Feedback Focussing on Evaluation

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 19678

Word Count: ~429 words

I do not agree with this statement at all. However someone may and this is why. The reason I do not agree with this statement is because I personally agree immigrants some what positively contribute to the UK. A way they help is when business owners own shops, markets and businesses in general their target is to draw in as many customers as possible. The many humans that unimmigrated to the country go and buy their products boosting their business and helping them. An another reason I dont agree with the statement is because if we dont help the immigrants who need help it would just be cruel. Imagine if people were migrating to the UK from a war, a governments first instict should be to keep them safe. When they do let them in its up to the citizens of the UK to make them feel welcome instead of assimilated. The reason to this is because everyone deserves equality not to mention in the law we have an "equality act" which means a law that protects specific groups from discrimination. one last reason I dont agree with the statement is because as more immigrants come into the UK not only do they provide econonly but also cultural and socially. A way they can impact culture in the UK is by bringing different ethnictys and religion into the country making the UK more diverse and knowledgall about others cultures. The way immigrants impact socially is that many people who come from a specific group who have very few people may be meet immigrants from the same place as them making people bond more and create healthy communities. One reason a person may agree with this statement is because of funds. Though immigrants do somewhat provide for businesses they also impact on funds for schools and, hospitals and other public facilities. This is because lots of people and children would enter the country meaning more schools or hospitals would need to be built for space and equal treatment towards all people in the UK. The way this affects them is because instead of putting that money into better transport or other services needed they would have to use it to build more facilities which to them would be a waste of money and time. Overall I believe that the government does not need to controll immigration to a certain extent especially if they see some need help in this case should be your main priority

Strengths

Clear Structure & Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the start and end, and you signpost your paragraphs well (e.g., "An another reason...", "One reason a person may agree..."). This makes your argument very easy to follow.
Breadth of Argument: You didn't just give one reason for your view. You explored the economic, moral, and cultural/social benefits of immigration, showing a wide range of thinking on the topic.
Use of Own Knowledge: Your reference to the 'Equality Act' is a great example of applying your Citizenship knowledge. Even if other laws are more specific here, it shows you understand that government actions are limited by laws protecting people's rights.

Targets

Develop Both Sides Evenly: Your argument against the statement was very detailed with three points. Your argument for it had only one main idea (strain on public services). Try to add a second, different reason for the opposing view to create a more balanced analysis. For example, you could discuss the government's duty to maintain national security.
Use Specific Terminology: To make your legal point even stronger, you could name the specific international laws the UK has signed, such as the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This adds precision to your argument.
Deepen Analysis with 'Chains of Reason': You do this well when explaining the impact on public services (more people → need more schools → money diverted from transport). Apply this to your other points. For example: more diversity → people learn about other cultures → this can reduce prejudice and improve community cohesion.
Refine Evaluative Language: In your conclusion, you use the phrase "to a certain extent". Try using other evaluative phrases like "on balance", "the most significant factor is...", or "while X is a valid point, Y is more compelling because..." to show you are weighing up the arguments.

Candidate 26817

Word Count: ~417 words

So first of all IF I'D Say I'D Disagree I would say that immigration, has it reasons. In some cases they race for war. But the government says no. it might put a bad image on him or her. But some immigration has positive effects. If the government allows people to immigrate here this may allow new development in industry. Because the people who immigrate here may find a job and that'll cause the place they work for to be developed, since the employee may have a talent. This also allows new jobs to be open for immigrants. And those jobs can lead to a huge economic benefit. The Economic will rise in means people are coming here since they're taking the jobs they may be good at, it'll allow the industry to have a lot of cash. However, some may disagree to what the government does. The reason for this is because, there is a huge proportion of people coming to this country and this will be terrible. This is because there are some jobs and yes they will take them but it might be full up for the people who need jobs and that will have a deal in the economic benefits in London. And secondly they might cause spaces to be over crowded in London especially the best tourist spots in London. The other things that may be a problem are the laws. This is because laws in every country aren't the same and if refugees or asylum seekers come to this country they wouldn't probably know the law properly. Because of this they might break the law without knowing. But the thing is if they don't go to court the judge will just let them go with a warning. This is because they didn't know the law fully so they should at least have the rights to be let go with a warning. And thirdly, when people immigrate to a country they may receive racism. This is because they are different to them and there's some people who might even dislike them when they just get there. This is a disadvantage to immigration to the UK because people are different in each country so they may receive negative attacks. So in conclusion I agree that the government may control immigration because if the population isn't controlled then people will come to the country and they might break the law without knowing, cause a disease, be over-crowded, cause a problem and finally a damage to the environment such as littering or pollution so I think the immigration must be controlled.

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You've successfully looked at both sides of the argument, discussing the positive economic effects of immigration as well as the potential problems like overcrowding. This is essential for a high-level answer.
Clear Judgement: You end with a clear conclusion that directly answers the question. You state "I agree that the government may control immigration" and support this with a list of reasons, showing you have made a decision.
Use of Own Knowledge: You brought in your own thoughtful ideas, such as immigrants potentially not knowing the law or the risk of racism. This shows you are thinking for yourself about the issue, which is a key skill in Citizenship.

Targets

Use Specific Evidence: Your points are good ideas, but they need support from specific facts, laws, or examples. For instance, when discussing the need to help people, you could mention the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which the UK signed. This adds authority to your argument.
Develop Your Points (PEEL): Try to develop each point further. For example, when you say immigration can "cause the place they work for to be developed," explain *how*. Does it fill skills gaps? Does it lead to more taxes being paid to fund public services? Using the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link structure helps build a more detailed argument.
Use Precise Terminology: Using subject-specific words makes your answer more powerful. Instead of just "immigration," you could distinguish between different types, like 'asylum seekers', 'refugees', and 'economic migrants'. This shows a deeper understanding.
Refine Your Conclusion: Your conclusion lists your reasons, which is good. To make it more evaluative, try to weigh the arguments. For example: "Although the economic benefits of immigration are significant, I believe the government's primary duty to protect public services is more important, which is why immigration must be controlled."

Candidate 90128

Word Count: ~657 words

This Statement can be seen to be very polarising. Some may agree with the statement due to the huge amount of pressure mass uncontrolled immigration has on public services and welfare state, Some may also agree disagree with the statement due to the huge positive outcomes immigration has on society both socially, economically, globally and culturally filling skill gaps. I dissagree with the statement due to the huge global, socio-economic and impacts it could cause. One may dissagree with the statement due to the huge possative impact immigration had on both society, economically and culturally and globally as immigrants drive huge investment, entrepeneurship, economic productivity and growth feuling our economy filling skill-gaps and driving tourism as well as being economically active, however by following the statement huge economic social and global problems could arise as economic resession and trade blocages could occur like in 2019 just before the UK left the EU were EU workers started to emmigrate from bition and the agriculture strawberry system/buisness wass mainly made up by EU workers about 95% almost 80000 people and after they started to leave huge skill gaps shortages and trade blocks began having a huge negative impact on both the consumer and trade agricultially and by not excepting those who so despritly need help we may wish to loose huge economic potential and economically active people stunting growth hence why you may disagree with the statement. Conversely, some may agree with the statement due to the huge mounting pressure over uncontrolled immigration can have as in the year of 2022 2023 706,000 people (net) entered the UK adding significant pressure to public services like the NHS and education as well as the welfare state adding pressure to an already struggeling society and fragile welfare and public services system causing them to be of worse quality and condition. additionally it also adds pressure to our public welfare system as our ever so growing aging population means that more people can get there state pension after retirment meaning that the burden to substain this amount of money falls to the tax payer were they may not be able to pay significantly higher sums of money angering the tax payer causing extreme anger and conflict hens why some may agree with the statement. On the other hand one may again disagree with the statement due to the huge global, political and economic pain as well as logistical and legal pain that may occur as the ECHR and the UN convention obligates the UK to accept those fleeing persecution who are the most volnrable of society and by not doing so the UK may be seen to hipacritically diverge/overturn international law making the UK seem unlaw abiding and untrustworthy leading to the UK being lower investment, trust and tourism in the UK significantly hindering the UK economy additionally it can seen to be unfair to and it is imoral to not except some people fleeing persecution making the UK's trade links at huge risk/strain, additionally buisnessed for migration and by hindering it we may wish to hurt our long term economy acting as a testament to why some may disagree with the statement. Finally, some may again agree with the statement due to the huge negative impact on both the UK's global statues and social cohesion over immigration can have as the UK has a democratic mandate to have controled its boarders and excess uncontrolled immigration can hinder the government politically and globally making the UK seem weak, additionally excess immigration can lead to an unraveling of social cohesion as if people pay more in taxes to fund broken public services and as well as having to wait longer for appointments people get angry causing the mood of the public to be hugely conflicting and angered causing huge anger conflict and dissagreements between different social groups and ultimately enough social cohesion communitites can fall into disrepare. In conclusion I dissagree with the statement due to the huge ethical implications it can have on both the economy, society and globally as well as the huge imorality of not excepting those who need help.

Strengths

Excellent Use of Evidence: You effectively support your points with specific data (706,000 net migration) and real-world examples (EU agricultural workers post-Brexit). This makes your arguments much more convincing.
Sustained Two-Sided Argument: You consistently explore both sides of the debate in depth, dedicating multiple paragraphs to the 'agree' and 'disagree' perspectives. This demonstrates strong analytical skills.
Clear and Consistent Judgement: Your personal viewpoint is stated clearly in the introduction and is woven throughout the essay, leading to a powerful, well-supported conclusion. This is key to reaching the higher levels.

Targets

Name Specific Laws/Treaties: You mention the "ECHR and the UN convention," which is great. To add more authority, try to name the specific treaties, like the '1951 UN Refugee Convention' or the 'European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)'.
Develop Legal Arguments Further: When you mention legal obligations, you could briefly explain a key principle. For example, you could mention the principle of 'non-refoulement' from the UN Refugee Convention, which forbids returning asylum seekers to a country where they would be in danger.
Refine Terminology: Some of your phrasing is a little imprecise (e.g., "global statues," "fall into disrepare"). Focus on using precise Citizenship terminology, such as 'global status' or 'social fragmentation', to make your excellent points even clearer.
Proofread for Clarity: While spelling and grammar are not marked, small errors like "dissagree," "possative," and "buisnessed" can sometimes distract from the strength of your argument. A quick proofread helps your ideas shine.

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

1. Lack of Specific Evidence & Terminology: Many students made general points about laws or groups of people without using precise, subject-specific vocabulary or citing specific conventions to add authority to their arguments.
👉 Model: For instance, 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. Superficial Analysis: Arguments were often stated but not fully developed. Students needed to build 'chains of reason' to explain the impact or consequence of their points, failing to show the examiner why their point was significant.
👉 Model: Setting a low age of criminal responsibility means more children enter the criminal justice system early, which can lead to stigmatisation and a higher likelihood of reoffending, thereby creating long-term costs for society.
3. Weak Evaluation: Conclusions often just summarised the points made in the essay rather than weighing them against each other. To improve, students need to use more sophisticated evaluative language to explain why one argument is more compelling than another and justify their final judgement.
👉 Model: On balance, while the need for accountability is important, the most compelling argument is that a low age of criminal responsibility does more harm than good, as the long-term societal damage caused by criminalising children outweighs the short-term goal of punishment.
4. Imbalanced Argument: Several essays presented a detailed argument for one side of the debate but only offered a brief or underdeveloped counter-argument. This prevents a truly balanced discussion and limits the scope of the analysis.
👉 Model: Conversely, while many campaign groups argue for raising the age of criminal responsibility to protect vulnerable children, a key counter-argument is that this fails to provide justice for victims or deter other young people from committing serious crimes.

Teacher Next Steps

1. Terminology Treasure Hunt: Provide a short, generic paragraph on the topic of immigration. In pairs, students have 5 minutes to 'upgrade' it by inserting at least five specific terms from a provided word bank (e.g., 1951 UN Refugee Convention, ECHR, non-refoulement, economic migrant, skills gap, community cohesion). Share the best examples with the class to model precision.
2. Chain of Reason Relay: Put a simple statement on the board, e.g., "Controlling immigration protects public services." In rows, the first student writes a consequence ("This means... there is less strain on the NHS"). The next student adds to it ("This means... waiting times might fall"). The row with the longest, most logical chain after 5 minutes wins. This drills the 'so what?' process of analysis.
3. Conclusion Grader: Provide students with three anonymous sample conclusions from the essays (one weak summary, one mid-level, one strong and evaluative). In groups, they have 5 minutes to rank them and justify their ranking using a simple mark scheme focusing on 'weighing up arguments' and 'justified judgement'. This helps them deconstruct what an effective evaluation looks like.
4. Argument Tennis: Split the class in two. Give them a new controversial statement, e.g., "The UK has a moral duty to help all refugees." One side 'serves' a 'For' argument. The other side must immediately 'return' with an 'Against' argument. Go back and forth for 5-7 minutes. This is a fast-paced drill to practise generating points for both sides of a debate.

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 19678

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 26817

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 90128

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

Teacher Next Steps

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 19678

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 26817

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 90128

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

Teacher Next Steps