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 10629

Word Count: ~316 words

Strengths

Balanced Structure: You clearly present arguments for and against the statement ('Agree' vs 'Disagree'). This is crucial for a 'how far do you agree' question and is why you achieved a Level 3 mark.
Clear Judgement: You state your overall opinion at the beginning and end of the essay. This creates a clear and consistent line of argument for the examiner to follow.
Relevant Arguments: The points you raise (e.g., strain on public services, cultural diversity, filling job vacancies) are all directly relevant to the complex debate on immigration.

Targets

Use Specific Terminology: To achieve a higher mark, use precise Citizenship vocabulary. Instead of just "people who need help," refer to legal terms like 'asylum seekers' or 'refugees' to show a deeper understanding.
Incorporate Legal/Political Knowledge: Your arguments are logical but lack factual support. Mentioning key laws like the Human Rights Act 1998 or international agreements like the 1951 UN Refugee Convention would make your points much more convincing.
Develop Your Evaluation: Instead of just listing points for one side and then the other, try to weigh them against each other. Use phrases like, "While the argument about overpopulation is valid, it is arguably more important to uphold our international duties..." This shows the examiner you are thinking critically.
Refine Your Examples: The example of replacing an 'inexperienced' British doctor is a bit simplistic. A stronger example would be to discuss how immigration fills vital, well-documented skills shortages in specific sectors like the NHS or social care.

Candidate 16079

Word Count: ~423 words

I partly agree due to the fact that there are up sides and down sides to immigration/migration. Lets start with the positives and why I think the UK should help those in need and why it is there duty. The UK governments duty. For starters The 1951 Refugee Convention states that the UK is obligated to help those who flee there own country to escape prosecution probably to prevent or protect people from unjust prosecution like the Jewish people in world war two. The UK has a long history of accepting and benefiting from migrants entering there country. The UK and due to migrants the rather cultural and social aspect of the UK has become very diverse diverse and excepting. Also Migrants often come to the UK to work and this benefits the economy and businesses because of how hard working migrants are at manual labour and they also have the qualifications to do other jobs. The people in the UK that were born originally won't or can't do so migrants fill the wide gaps in the work force. Migrants also pay lots of taxes and boost the economic so if they where sent away the UKs economy would plummet quite a bit. On the other hand the government also needs to think about there citizens and there safety and wellbeing. Some of their is one of there main job. Migrants add to the population and if way more people come into the UK than people that leave that can put vast amounts of pressure on the education, housing and healthcare systems. It can also drain resources which is not ideal to so many. It also can increase in Migrants can cause social and racial tension. Some people are afraid that there jobs are being taken and the culture they are so proud of will be all changed which I believe is an unreasonable way of thinking if you don't have a job that's your fault not the people that are really actually working hard especially if your able bodied. However the government needs to listen to the people so controlling immigration strictly is not always the wrong thing to do but turning people away that are desperately in need of help is morally wrong especially if the people you turn away want to repay your kindness by working hard and contributing to society. In conclusion I believe that the UK should be more moderate and control immigration to keep people happy, safe and keep there the education, health care and housing systems running smoothly but should not turn people away especially if they contribute to the economy, society and culture so much migrants are very beneficial.

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You effectively explore both sides of the argument, discussing the humanitarian and economic reasons for accepting migrants, as well as the government's duty to manage public services. This is essential for a high-level response.
Use of Evidence: You correctly identify and use a key piece of international law – the 1951 Refugee Convention – to support your argument about the UK's legal duties. This shows good subject knowledge.
Clear Judgement: Your conclusion is strong. You don't just sit on the fence; you weigh the arguments and propose a "moderate" and controlled approach, justifying your final position clearly.

Targets

Develop with Specific Policies/Laws: To elevate your analysis, name specific UK laws or government policies. For example, you could have mentioned the Human Rights Act 1998 or discussed a recent policy like the Rwanda deportation scheme and the Supreme Court's ruling on it.
Deepen Your Analysis: When you mention pressure on public services, try to analyse the cause more deeply. Is the pressure solely due to the number of migrants, or is it also related to government funding and infrastructure planning? This adds a layer of critical thinking.
Use Precise Terminology: Be careful with terms. For example, distinguish between an 'asylum seeker' (someone who has applied for protection) and a 'refugee' (someone whose application has been successful). Using precise language demonstrates expert understanding.
Refine Formal Language: While not marked on SPaG, using formal academic language improves clarity. For instance, instead of "plummet quite a bit," you could use "decline significantly." Pay close attention to words like 'their' (possessive) and 'there' (place).

Candidate 1678

Word Count: ~253 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the start and end of your answer. This is a key requirement for "How far do you agree" questions.
Relevant Arguments: You make valid points about the positive economic impact of immigrants (as consumers) and the moral duty to help those fleeing war, which are central to the debate.
Use of Evidence: You attempted to use a specific piece of legislation (the "equality act") to support your argument. This shows you understand the need to back up points with factual knowledge.

Targets

Develop Both Sides: Your answer is almost entirely one-sided. To move beyond Level 2, you *must* explain the arguments FOR controlling immigration in as much detail as your own arguments (e.g., strain on public services, national security, democratic mandate to control borders).
Use More Specific Knowledge: The Equality Act is relevant to life in the UK, but for this topic, the **Human Rights Act 1998** (protecting the right to life) or the **1951 UN Refugee Convention** (protecting refugees) would be much stronger and more specific pieces of legal evidence.
Structure for Balance (PEEL): Try to structure your essay with at least one full PEEL paragraph for the 'agree' side and one for the 'disagree' side. This ensures you develop both arguments with a Point, Evidence, Explanation, and Link before you conclude.
Refine Terminology: Be precise with your language for greater impact. For example, instead of "bussines owners own shapes," write "entrepreneurs run shops and businesses." This makes your writing sound more formal and academic.

Candidate 19678

Word Count: ~162 words

Strengths

Two-Sided Argument: You have successfully considered both sides of the debate, arguing against the statement (cultural/social benefits) and also explaining a reason for it (strain on public services). This is essential for a good answer.
Developing Arguments: You don't just state a point; you try to explain it. For example, you explained *how* immigration can improve culture (diversity) and social cohesion (community building).

Targets

Add a Substantiated Judgement: Your answer needs a clear conclusion. You should weigh up the 'for' and 'against' arguments you've made and explain which side is stronger and why. Use phrases like "On balance..." or "To a greater extent..."
Use Specific Evidence/Examples: To make your points more convincing, add specific details. For example, when discussing cultural benefits, you could mention specific contributions (e.g., food, festivals like Notting Hill Carnival).
Incorporate Legal/Political Knowledge: A top-level answer would refer to specific laws like the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998 to explain the UK's legal duties to people in need.
Refine Terminology & Spelling: Be precise with your language. For example, use the term "public services" instead of "funds for schools and, hospitals". Also, check spellings of key terms like "immigrants", "economically", and "country".

Candidate 19726

Word Count: ~280 words

UK welcomed people all around the Commonwealth to help rebuild and restructur the UK and according to statistics 'the immigrants' are the people contributing more to the economy of the UK yet the British do not acknowledge how they are helping towards guthering the economy so for the UK government turn people away back to their homeland to 'Control immigration' it just represents the failure in the UK to acknowledge and respect what the immigrants are doing to help the UK. My last argument against this statement is that the healthcare may not be very great in another country or that there may not be much job opportunities in another However the UK provides features like this causing it to be a pull factor to attract many people to want to live in the UK as they have an excellent healthcare and many job opportunities so for the UK government to turn thes I disagree with this statement because some people could have come from a bad environment with we caused through either war, natural disaster and disease these people are also known as asylum seeker as they are seeking refuge in the closest safe country from their homeland so for the government to is to turn away people who genuinely need help and send them back to their homeland which is dangerous for the sole purpose of 'controlling immigration' then they wouldn't be doing a good job. However, some people may say that instead of people going to the closest safe country they tend to find a way to travel all the way to the UK due to the NHS (free healthcare) and a place where their human rights are protected due the Human Rights and the 9 protected characteristics. Another reason I disagree with this statement is due to the fact that the away this wouldn't be a country that causes many attractiv Overall I think the statement is absurd as the UK government is trying to use 'Controlling Immigration' as an excuse to get rid of the coloured people.

Strengths

Clear Stance: You have a very clear point of view and you argue it consistently throughout your response. You leave the examiner in no doubt about your opinion.
Relevant Concepts: You correctly identify and use relevant Citizenship concepts, such as 'asylum seeker', economic contributions of migrants, and 'pull factors' like the NHS and job opportunities.

Targets

Develop Both Sides of the Argument: To move beyond Level 2, you MUST analyse the other side. You need to explain the reasons a government might argue it has a duty to control immigration, such as the potential strain on public services (schools, housing, NHS) or its duty to maintain national security.
Use Specific Evidence: Your points are good but general. To strengthen them, refer to specific laws or conventions. For example, when discussing asylum seekers, you could name the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998.
Substantiate Your Conclusion: Your final judgement must be a balanced summary of the arguments you have made. Avoid making strong claims without evidence. A good conclusion weighs up the 'for' and 'against' points and explains why you find one side more convincing.
Improve Essay Structure: Your answer is fragmented and some sentences are incomplete. Using a clear paragraph structure like P.E.E.L. (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) for each argument will make your essay much more logical and easier to follow.

Candidate 20967

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Good Range of Arguments: You have successfully included points from both sides of the debate (pressure on services vs. economic contributions), which is essential for a high-level answer.
Use of Specific Knowledge: Referencing the '1951 refugee convention' is excellent. This shows you are using precise legal and political knowledge to support your points, which is a high-level skill.
Clear Judgement: You end with a clear personal opinion ("In my opinion...") and link it directly to a reason you've already mentioned. This is a key part of evaluation (AO3).

Targets

Develop Your Points: Your arguments are good starting points, but they need more detail to be convincing. For example, when you mention pressure on public services, you could add a statistic or a specific example to strengthen the point.
Balance Your Argument: Your arguments against controlling immigration are much more detailed than your arguments for it. To show strong evaluation, try to give equal weight and detail to both sides of the debate before you give your final judgement.
Improve Sentence Structure: Some sentences are a little confusing, which can weaken your argument. For example, "Lastly, people do to the good most low-paying jobs are typically taken by immigrants..." could be rephrased for clarity. Focus on writing clear, direct sentences.
Use Evaluative Language: To move from just listing points to analysing them, use phrases like "A significant argument for this is...", "On the other hand, a compelling counter-argument is...", or "While the pressure on public services is a valid concern, it is arguably outweighed by...".

Candidate 26817

Word Count: ~312 words

Strengths

Two-Sided Structure: You have correctly structured your answer to look at both sides of the argument. You start by disagreeing and then use the word 'However' to introduce the opposing view, which is essential for a balanced essay.
Identifies Economic Impacts: You have identified that immigration can have both positive and negative economic impacts. You mention how immigrants can bring new talents and benefit the economy, but also raise the concern about competition for jobs.

Targets

Use Specific Evidence: Your points are good starting places, but they need evidence. Instead of just saying immigration is good for the economy, could you mention a specific industry that relies on migrant workers, like the NHS or agriculture? This makes your argument much stronger.
Develop Your Points (PEEL): Try to develop each point using a structure like Point, Evidence, Explain, Link. For example, when you say overcrowding is a problem, *explain* how this puts a strain on specific public services like schools, housing, or the NHS. This adds depth to your analysis.
Refer to Laws and Conventions: To reach the top marks, you must include specific political and legal knowledge. For this question, mentioning the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998 would show the examiner you understand the UK's legal duties.
Write a Substantiated Conclusion: Your essay needs a concluding paragraph that weighs up both sides and explains *why* you have reached your judgement. For example: "On balance, while concerns about public services are valid, I believe the UK's legal duties under international law are more important. Therefore, the government must help those in need, while also investing in services to manage the impact."

Candidate 2687

Word Count: ~103 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly in your conclusion ("I Agree that the government may 'control' maigration..."). This is a key skill for a "How far do you agree" question.
Identifies Potential Issues: You have tried to identify several potential negative impacts of uncontrolled migration, such as environmental damage and overcrowding. This is a good starting point for building an argument.

Targets

Develop Both Sides: Your answer is entirely one-sided. To score higher, you *must* also include arguments *against* the statement. For example, you could discuss the UK's legal duty to help refugees under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
Use Specific Evidence & Terminology: Your points are very general (e.g., "cause A Disease"). Strengthen your arguments by using specific examples or key terms. Instead of "Over crowded", you could discuss the "strain on public services like the NHS and schools".
Explain Your Points (PEEL): Don't just list points. For each Point (P), provide an Explanation (E) of *why* it supports your argument. For example, *why* might overcrowding be a problem? What services would be affected?
Spelling and Grammar: While not penalised directly, improving the spelling of key terms like 'migration', 'controlled', 'negative', and 'impact' will make your arguments clearer and more convincing.

Candidate 28691

Word Count: ~263 words

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You consider arguments both for and against the government's duty to control immigration, which is essential for a "how far do you agree" question.
Use of Key Concepts: You correctly refer to important legal and humanitarian ideas, such as the '1951 Refugee Convention' and 'human rights'.
Clear Judgement: You provide a clear conclusion that states your overall opinion ("I mainly disagree") and briefly summarises your reasons.

Targets

Develop Your Points (P.E.E.L): Many of your points are stated but not explained. For example, when you mention pressure on the NHS, explain *how* this happens (e.g., increased waiting times, strain on resources) and link it back to the argument for controlling borders. Use the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link structure.
Structure and Signposting: Your essay jumps between 'agree' and 'disagree' points. Try structuring your response into clear paragraphs. For example, one paragraph for arguments you agree with, one for arguments you disagree with, and then your conclusion. Use phrases like "One argument in favour of controlling immigration is..." to guide the reader.
Use Specific Evidence: To make your arguments more convincing, use precise evidence. Instead of just saying migrants pay more tax, you could mention a source (e.g., "studies by the Office for Budget Responsibility have shown...") or a specific example of the economic contribution of immigrant communities.
Refine Your Language: Some phrases are a bit unclear (e.g., "higher not raising" or "refugees spend more money which they are getting back"). Aim for precise, formal language. For instance, instead of the latter, you could say: "Furthermore, refugees and migrants contribute to the economy as consumers, spending money on goods and services."

Candidate 60982

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Two-Sided Structure: You have structured your answer clearly, presenting arguments against the statement first, and then arguments for it using "On the other hand". This is the correct approach for a "How far do you agree?" question.
Use of Examples: Your example of a doctor filling a skills gap in the NHS is specific and relevant. Using clear examples is a great way to make your arguments more convincing.
Identifies Key Issues: You have correctly identified some of the central arguments in this debate, including the economic contributions of immigrants and the potential pressure on public services like schools and hospitals.

Targets

Develop a Judgement: To achieve a higher mark, you must add a conclusion. In this paragraph, you need to weigh up the arguments you have made and decide how far you agree with the statement, explaining *why* one side is stronger than the other (e.g., "On balance, while the pressure on services is a concern, I believe the UK's humanitarian duties are more important because...").
Avoid Stereotypes & Generalisations: Your points about immigrants causing 'rebellion' or 'war between cultures' are weak because they are not based on evidence. Focus on stronger, more specific arguments like the government's legal duty to control borders or the challenges to housing and infrastructure.
Use Specific Terminology: Elevate your arguments by using key Citizenship vocabulary. For example, when discussing helping people in need, you could mention the UK's duties under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998.
Strengthen Reasoning: Develop your points with more detail. For instance, when you say immigrants contribute through taxes, you could add "...which helps to fund the very public services, like the NHS and schools, that they use, potentially offsetting the initial cost."

Candidate 67801

Word Count: ~245 words

Strengths

Clear Structure: Your essay has a logical flow. You start with your position, present your arguments, introduce counter-arguments with "However", and then provide a final summary judgement. This is an excellent structure for this type of question.
Balanced Argument: You successfully addressed both sides of the debate, which is essential for scoring above Level 2. You argued for the humanitarian position while also fairly representing the government's duty to protect its citizens and services.
Justified Judgement: Your conclusion isn't just a statement of opinion. You explain *why* you disagree more with the statement, weighing the humanitarian cost of "unnecessary deaths" as more significant than the risks. This is a key feature of good evaluation.

Targets

Use Specific Evidence: Your points are good, but they are general. To reach Level 4, you must include specific legal or political knowledge. For example, when mentioning human rights, name the Human Rights Act 1998 or the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
Develop Your Points: Try to expand on each point with a bit more detail. For instance, when you mention the strain on the NHS, you could explain *how* this happens (e.g., increased demand on GP services and A&E without a corresponding increase in funding).
Use Key Terminology: Incorporate subject-specific vocabulary to show deeper understanding. For example, the legal duty not to return a refugee to a country where they are in danger is called 'non-refoulement'.
Refine Language: There's a minor grammatical error in your conclusion: "leave *there* country" should be "leave *their* country". Paying attention to these small details adds polish to your writing.

Candidate 67892

Word Count: ~415 words

The UK government has a duty to control immigration is right but to turn away immigrants, any immigrants who do not bring harm to the kingdom should be free allowed to start a new life in a land of full of opportunities, when they came from less fortunate place in a third world country is morally and lawfully wrong. Someone may argue that the government have the right to control living areas, and I keep this is completely correct as the government was elected completely democratically and is what the people want. As well as the fact that we can't undermine the fact that a bigger population puts more stress on public services such as, hospital, schools, policing, etc. We can't also possibly forget that of the most race in great's youth jails are black, However it and in jail overall. However, we can respond that the Windrush generation was invited here by the government was invited here to to the UK to help build this island up [Page 2] 1951 History of accepting my view immigrants is good for the UK I disagree In addition, to why black people commit more crime is the socio-economic stratification of immigrants and how they are treated by society. Western culture as a whole. However, this culture' is begining to change and we can see a drop in black youths in prison. Someone may counter this-state. say the UK has a long history of accepting immigrants, and that in change has changed Britain into a more multi-cultural society, so if Britain throughout history has been letting immigrants in why just stop now? Also, Immigrants pay more in tax than they actually use out of public services so why not allow immigrants, those who do benefit the country, and allow people who leech of benefits and do not contribute nothing to the country. lastly it's unlawful. It's unlawful to not let immigrants in. During, 1951 the UK created a law to allow immigrants in no matter what, the Rwandan law was about to be put through by parliament to send immigrants to Rwanda as they neared people, but didn't pass, as The only reason was because they didn't use the right process. Ever since there's been a vendetta to see against immigrants. [Page 3] Ultimately, I disagree with this statement as is the government really need to tackle population growth they should get rid of the people who can contribute, but simply don't want to. Immigrants are essential for the UK, they are too integrated.

Strengths

Clear Structure and Judgement: You have structured your essay well, looking at both sides of the argument before reaching a clear final judgement ('Ultimately, I disagree...'). This is essential for a 'how far do you agree' question.
Use of Counter-Argument: You effectively use phrases like 'Someone may argue that...' and 'However, we can respond that...' to introduce and then challenge opposing viewpoints. This shows good evaluative thinking.
Range of Arguments: You have included a good range of arguments, from the economic (taxes vs services) and social (strain on public services) to the historical (Windrush generation).

Targets

Develop Points with Specific Evidence: Your points are relevant but often asserted without specific evidence. For example, when you say "Immigrants pay more in tax", you could strengthen this by referencing a study or official data to make your argument more convincing.
Precision with Legal Knowledge: Be careful with legal facts. You mention a "1951 law to allow immigrants in no matter what". This is likely the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, but it specifically protects *refugees* from being returned to danger (non-refoulement), it doesn't grant all *immigrants* an automatic right to enter. Using precise terminology will make your answer much stronger.
Explain Evaluative Links: In your conclusion, you suggest the government should "get rid of the people who can contribute, but simply don't want to". This point is unclear and not well-connected to your arguments about immigration. Ensure your final judgement logically follows from the points you have weighed up in your essay.
Clarity of Expression: Some sentences are confusing, such as the one about crime statistics. Reread your work to ensure your meaning is clear. For example, instead of "of the most race in great's youth jails are black", you could say, "Some people argue that because statistics show a disproportionate number of black youths in prison, immigration should be limited." You can then counter this more clearly.

Candidate 68170

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have correctly structured your answer by presenting arguments for the statement, followed by arguments against it. This two-sided approach is crucial for evaluation questions.
Relevant Knowledge: You have included specific and relevant concepts, such as the strain on the NHS and schools, and correctly identified the importance of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Direct Judgement: You begin with a clear and direct judgement ("I mostly agree"), which immediately shows the examiner your line of argument.

Targets

Develop Your Points: Your arguments are good starting points, but they need more depth. For each point, try to use the P.E.E.L (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) structure to add detail and analysis.
Use Specific Evidence: Strengthen your arguments with facts, examples, or more detail on the laws you mention. For instance, when discussing the 1951 Convention, you could mention the principle of 'non-refoulement'.
Write a Concluding Evaluation: A strong answer needs a conclusion that weighs up both sides. After presenting both views, explain *why* you think one side is stronger, referring back to the points you've made to justify your initial judgement.
Refine Terminology: Be precise with your language. For example, use the correct term "asylum seeker" and replace vague phrases like "normal civillians" with more formal alternatives like "existing citizens" or "the resident population."

Candidate a7128

Word Count: ~165 words

Strengths

Two-Sided Structure: You have correctly structured your answer to look at arguments for ('agree') and against ('disagree') the statement. This is the right way to approach a "How far do you agree?" question.
Use of Legal Knowledge: You correctly identified and used the 1951 Refugee Convention to support the argument for helping people in need. Using specific, relevant evidence like this is a key skill for higher marks.

Targets

Add a Concluding Judgement: To score in the higher levels, you must end with a conclusion. This paragraph should weigh up the 'agree' and 'disagree' arguments and explain which side you find more convincing and why.
Develop Points with Evidence (PEEL): Your points are good starting ideas, but they need more detail. For example, when you mention "pressure" on the UK, specify which public services (e.g., NHS, schools, housing) and briefly explain *how* they are affected.
Check Your Logical Links: Your final paragraph was confusing because the evidence (immigrants contribute) did not support the point (we should control immigration). Always double-check that your reasoning logically supports the argument you are making.
Use Evaluative Language: To show the examiner you are thinking critically, use phrases that compare the arguments. For example: "However, a more significant argument is...", "On the other hand...", or "On balance, I believe that...".

Candidate 71689

Word Count: ~99 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the beginning ("I disagree with this claim"), which is essential for an evaluation question.
Considers Both Sides: You include both an 'upside' (economic/cultural benefits) and a 'downside' (housing availability), showing you understand the need for a balanced argument.

Targets

Develop Your Points (PEEL): Your points are currently simple statements (e.g., "benefit the UKs economy"). Try using the PEEL structure: make your Point, provide Evidence or an Example, Explain how it links to the question, and then Link back.
Use Specific Knowledge: To reach the higher levels, you need to include specific legal or political concepts. For this topic, you could mention the 1951 UN Refugee Convention (the UK's legal duty to help refugees) or the strain on public services like the NHS.
Balance Your Argument: Your argument was mostly on one side. A top-level answer gives equal weight and depth to both the 'for' and 'against' arguments before reaching a final, justified conclusion.
Improve Terminology: Instead of "let immigrants come in," use more precise terms like "implementing immigration policies," "granting asylum," or "managing border controls."

Candidate 72916

Word Count: ~303 words

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You have successfully presented arguments for and against the statement, which is essential for a good mark. You covered pressure on public services and democratic accountability on one side, and legal duties and economic contributions on the other.
Use of Evidence: You included specific knowledge to support your points, such as the 1951 Refugee Convention and a net migration statistic. This makes your arguments much more convincing than just stating opinions.
Clear Structure: You have used evaluative phrases like "On the other hand" and "However" to clearly signpost to the examiner when you are switching between different viewpoints.

Targets

Develop a Concluding Paragraph: Your essay ends abruptly. To reach the top marks, you must add a conclusion that weighs up the arguments (e.g., "Although the pressure on public services is a valid concern...") and comes to a clear, justified final judgement ("...on balance, I believe the UK's legal and moral duties are more significant.").
Improve Clarity of Judgement: At times, your own viewpoint is confusing (e.g., "I strongly disagree and I think the UK does have a duty to control immigration"). Use clearer phrases like "A more compelling argument is..." or "The most important factor is..." to express your evaluation.
Use Specific Terminology: To add depth, use more precise Citizenship terms. When discussing the 1951 Convention, you could mention the principle of 'non-refoulement'. When discussing democratic accountability, you could link this to the government's 'mandate' from an election.
Apply PEEL Structure: To develop your points further, try using Point, Evidence, Explain, Link. For example, after your point about jobs, add evidence (e.g., sectors like social care heavily rely on migrant labour), explain why this is important for the economy, and link it back to the question.

Candidate 76921

Word Count: ~204 words

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You successfully argue both for and against the statement, providing two distinct points for each side. This is crucial for a 'how far do you agree' question.
Use of Specific Knowledge: Referencing the '1951 refugee convention' shows good subject knowledge and strengthens your argument against the statement.
Clear Structure: Your use of signposting language ('On the other hand', 'However', 'In conclusion') makes your essay easy to follow and shows a clear thought process.

Targets

Develop Your Points (Depth): Each of your points is a good starting place, but they need more detail. For example, when you mention public services, you could add a specific example to make your point more convincing.
Strengthen Your Conclusion (Weighing Arguments): Your conclusion introduces a new idea (UK reputation). A stronger conclusion would weigh the points you've already made against each other. For example, explain *why* the legal duty to refugees is more important than the pressure on public services.
Use of Key Terminology: To elevate your analysis, try to use more precise Citizenship terminology. Instead of "the government has to listen to the public," you could use terms like 'democratic mandate' or 'electoral accountability'.
Refine Phrasing: Some phrases like "too much immigrants" are grammatically incorrect and could be more formal. Aim for precise language, such as "a significant increase in the number of immigrants".

Candidate 78962

Word Count: ~295 words

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You successfully explored both sides of the debate, looking at reasons to agree (e.g., pressure on public services) and disagree (e.g., economic contributions). This is crucial for AO3.
Clear Judgement: You consistently stated your own opinion ("I disagree with this statement more," "Overall I disagree"), which is a key requirement for reaching Level 3 and above.
Use of Evidence: You included some good examples to support your points, such as mentioning the need for doctors and nurses, and the UK's response to the war in Ukraine.

Targets

Develop Legal Knowledge: You correctly mentioned the 'refugee convention'. To improve, name it fully (the 1951 UN Refugee Convention) and explain a key principle from it, like 'non-refoulement' (the rule that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats).
Use Specific Terminology: Instead of saying "benefits and all the other stuff the government has to do," use more precise Citizenship terms like "welfare state," "social security," or "government expenditure." This makes your argument sound more academic.
Explain Your Points (PEEL): For each point you make, try to explain it further. For example, when you say migration puts pressure on the NHS, explain *how*: "This can lead to longer waiting times for appointments and place a strain on hospital bed capacity."
Refine Sentence Structure: Some of your sentences are very long and contain multiple ideas. Try to break them down into shorter, clearer sentences to make your argument easier for the examiner to follow.

Candidate 79180

Word Count: ~482 words

I mostly agree with this statement because the government has many duties to follow and it is hard to do so with such a small amount of people in Parliament. One reason why I agree with this statement is because governments have a duty to manage public security and housing capacity. For instance, the UK net migration in 2023 was 906,000, meaning almost a million more people came in then left. One of the things the government works on when recieving tax is housing. This means they would need to build houses and provide up-to-standard services for another 906,000 people, which is simply too complex for the government to handle. Not to mention, many immigrants come with little to no money, meaning they cannot pay tax. If people pay less people are paying tax, tax would need to rise, causing a various number of financial crisis', such as inflation. Therefore, a reason why I agree with this statement is because governments will struggle to manage public services and housing capacity. However, a problem with this is that the UK needs to be aware of the rights of asylum seekers and refugees under international law. A refugee has the right to safety so those rights should be protected and acknowledged. On the other hand, one reason why I disagree with this statement is because migrants contribute more in taxes than they recieve in public services then they recieve and they provide positive impacts socially. For instance, migrants did not vote in the latest election, atleast those after the election, and are likely unaware of the manifesto the elected party delivered. If people pay more tax and don't seem show any annoyance or distress regarding towards it, then there are no problems for the government to deal with relating to that person. They also create culture more cultures on the streets and can provide free commercial services for that the people. This means people are happy and the government get what they want. Therefore one reason why I could disagree with this statement is because migrants contribute more in tax without issues. However, a problem with this is that migrants or some migrants are aware of how much they're being taxed and can have an issue with this. Another reason why I disagree with this statement is because migrants can put pressure on services, such as schools. This means For instance, if there are more immigrants coming the UK, more children need to be taught, pastor putting pressure on the school system. This leads to more schools and teachers is required and leads to many problems. It also can limit children's education whilst the government tries to find a solution. Therefore, another reason why I disagree is because migrants put pressure on services. However, an argument that goes against this could be that it can reduce unemployment and students are also leaving the country, not just coming in so it balances out. Overall, I mostly agree with this statement because the government can only solve so many problems and migration isn't something that can stop. However, the other side did have some goods arguments.

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You have successfully argued both for and against the statement, which is essential for a high-level response.
Clear Judgement: You state your overall opinion clearly in the introduction and conclusion, and support it with reasoning from your essay.
Good Use of Evaluation: You frequently use phrases like 'However, a problem with this is...' to weigh up different arguments within your paragraphs. This shows you are thinking critically about the issue.

Targets

Precise Terminology: To reach the top marks, try to use specific legal and political terms. For example, instead of just "international law," you could mention the 1951 Refugee Convention or the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Argument Cohesion: Double-check that the points in your paragraphs support the opening sentence. Your third paragraph started by saying you 'disagree' but then gave a reason to 'agree' (pressure on schools). This is called a 'self-refuting' argument.
Develop Your Evidence: While it's great you used a statistic, you could develop it further. For example, explain *how* a lack of housing for new arrivals can impact community cohesion or the existing population's quality of life.
Strengthen Weaker Points: Some of your points were a little confused (e.g., migrants not voting). Focus on developing your strongest ideas with clear, logical steps instead of trying to include too many different points.

Candidate 82790

Word Count: ~659 words

I personally believe that this statement is not what I would agree with. Although I believe that this statement is completely valid in some ways there are things I would like to point out. I will refer to my opinion as "Point A" and the statements as "Point B"

I personally agree with point A because of the benefits an immigrant and immigration brings. For example, migrants in the UK actually contribute more than what they recieve in benefits. This suggests that immigrants work hard in order to benefit this country and allow services which are important to run e.g NHS as they pay taxes for it. Additionally, a large majority of major cities like London have many immigrants which work important jobs (e.g a doctor) that can save lives of non-immigrants and immigrants too. They also take on important jobs that no one might favour (e.g picking strawberries or a garbage man) as their previous country may not have paid a lot for which means they are more willing to do work than a British citizen.

Another reason why I believe in point A is because of a belief that everyone should have the right to life and to feel safe. For example, an immigrant that may have fled from Ukraine to escape the Russian-Ukraine war to survive should be allowed into the UK as their lives are at stake and in the Human Rights Act (1948) which the UK follows, it allows people for a right to life. Additionally, the 1951 Refugee convention obliges the UK to protect those who are fleeing persecution. Even if they illegally come here, they should be allowed to live there as long as its serious danger/lives are at stake because I feel that us people should not suffer in 3rd world countries with nothing and zero opportunities, they should able to live a life, and live a comfortable life.

However, Someone might argue that option B is a more viable and respectable option, as they believe they have a right to be protected, and to protect themselves. For example, someone could believe that the UK should be more stricter on immigration as an immigrant could claim they need help, enter the country and then do acts that would not be considered remotely close enough to our values and that they need to be taught and to change to prevent public harm and make the public safe. Also, the net migration in the UK reached a staggering 926,000 in 2023 which made people unhappy and worry that these people were unaware of how to behave/as in a 3rd world country or poor areas many people resort to crime or stealing and believe that because they came here they could be disrespectful and careless about the values we hold and not care about public safety. By allowing so much people in the UK it could contribute to larger crime rates.

Another reason why people may argue the UK has a responsibility to control immigration is because of the overwhelming numbers of immigration. For example as I have stated, 926,000 people migrated (net migration) in the UK. This therefore sparked a lot of controversy as it impacted us in many ways. This includes the detrimental pressure that was placed furthermore on services like the NHS which meant some people could die as proper treatment would not be recieved in a fast enough pace. It can also place pressure on schools as some schools may end up too packed and then there would be no space for education leaving people uneducated and places pressure on housing aswell as there would be more demand for houses but not enough people to deliver housing too leaving many people homeless and could increase prices as demand would rise.

In conclusion, I believe although immigration at high rates may impact the UK negatively, I still believe that people have the right to life and to have a good life here in the UK for everyone.

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You have successfully explored both sides of the debate. You dedicate significant paragraphs to the arguments for controlling immigration (strain on services, public safety) and the arguments against (humanitarian duty, economic benefits).
Use of Evidence: Your answer is strengthened by the use of specific evidence. Referencing the "1951 Refugee Convention" and the "net migration... 926,000 in 2023" statistic elevates your points beyond simple opinion.
Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly in the introduction and maintain it through to a logical conclusion. The final paragraph effectively weighs both sides before confirming your stance, which is a key evaluative skill.

Targets

Develop Legal Precision: You mention the "Human Rights Act (1948)". This is a slight mix-up. The *Universal Declaration of Human Rights* was in 1948. The UK's *Human Rights Act* was passed in 1998 to incorporate the *European Convention on Human Rights* (ECHR) into UK law. Using the correct terms (UDHR, HRA, ECHR) will make your legal arguments even stronger.
Avoid Generalisations: The argument linking immigrants from "3rd world countries" with crime is a weak point because it's a stereotype, not an evidence-based claim. High-level answers focus on arguments backed by data or logical reasoning, such as the strain on public services, rather than broad assumptions about groups of people.
Deepen Your Analysis: You make the good point that immigration places pressure on the NHS. To improve, explain *how*. For example: "This pressure on the NHS manifests as longer waiting times for appointments and surgeries, potentially impacting the health outcomes for all residents as resources are stretched thinner across a larger population."
Refine Academic Language: Using labels like "Point A" and "Point B" is functional but can sound a little simplistic. Try to integrate your arguments more fluidly. For example, instead of "I personally agree with point A because...", you could write "The humanitarian and economic arguments against a strict immigration policy are compelling because...".

Candidate 86120

Word Count: ~542 words

I believe that the UK Government [crossed out word] needs to turn away people who genuinely need help whilst controlling immigration because of the issues that they will continue facing upon their [crossed out word] arrival. Although the UK government have the ability to accomodate people who seek refuge due to multiple reasons, they must still keep in mind the wellbeing and comfort of people who already live in the UK. If the UK government offers refuge for a high amount of people who come to live in the country, we face the risk of overpopulation. This increases demand on many services that we have and increases the rate of unemployment meaning that people will have no jobs to keep them comfortable. If we ignore the fact that though they might be coming to the UK for a better life, the challenges they'll face due to housing, jobs and more far outweigh the benefits they recieve and the UK government isn't in any way reducing the suffering and the country will go to waste. It is the UK governments role and responsibility to make sure that the lives of citizens is as comfortable as possible and to keep the economy stable. They have to keep the balance for the economy and jobs and although that means that we are ignoring the problems and suffering that other people might be facing, we must be willing to commit that sacrifice for the greater welfare of the country. On the other hand, some might argue that if we take and help people who genuinely require the help we are filling the gaps for jobs that citizens might not be willing to take and still have the ability to balance that with the welfare of the country and can still keep citizens comfortable. They might also say that if we accept the people in need into the country, we can help them become financially stable so that they can move away from the UK to another country and balance out the population. Finally, they might even argue that [crossed out word] if the government allows them onto the country, we might be able to grow our economy to the point where we have the ability to solve and help the country in which these people might be coming from giving them the ability to go back to that country, helping them whilst helping ourselves by growing our economy just enough. Although these are strong counter-arguments, the downside is the slim chance of those becoming reality. For example, if we take in too many people in the hopes of them growing our economy so that we can help or solve the issue in their country, [crossed out word] the demands for jobs become so [crossed out word] low that companies might not be willing to pay much money to workers. Additionally, the rescued people might not be able to become financially stable for them to go back to their country. Of making enough money that is of significance to the country leaving the country in a position where the economy stays the same but we are spending more money to ensure that the people we help people due to the fact that they aren't making enough money to help themselves which makes us lose money a lot more and possibly not even to make the money back. In conclusion, I believe that the government has the duty to control immigration even if it means turning away people who genuinely need help as it means that we don't make their life worse but also keeps the country financially stable to the extent that the citizens can live a comfortable life. Although some might still say that it is morally wrong, [crossed out word] turning away people doesn't mean that the country still can't try their best to help the situation in the other country so that their citizens live a comfortable life.

Strengths

Clear Structure & Judgement: Your essay has a very clear line of argument. You state your opinion at the start, analyse both sides, and then reaffirm your judgement in the conclusion, creating a cohesive and easy-to-follow structure.
Effective Counter-Argument & Rebuttal: You successfully introduce a counter-argument ("On the other hand...") and then directly evaluate and dismiss it ("the downside is the slim chance of those becoming reality"). This is a key evaluation skill (AO3).
Consistent Focus on the Question: Your response remains focused on the central tension between a government's duty to control immigration and its duty to help those in need. All your points are relevant to the question.

Targets

Use Specific Evidence & Terminology: To reach the top level, arguments need to be supported with specific examples, laws, or concepts. For instance, mentioning the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998 would strengthen the 'disagree' side, while mentioning parliamentary sovereignty would bolster the 'agree' side.
Develop Deeper Analysis: Instead of just stating a point (e.g., "increases demand on many services"), develop it further. Which services? What is the evidence for this strain? For example, you could discuss waiting lists for social housing or pressures on the NHS. This adds depth and credibility.
Refine Economic Arguments: Your economic points are logical but could be stronger. For instance, the idea that immigrants might leave after becoming stable is speculative. A stronger argument could discuss how immigration fills skills gaps or contributes to tax revenue, citing reports from organisations like the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).
Improve Sentence Fluency: Some sentences are very long and complex, which can make them hard to follow (e.g., the final sentence of your second paragraph). Breaking these down into shorter, clearer sentences would improve readability and impact.

Candidate 90128

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Use of Evidence: You have included specific statistics (e.g., "906,000 people (Net)" and "EU workers about 95%") to support your arguments. This makes your points much more convincing and demonstrates good knowledge.
Two-Sided Argument: You have clearly structured your answer to address both sides of the debate ('disagree' and 'agree'), which is essential for a "How far do you agree?" question.

Targets

Add a Justified Judgement: To move beyond Level 2, you must include a conclusion that weighs up both sides and states how far you agree with the statement, explaining *why* you find one side more persuasive.
Develop Points with Specifics: To add more depth, you could name specific laws. For the 'disagree' side, mention the UK's duties under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. For the 'agree' side, you could refer to the concept of parliamentary sovereignty (Parliament's right to make any law it chooses).
Use Key Terminology: Incorporate subject-specific terms like 'asylum seekers', 'economic migrants', or the 'Human Rights Act 1998' to show a more sophisticated understanding of the topic.
Proofread for Clarity: While not marked on spelling, errors like "excepting" (should be 'accepting') or "loose" (should be 'lose') can make your meaning less clear. A quick read-through helps to catch these.

Candidate 91708

Word Count: ~259 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You provide a clear overall conclusion that directly answers the question and offers a nuanced position.
Two-Sided Argument: You have successfully considered arguments both for and against controlling immigration, which is essential for a high-level response.
Relevant Points: You raise valid points, such as the potential strain on taxpayer-funded public services and the cultural benefits of diversity.

Targets

Use Specific Terminology: To elevate your analysis, incorporate key citizenship terms like 'asylum seeker', 'refugee', 'economic migrant', and legal frameworks such as the '1951 UN Refugee Convention' or the 'Human Rights Act 1998'.
Develop Arguments with Evidence: Instead of saying immigration costs taxpayers money, you could refer to specific services like the NHS or schools and explain the nature of the pressure. For the other side, you could mention a specific country people are fleeing from (e.g., Afghanistan, Syria) to make the point more concrete.
Avoid Generalisations: Statements like "the UK is a Christian country" can be seen as sweeping generalisations. Focus on arguments grounded in political, legal, or economic facts to build a stronger, more objective case.
Refine Sentence Structure: Some sentences are very long and could be clearer. For example, your first sentence is 66 words long. Try breaking down complex ideas into shorter, more direct sentences to improve clarity.

Candidate 91826

Word Count: ~437 words

I disagree with the statement that the UK has to control immigration even if it means turning away people who need help. This is because although there is a huge amount of people immigrating to the country there is a huge amount also leaving. This is shown in data from 2021 where 312,000 immig- immigrated to the UK but also 200,000 people left showing a net in rate of 112,000 people. A majority of them being skilled workers. If the government prevented people from coming here, there would be a eff- crisis of skilled workers. For exam ple, immigrants make up a large percentage of the NHS and without them it would collapse. This shows that immigration is single handedly keeping essential public services afloat. Lastly, immigrants contribute a lot to British culture. Things like music, food, religion, languages etc make the UK a diverse place and encourages cultural cosion. However, some people might agree that the UK has a duty to control immigration as it is adding presure to already big crises. This is shown in London where housing prices have sky rocketed since immigration has gone up. How ever I disagree with this as London already had high housing prices due to its small land area relative to the population. Another reason people want the government to tighten up on immigration is they say that immigrants are 'taking all the jobs'. They some evidence that backs this is since the immigration boom there has been a sharp decrease in job va cancies but I counter it by saying sta tistics show that immigrants are more likely to take on low paying jobs where as British Nationals would rather take a long path through education for jobs with a which are already scarce and ultra-competitive. This evidence shows that even though immigrants are con tributing to things such as job and housing crises, most of these were already present before the boom. In conclusion, I disagree with the statement, 'The UK government has a duty to control immigration even if it means turning away people who genuinely need help' as immigrants bring many benefits that outweigh the negatives such as they provide skilled workers which in turn brings in more tax income and they take jobs which are in shortages and nobody wants to do. Also helping people in need is one of Britain's core values which are highly important to the British people and it is contradictory to say that's your value then refuse to help people who need it.

Strengths

Clear and Consistent Judgement: You establish your position clearly in the introduction and maintain it throughout the essay, consistently arguing against the statement. This creates a focused and persuasive response.
Effective Use of Rebuttal: Your second paragraph is particularly strong. You don't just state the opposing view; you actively challenge it with counter-arguments (e.g., explaining that high housing prices in London have other causes). This is a key feature of high-level evaluation.
Good Use of Evidence/Examples: You effectively use a statistic about net migration and a powerful, concrete example (the NHS) to make your arguments more convincing and grounded in real-world context.

Targets

Incorporate Specific Terminology: To add more authority to your points, try to use precise Citizenship terminology. For example, when discussing people who need help, you could refer to 'asylum seekers' or 'refugees', and mention the UK's legal obligations under the '1951 UN Refugee Convention'.
Develop Legal/Political Knowledge: Your argument about values is good, but a top-level answer would also refer to the legal framework. Mentioning the Human Rights Act 1998 or the Supreme Court's rulings on policies like the Rwanda scheme would demonstrate deeper knowledge and strengthen your case.
Avoid Introducing New Arguments in the Conclusion: Your conclusion raised a new point about 'Britain's core values'. A conclusion should synthesise and weigh the arguments you've *already made* in the main body of your essay to reinforce your final judgement, rather than introducing new information.
Refine Phrasing for Precision: Some phrases like 'huge amount' or 'taking all the jobs' could be more academic. Try rephrasing to something like 'significant number' or 'concerns about competition in the labour market'. This makes your analysis sound more formal and precise.

Candidate 97128

Word Count: ~202 words

Strengths

Two-Sided Structure: You correctly addressed both sides of the argument. Using "However" to switch between viewpoints is a great way to show the examiner you are building a balanced answer.
Developed 'Agree' Point: Your argument about the pressure on public services was well-explained. You gave specific examples (schools, hospitals) and developed a chain of reasoning by linking this pressure to strikes and infrastructure costs.

Targets

Use Specific Knowledge: Your arguments are very general. To reach the higher levels, you need to include specific evidence. For example, when arguing against turning people away, you could mention the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998.
Develop 'Disagree' Arguments: Your points for your own view were quite brief (e.g., "anyone has the right to stay"). Explain these points in more detail. *Why* do they have this right? Is it based on a law? A moral principle?
Write a Weighed Conclusion: Your conclusion restated your opinion. A top-level conclusion should briefly acknowledge the opposing view and then explain *why* your own view is more convincing (e.g., "Although public services are a concern, this is outweighed by the UK's legal duties...").
Improve Clarity: Your third paragraph was confusing and difficult to understand. Always re-read your work to make sure your sentences are clear and make logical sense.

Candidate 98607

Word Count: ~388 words

I Partly disagree as the uk goverment has a duty to protect and ensure everything runs smoothly however there are some reasons.

One point that agrees with this statement would be brexit. This is because Brexit drove Immigrants out of the country. The Also made immigrants not want to come to the uk as a result of this there was a decrease on strawberry pickers as it was one of the most common jobs done by Immigrants. Another point would be that if the goverment doesn't central immigration they may struggle in other areas for example langue which will effect simple conversations and Also means that more jobs would have to open up. This would be a problem for the goverment As they will have to put more funding in places that should not require it.

However, A counter argument would be that if immigration is controled then it will be sure of unity an diversity. This is a key factor as if no immigrant come to the uk there will be no mix which may make people feel alone and not have a sence of belonging. This would be a problem as if they feel unwelcomed they will feel the urge to leave and emmigrate. Also if immigration is controled then the community will have no sence of individuality as everyone will have similar ideas and prespects on different topics which is a problem as if you share similar ideas then you will not be open to trying new stuff or having different view points.

Although, on the other hand if Immigration is controled it Allows the uk to have a better understanding of it's country as it will be smaller and there is a common similarity. This is a good thing as it helps the goverment and any decisions on Budgets or new proposals.

Another point would be that if immigration is controled then the uk Budget would be low and there would be no income or no profit made as the country lacks more people. This would make the goverment struggle with budgeting decisions.

Finally one last point would be that if immigration is not controled then it Allows more opportunity and allows us to invite people to fill certain gaps in the labour force or in general as they may have specific qualifications or training.

overall I partly disagree as the governt realie on immigrant however sometime it could cause more issues. However there are some strong points that agree with this statement that I belive in.

Strengths

Balanced Structure: You have successfully structured your essay to consider arguments both for and against the statement. This is essential for reaching the higher levels.
Identifies Key Themes: You correctly identify important themes in the immigration debate, such as the impact on the economy (labour shortages, budgets) and society (diversity, language).
Attempts Judgement: You start and end your essay with a clear judgement ('partly disagree'), showing you understand the need to evaluate and weigh up the arguments.

Targets

Use Specific Evidence: Your points are currently too general. To make them more convincing, include specific examples. For instance, when discussing the UK's duty to help, you could mention its legal obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998.
Develop Your Points (PEEL): Use the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link (PEEL) structure for your paragraphs. After making a point (e.g., immigration affects the budget), provide an example, explain *how* it has that effect, and link it back to the question.
Avoid Contradictions: You argued that controlling immigration helps the government with budgets, but later argued it would lower the budget. Be careful that your arguments are consistent. Plan your points beforehand to ensure they build a clear, logical case.
Refine Your Conclusion: Your conclusion restates that there are good points on both sides. A stronger conclusion would weigh these points against each other. For example: "Although controlling immigration may seem necessary to manage public services, the economic and moral arguments for accepting those in need are more compelling because..."

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

1. Lack of Specific Knowledge & Evidence: The most common weakness was making general arguments without supporting them with specific laws, conventions, policies, or factual examples. Top-level answers must be grounded in precise, relevant evidence.
👉 Model: For example, the UK is bound by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which defines a child as anyone under 18, influencing how the youth justice system treats young offenders.
2. Undeveloped Arguments (PEEL): Many students stated a point but failed to explain it in sufficient detail. They needed to develop the 'Explain' part of their paragraphs by showing the consequences or impact of their point, and then 'Link' it back to the question.
👉 Model: Lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 12 would mean more young people enter the criminal justice system; this is significant because a criminal record can create lifelong barriers to employment and education, potentially leading to a cycle of reoffending.
3. Imprecise Subject Terminology: Students often used vague or colloquial language (e.g., "people who need help," "bad for the economy") instead of the precise Citizenship vocabulary required for a high-level response (e.g., 'asylum seekers,' 'negative fiscal impact').
👉 Model: Instead of saying 'kids who do bad things', a stronger answer would refer to the legal concept of 'doli incapax', which is the presumption that a child under a certain age is incapable of forming criminal intent.
4. Weak or Missing Judgement: A large number of essays either had no conclusion or a conclusion that simply restated an opinion. A strong judgement must explicitly weigh up the arguments from both sides and explain *why* one side is more convincing than the other.
👉 Model: On balance, while holding young people accountable is important, the argument for maintaining the current age of responsibility is more compelling because neuroscientific evidence suggests the adolescent brain is not fully developed, meaning their capacity for judgement is fundamentally different from an adult's.

Teacher Next Steps

1. Knowledge Drill: "Law Link-Up": Give students mini-whiteboards. Present a series of arguments from the essay (e.g., "The UK has a legal duty to protect those fleeing war."). Students have 60 seconds to write down the specific law or convention that supports this argument (e.g., "1951 UN Refugee Convention"). Repeat for 4-5 key arguments covering both sides of the debate.
2. Explanation Drill: "Explain the Chain": Provide students with a simple 'Point' from an essay (e.g., "Uncontrolled immigration puts a strain on public services."). In pairs, they must complete a 'causal chain' on a worksheet: "This happens because... (Explain) which leads to... (Explain) and therefore supports the argument that... (Link)". Model one example, then have students complete two more.
3. Terminology Drill: "Vocabulary Upgrade": Project a short, generic paragraph from a weak essay onto the board. In pairs, students have 5 minutes to rewrite it, "upgrading" at least five vague phrases (e.g., "people coming in," "costs a lot of money") with precise Citizenship terminology (e.g., 'net migration,' 'places a burden on the Exchequer'). Share the best examples with the class.
4. Judgement Drill: "The Weighing Scales": Draw a large set of balancing scales on the board. List the main 'For' arguments on one side and 'Against' on the other. As a class, discuss which arguments are 'heavier' or more significant and why. Then, model how to turn this into a concluding sentence using the structure: "Although [weaker argument] is a valid concern, the [stronger argument] is more significant because... Therefore..."

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 10629

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 16079

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 1678

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 19678

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 19726

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 20967

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 26817

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 2687

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 28691

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 60982

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 67801

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 67892

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 68170

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate a7128

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 71689

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 72916

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 76921

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 78962

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 79180

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 82790

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 86120

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 90128

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 91708

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 91826

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 97128

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 98607

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

Teacher Next Steps