your analysis, refer to specific laws and international agreements. Mentioning the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998 would add significant legal weight to your arguments about the UK's 'duty'.
Develop Counter-Arguments: Your evaluation of the economic argument could be stronger. Instead of a vague solution like 'injecting liquidity', you could challenge the premise directly. For example, discuss how migrants also create jobs, pay taxes, and fill crucial labour shortages.
Use Precise Evidence: Your use of evidence is a good start, but aim for greater precision. When discussing economic impacts, you could refer to reports from bodies like the Office for Budget Responsibility or the Migration Advisory Committee to make your points more authoritative.
Refine Terminology: Be careful with phrasing like 'more native peers'. A better alternative would be 'UK-born workers' or 'the resident population'. Using precise and neutral language is a key academic skill.

Candidate 72198

Word Count: ~180 words

Despite the fact that the government has duties to manage public services and the effects of uncontrolled migration, I mostly disagree with this statement as people deserve the right to be protected by conflict within their country and the long history of immigration should not be undermined within the UK. One reason why I mostly disagree with this statement is because people have the right to life which should be respected by the government especially when it comes to immigration. For example, if an asylum seeker's country is in a war, they should have the right to not be refused asylum seeking in the UK as they also deserve to be protected from harm. Additionally I know that the UK has had a long history of immigration, for example the Windrush generation, when the UK took in many carribean people who heavily benefited the country following the second world war. Although there may be arguments which go against this point, had the windrush generation not been granted migration to the UK, it wouldn't have been rebuilt in the time following the war. Therefore I mostly disagree with this statement as the benefits of which we have gained from a long history of immigration should not be ignored, and people deserve to be protected from harm within our country. On the other hand one reason why I could agree with this statement is the fact that uncontrolled migration creates pressure on hospitals housing and schools. This is an arguably good point as an increase in population must mean the government has to manage and redistribute funding towards services which can satisfy the increase in population. Not only does the chancellor of the exchequer have to decrease working on other services, but they must also consider the effects of which this has on their ability to follow their manifesto. In addition to this point if their manifesto is not taken into consideration, they also loose support politically from their people which has a long term effect on their success at or with winning the next election. Therefore, I could agree with this statement as not only does immigration have an effect on government funding, but also diminishes their chances of being reelected in their next general election. In conclusion, although the argument could be made that uncontrolled immigration can weaken a governments success as it may not follow their manifesto if government funding is spent on managing public services for immigrants, and immigration should be controlled. However I disagree with this statement because immigrants and asylum seekers should all deserve the right to life and the right to be accepted into a country especially if fleeing from conflict, which is a more important factor than uncontrolled immigration and the history of immigration after the second world war was very essential following rebuilding the country.

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have effectively structured your essay, dedicating separate paragraphs to the arguments for and against the statement. This makes your reasoning clear and easy to follow.
Sustained Judgement: You establish your position ("mostly disagree") in the introduction and consistently return to it, weighing the arguments to form a clear and well-supported conclusion.
Good Use of Evidence: You use a relevant historical example (the Windrush generation) to support your argument about the benefits of immigration, which adds specific knowledge and depth to your point.

Targets

Incorporate Legal Frameworks: Your argument about the "right to life" would be much stronger if you named the specific laws that protect it, such as the Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 2) or the UK's obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
Develop Counter-Arguments Further: Your 'agree' paragraph is good, but you could strengthen it by mentioning concepts like 'parliamentary sovereignty' (the idea that Parliament has the ultimate right to make laws on immigration) or the legal distinction between an 'asylum seeker' and an 'economic migrant'.
Refine Terminology: Be precise with your language. For example, instead of "uncontrolled migration," you could discuss "managing irregular migration routes" or "processing asylum claims." This shows a more nuanced understanding of the topic.
Proofread for Accuracy: There are a few small grammatical errors (e.g., "loose support" should be "lose support"). Taking a moment to proofread will make your excellent points even clearer and more professional.

Candidate 76928

Word Count: ~442 words

Despite immigration needing to be controlled by the UK as if left without restrictions it could cause massive problem for the existing population, I believe shouldn't turn away people in need. One reason I disagree with fact the statement says the UK should turn people away is due to the fact immigrant help the economy more then they hurt it. This is because immigrants allow for job that usually no one want to do to be filled, for example, jobs which help to economy, as now those jobs that essentially. Furthermore many people rebuild benefit not only themselves from immigrant but from the economy as a whole as workers who immigrate to the UK can only for retailers to open more stores with people ready to worker in them which increase business and improves the economy. However someone may disagree with my point and argue that immigrant hurt the economy and standards of living as a rush of immigrant s would put stress on public services like schools as there might not be enough spaces in schools for the increase in children which may lead to parents having to send their children to schools further away. Some are also may argue that a rush of immigrants would put pressure on housing as there might not be enough housing for everyone and lead to refugee families being housed in small conditions which is illegal. This point is true however what it forgot to consider is what skills the immigrant bring as the UK want immigrants in skilled jobs like doctors and teacher as the UK need more people of these professions which immensely helps public services and the population as it would reduce wait times for the NHS and GPs and allow student to be taught by specialists. These economic migrant help every aspect of life. Another reason I disagree with this point is due to the Human Rights Act of 1998. This is because in this act the human rights were eshrined in law which includes rights like the right to life and the right to a family life which are shown when people who face capital punishment in other countries won't be deported back to that country if they flee to the UK which upholds the right to life. This relates back to my point as immigrants may be flee wears of war that may give cause their deaths if they remain in that country too so the UK should allow them into the country. Furthermore the UK has a history of letting be immigrants into the country from thing like the Windrush which brought immigrants to the country to rebuild after WWII. This show

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You establish a clear line of argument from the very beginning ('I believe shouldn't turn away people in need') and maintain it throughout your answer.
Effective Evaluation Technique: You successfully use a counter-argument and rebuttal in your first paragraph. Acknowledging the strain on public services and then challenging that point by highlighting the skills immigrants bring is a high-level evaluation skill.

Targets

Develop All Points Fully: Your second point on the Human Rights Act and Windrush is underdeveloped and ends abruptly. Ensure every point you make is fully explained and its relevance to the question is made explicit before moving on.
Use Specific Terminology: To reach the top level, you need to use more precise Citizenship terminology. For example, when discussing the Human Rights Act, you could mention specific articles (e.g., Article 2 - Right to Life). When discussing refugees, you could refer to the UK's obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
Strengthen the 'Agree' Argument: Your counter-argument is good, but you could make it even stronger by discussing concepts like parliamentary sovereignty (the right of the UK Parliament to make its own laws on immigration) or the government's democratic mandate to control borders.
Proofread for Clarity: Some sentences are long and grammatically confusing (e.g., 'immigrants allow for job that usually no one want to do to be filled...'). Reading your work aloud can help you spot these errors and rephrase them for greater clarity and impact.

Candidate 78061

Word Count: ~180 words

I believe that the UK government does have a duty to control immigration, even if it means turning away people who genuinely need help. This is due to the fact that if immigration isn't controlled, this puts pressure on public services such as healthcare and transport which are unable to keep up with the demands of the public as it is constantly rising. This means that as a result of a higher immigration rate, the funding towards the different sectors of the economy are likely to stay the same, meaning that the funds recieved will not be enough due to the uncontained rates of immigration. Comparatively, it could also be argued that the UK government has a duty to control immigration as turning away people who genuinely need help is not only inhumane but also violates their rights as an individual. This is due to the fact that the UK is one of many other countries that allow people to immigrate to their country if they are for example fleeing persecution or if their lives are at risk meaning that they are a human being. The concept of Human Rights Acts It could also be argued that the UK government does not need to have a duty to control immigration as the people coming into the country could also offer skill sets such as being a doctor or an engineer, both of which is a lot cheaper to have them train in their country of origin then later hire them to work in the UK. This means that immigration could also be beneficial not just seen as a bad thing. It could also be argued that the UK government has a duty to control immigration as if the UK just keeps allowing people in communities may become more segregated as a result due to the fact that communities may not tolerate each other. This completely undermines the idea of community cohesion, creating more tension in local communities rather than them being a representative under one whole community, instead they all have their different viewpoints. In conclusion, I believe that the UK government should have a controlled immigration to avoid segregation in communities.

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You have successfully identified and explained arguments on both sides of the debate (e.g., pressure on services vs. humanitarian duties), which is essential for moving beyond Level 2.
Range of Reasons: You've included different types of arguments, from economic (public service funding, skilled workers) to social (community cohesion), showing a good breadth of thought.

Targets

Use Specific Evidence: Your points are good but too general. Name specific laws like the Human Rights Act 1998 or international agreements like the 1951 UN Refugee Convention to make your arguments more authoritative.
Develop Your Points: When you mention an idea like "violates their rights", explain which rights and how. For example, the right to life or freedom from persecution under international law.
Structure for Sustained Analysis: Structure your essay more clearly. Try using one paragraph for all the 'agree' points and another for all the 'disagree' points. This will make your analysis feel more sustained and easier to follow.
Write a Weighed Conclusion: Your conclusion should be a mini-summary that weighs up the arguments. For example: "While the pressure on public services is a significant concern, it is outweighed by the UK's legal and moral duties. Therefore, while some control is necessary, it cannot mean turning away those genuinely in need."

Candidate 82067

Word Count: ~286 words

Despite some people agree agreeing with this statement I disagree as I believe that the government have the moral duty to look after those who seek help regardless if they come from a different country or not.

On the one hand, some people may agree with this statement as they think that the people who come to the UK for help are not their responsibility and that their own government shall take the accountability to look after their people instead of letting other governments such as the UK taking care of them. Another reason why some people may agree with this statement is due to them believing that immigrants are seen as burdens on the economy, they come to the UK for help but do not make an effort to find a job and contribute to the economy which could potentially lead to an increase in taxes. However, what they failed

to mention is the fact that allowing other people to come from different parts of the world gives the UK the opportunity to find more qualified people to work in the less popular sectors of work in the UK, for example, elderly care.

On the other hand, some people disagree with this as they believe that the UK government have the moral duty of caring for anyone who is in need of genuine help and if they fail to meet those expectations it could lead to them becoming unpopular and no one voting for them in the election which means they loose their position of power. Another reason why people would disagree with this statement is due to the human rights act, this act introduced that rights everyone that applies to everyone, for example the right to a life, therefore if someone is struggling to have a good life due to situations in their home country it is our responsibility to help them. Finally, the equality act of 2010

this ensured that everyone, regardless of sex, race, ethnic belief shall be treated equally equally if needing help.

Overall, I disagree with the statement as I believe we should help people and accept everyone as it could further develop our economy and give those who never had the chance to have a good education or good life the chance to experience those things.

Strengths

Clear Structure: Your essay follows a logical two-sided structure ('On the one hand'/'On the other hand') which makes your argument easy to follow.
Sustained Judgement: You state your opinion clearly in the introduction and conclusion, ensuring the examiner knows your stance throughout the essay.
Reference to Law: You correctly identify that UK laws like the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act are relevant to the debate on immigration.

Targets

Develop with Specific Evidence: Your points are valid but need evidence. For example, when mentioning the Human Rights Act, you could name Article 2 (the right to life) or Article 3 (freedom from torture) as specific reasons why people cannot be returned to dangerous situations.
Use Precise Terminology: Elevate your language by using key terms. Instead of "people who come to the UK for help," use "asylum seekers" or "refugees." Mentioning the 1951 UN Refugee Convention would show high-level knowledge.
Balance Your Arguments: Your argument against the statement is much stronger than your argument for it. To create a more analytical essay, expand the 'agree' side with points about parliamentary sovereignty or the need to maintain public confidence in the immigration system.
Strengthen Rebuttals: Your use of "However..." is a good evaluative skill. Make it even stronger by directly linking it to the point you are challenging. E.g., "While some view immigrants as an economic burden, this overlooks evidence that they often fill crucial labour shortages..."

Candidate 87670

Word Count: ~145 words

Strengths

Balanced Structure: You have used phrases like "On one hand" and "However" to effectively structure a two-sided argument, which is essential for this type of question.
Relevant Arguments: The points you raise—such as pressure on public services (NHS, housing) and the economic contribution of migrants (filling labour shortages)—are both highly relevant to the debate.

Targets

Use Specific Evidence: To reach the higher levels, you must support your points with specific evidence. Name relevant laws like the Human Rights Act 1998 or international agreements like the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
Develop Your Points: Each point needs more detail. For example, when you mention migrants benefiting the economy, you could explain *how* by discussing the specific sectors they work in or the taxes they contribute, which strengthens the argument.
Write a Concluding Judgement: The question asks "How far do you agree?". Your essay needs a final paragraph that weighs up both sides and gives a clear, justified answer to this question (e.g., "In conclusion, I agree only to a limited extent because...").
Complete Your Answer: Your response cuts off mid-sentence. Always ensure you write a full and complete answer, including a conclusion, to give yourself the best chance of scoring well.

Candidate 89670

Word Count: ~271 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You establish your position clearly in the introduction and maintain this focus throughout, leading to a strong, consistent conclusion.
Use of Evidence: You effectively use the 1951 Refugee Convention to ground your argument in international law, and the Windrush example adds specific historical context to your point on cultural diversity.
Range of Arguments: You have built a solid case by including moral (human rights), legal (Refugee Convention), cultural (diversity), and economic arguments against the statement.

Targets

Develop Both Sides: Your top priority is to analyse the 'agree' side of the debate. Explain *why* a government might feel a duty to control borders (e.g., pressure on the NHS, housing, schools; mandate from voters) before you argue against these points. An essay that only explores one side cannot pass Level 2.
Use Precise Terminology: To add depth, incorporate more specific legal and political terms. For example, when discussing the 1951 Convention, you could mention the principle of 'non-refoulement' (not returning refugees to danger). When discussing human rights, you could cite the Human Rights Act 1998.
Structure for Balance: Use phrases that signal you are changing perspective. For example: "On one hand, proponents of stricter controls argue that..." followed by "However, from a humanitarian perspective...". This structure forces you to consider both viewpoints.
Refine Counter-Arguments: When you address an opposing view (like the trafficking point), first state the argument fairly and clearly on its own terms. Then, use a word like 'however' or 'conversely' to introduce your rebuttal. This demonstrates stronger evaluative skill.

Candidate 91768

Word Count: ~559 words

I agree with the statement that the UK government has a duty to control immigration due to pressure put on government funded organisations and problems with overpopulation. Whereas someone else might disagree with the statement because of the 1951 refugee convention and the massive contribution that migrants make. I agree with the statement that the UK government has a duty to control immigration due the government duty to manage public services and housing capacity. For example, migration can cause overpopulation which can lead to a housing crisis in London or in the UK meaning that the government doesn't have enough homes for the amount of people living in the country. Also, public services like the NHS would need more funding in order to operate for the amount of people living in London causing the government to increase taxation. Increase in taxation would make workers mad as they would have even less money after taxes for maintenance and miscellaneous spending. Overall leading to huge economic issues. P4 Although someone might disagree with the statement that the UK government has a duty to control immigration due to migrants contributing more in taxes than they recieve in public services. This is significant because the extra taxes that were contributed by the migrants could be used to fund public services like the NHS allowing migrants and non-migrants to recieve adequate help from the NHS, education system, fire brigade etc. But, what this person doesn't mention is the fact that welcoming a large amount of immigrants can lead to overpopulation and a housing crisis in the UK meaning an extensive amount of money from taxes would have to be used to build a large amount of homes. However I continue to agree with the statement that the UK government has a duty to control immigration due to the amount of pressure that would constantly be put on public services. For example, immigrants that come with children are very common meaning the government would have to help the family find an adequate accomodation for the family that also have an available school nearby. Lots of immigrants come to the UK to seek medical treatment meaning that lots of pressure is put on hospitals to make sure they are able to help them as well as the non immigrants that also need medical help. But you could disagree overall and say that the 1951 refugee convention obliges the UK to protect those fleeing prosecution causing the UK to have a long history with welcoming those fleeing prosecution. This is challenged as the Rwanda deportation policy was ruled unlawful by the supreme court in 2023 and scrapped by the labour government in 2024 due to the fact that it costed over £700 million. This means that the UK wasn't always up to welcoming immigrants and those fleeing prosecution due to its high expense. Overall, I somewhat agree with the statement that the government has a duty to control immigration, even if it means turning away people who genuinely need help because it costed a large amount of money and put extreme pressure on public services but also the UK was obliged to project those fleeing prosecution by the 1951 refugee convention.

Strengths

Clear Structure & Argument: You consistently signpost your argument using phrases like "I agree...", "someone might disagree...", and "However I continue to agree...", which makes your line of reasoning very easy for the examiner to follow.
Use of Contemporary Evidence: Your reference to the 1951 Refugee Convention and, crucially, the 2023 Supreme Court ruling on the Rwanda policy is excellent. This shows you can apply recent and relevant political and legal events to the question.
Sustained Judgement: You offer a clear judgement at the start and end, and you evaluate arguments throughout the essay (e.g., by immediately rebutting the tax contribution point). This shows strong evaluative skills.

Targets

Incorporate More Legal Detail: While you correctly mention the 1951 Convention, you could strengthen your 'disagree' arguments by also referring to the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Specifically, Article 3 (freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) is an absolute right that underpins why people cannot be sent to unsafe countries.
Use More Precise Terminology: Avoid using the general term "immigrants" for everyone. Try to differentiate between asylum seekers (people seeking protection), refugees (people whose claim has been accepted), and economic migrants (people moving for work). Each group has a different legal status.
Develop Depth of Analysis: Instead of just stating that services are under "pressure", you could briefly explain *how* with a more concrete example. For instance, link pressure on the NHS to specific outcomes like "longer waiting times for GP appointments or A&E services for all residents."
Refine Concluding Language: Your conclusion is good, but you could phrase your judgement with more authority. Instead of "I somewhat agree," try more decisive, evaluative phrasing like, "On balance, while the UK's humanitarian obligations are legally binding, the practical challenges of managing public services mean the government's primary duty is to implement a controlled immigration system."

Candidate 91820

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Stance: You begin with a direct and unambiguous judgement, which immediately tells the examiner your position on the statement.
Relevant Arguments: You have correctly identified key arguments against the statement, such as the economic benefits of filling job shortages and the cultural benefits of diversity.
Use of Concepts: You attempted to bring in a legal framework by mentioning human rights. This shows you understand that arguments need to be supported by legal or political concepts.

Targets

Develop a Balanced Argument: For a "How far do you agree?" question, you MUST argue both sides. You need to also explain why a government might feel it has a duty to control immigration (e.g., strain on public services like the NHS and schools, or its duty to maintain secure borders).
Use Specific Evidence & Terminology: Your points are a little general. Instead of "Declaration of Human Rights Act," name the specific law (Human Rights Act 1998) or international agreement (1951 UN Refugee Convention). This adds authority to your argument.
Explain Points Fully: Your point about social cohesion was confused by the phrase "splits mutual respect." Explain *how* diversity promotes cohesion (e.g., by enriching communities with new perspectives and traditions) to make your argument stronger.
Proofread for Clarity: Your final sentence ("...and deny their right to live") completely contradicts your argument. A quick proofread would have caught this and allowed you to correct it, ensuring your conclusion is logical and clear.

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

1. Lack of Specific Legal Frameworks: Many students made general points about 'rights' or 'the law' without citing specific legislation. To achieve a higher level, arguments must be substantiated with named laws, conventions, or contemporary examples.
👉 Model: For example, the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is set at 10 by the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, which is significantly lower than in many other European nations.
2. Imprecise Terminology: There was a common tendency to use vague terms like 'immigrant' as a catch-all, instead of precise Citizenship vocabulary. Using accurate terms like 'asylum seeker', 'refugee', and 'parliamentary sovereignty' demonstrates expert understanding.
👉 Model: The concept of doli incapax, the presumption that a child is incapable of forming criminal intent, was abolished in 1998, holding younger children to a stricter standard of accountability.
3. Weak Evaluation in Conclusions: Most conclusions summarised the essay rather than offering a weighed judgement. A top-level conclusion must explicitly compare the arguments and explain why one side is more significant or convincing than the other.
👉 Model: Although the argument for a low age of responsibility focuses on deterring youth crime, it is ultimately outweighed by neuroscientific evidence showing the adolescent brain is not fully developed, making rehabilitation more appropriate than punishment.
4. Unbalanced Arguments: Many responses were one-sided or presented a very brief and underdeveloped counter-argument. "How far do you agree?" questions require a detailed and fair exploration of both sides of the debate to be analytical.
👉 Model: On the one hand, setting the voting age at 16 recognises that young people pay taxes and should have a say in governance. However, a key counter-argument is that the age of 18 aligns with the age of majority for other legal rights, such as entering contracts, creating a more consistent legal framework.

Teacher Next Steps

1. Law Link-Up Drill: Give each student a mini-whiteboard. Display a list of general arguments (e.g., "The government can make its own laws," "People have a right to be safe"). Call out a specific piece of evidence (e.g., "Parliamentary Sovereignty," "Human Rights Act 1998"). Students have 60 seconds to write which argument it links to and why. This drills the connection between points and specific evidence.
2. Terminology Triangle: In pairs, give students a triangle with three related but distinct terms at each point (e.g., Asylum Seeker / Refugee / Economic Migrant). They have 3 minutes to write a single sentence for each term that clearly distinguishes it from the others. Cold-call pairs to share their sentences and build a precise, class-wide definition.
3. Argument Weigh-In: Present two competing arguments from the essay (e.g., A: "The UK's legal duty under the 1951 Convention." vs. B: "The strain on public services."). Provide the sentence starter: "While argument [A/B] is significant because..., argument [B/A] is ultimately more convincing because...". Students complete this on whiteboards, forcing them to use evaluative language and justify their final judgement.
4. Counter-Argument Tennis: Teacher 'serves' a strong argument for one side of a debate (e.g., "Controlling immigration is vital for national security."). 'Hit' the argument to a student, who must 'return' it with a well-explained counter-argument (e.g., "However, a fair and efficient asylum system can identify genuine refugees while still maintaining robust security checks, showing that compassion and security are not mutually exclusive.").

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 16927

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 19672

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 20179

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 28916

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 35678

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4150

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4164

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4199

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4225

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4226

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4249

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4267

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4268

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4283

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4328

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 671a8

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 67198

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 67676

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 67898

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 68124

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 72198

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 76928

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 78061

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 82067

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 87670

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 89670

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 91768

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 91820

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

Teacher Next Steps