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 89670

Word Count: ~379 words

I strongly disagree with this statement. Whether or not migration should be controlled for now by the UK government is an argument that has become increasingly more apparent over the years. On one hand, many argue that we need to impose stricter migration laws whilst others believe otherwise. Ultimately, I disagree with this statement due to how stricter control can provide more harm than good. Firstly, it is important to take into account why people may choose to migrate/immigrate to the UK to begin with. One main reason is due to the act of war and/or persecution, which the UK many of these people are highly vulnerable and by turning them away it could place them in serious risk which undermines the moral duty of the United Kingdom to undertake and uphold human rights. Additionally, the 1951 Refugee Convention requires key-like countries such as the UK to protect refugees; at all this shows how but this statement doesn't consider the legalities or the morality behind immigration and control of it. Despite this, the opposition may beg to differ; on one hand, the government has a duty to protect borders and know who is entering the country. Additionally, the government are also elected to prioritise the interest of current citizens while controlling immigration and even turning away people in some instances may have to be done in order to reduce pressure and on housing, the NHS and schools. However, these ideas fail to take into account how migration appears to help and benefit the economy. For work in recent years, many migrants contribute to nearly half of the economy and often take up jobs that otherwise would have been fulfilled such as working in warehouses. Additionally, on top of filling labour shortages and paying tax, migrants are add cultural diversity to help strengthen society which can very blatantly be seen easier on through the Windrush which introduced many people from the Caribbean diaspora. Many people also like to not how strict control may prevent illegal trafficking, however, throughout the years, by allowing asylum seekers to come into the UK, it has effectively reduced their number; by allowing migrants citizenship and protecting them under UK law, this is more effective at reducing trafficking. Exactly. Ultimately, I firmly believe that the government shouldn't aim to turn away immigrants with stricter control but rather try supporting them in order to improve our country. It's clear how time and time again that the UK has managed to maintain a strong country through the migrants that provide for our economy so I believe that the UK government should balance border control with humanitarian responsibility rather than solely control.

Strengths

Excellent Use of Evidence: Your argument was significantly strengthened by specific, relevant knowledge. Citing the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Windrush generation moved your essay from a general discussion to a well-evidenced academic response.
Sustained Judgement: You stated your opinion clearly in the introduction and maintained it all the way to a powerful conclusion. Every paragraph worked to support your overall viewpoint, creating a very coherent and convincing essay.
Strong Evaluative Structure: You showed high-level skill by introducing counter-arguments (like pressure on the NHS) and then immediately challenging them with your own points (like the economic benefits of migration). This technique, called rebuttal, is key to scoring high marks in evaluation.

Targets

Name the Specific Law: You made a great point about the UK's duty to "uphold human rights". In your next timed essay, try to name the specific law, such as the Human Rights Act 1998, to add even more legal precision to your argument.
Deepen the Counter-Argument: You identified the 'pressure on public services' argument well. Next time, try to briefly explain *why* this is a compelling argument for some people (e.g., linking it to government spending priorities or local waiting lists) before you rebut it. This shows the examiner you fully understand the nuance of both sides.
Signpost Your Structure: Your essay flows logically. To make the structure even clearer for an examiner in a hurry, try using more explicit signposting phrases. For example, "A significant argument against the statement is..." or "Conversely, those who support the statement argue that...".

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

1. Lack of Specific Evidence: Students made general points about rights and duties but often failed to name specific laws, international conventions, or real-world examples to substantiate their claims and achieve higher marks.
👉 Model: Furthermore, the UK is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, which legally obligates the government to protect asylum seekers, directly challenging the idea that it can simply turn away those in need.
2. Superficial Counter-Arguments: Many essays presented a counter-argument, such as 'pressure on public services', but dismissed it too quickly without first explaining why it is a valid concern for many citizens, thus missing an opportunity for nuanced evaluation.
👉 Model: Conversely, a compelling argument for immigration control is the perceived strain on public services; for instance, increased demand on the NHS and school places is a legitimate concern for taxpayers who feel that national resources should prioritise existing citizens.
3. Unclear Essay Structure: While arguments were often logical, they lacked clear 'signposting' phrases (e.g., "On the one hand...", "Conversely..."). This makes it harder for an examiner to follow the line of reasoning, especially when marking at pace.
👉 Model: A significant argument supporting the government's duty to control immigration is the principle of national sovereignty, which asserts a nation's right to manage its own borders.
4. Weak Concluding Judgment: Conclusions tended to be simple summaries of points already made, rather than a final, decisive judgment that weighs up the evidence and directly answers the "How far do you agree?" part of the question.
👉 Model: In conclusion, while the government's duty to manage its borders is undeniable, I disagree with the statement to a large extent because its legal and moral obligations under international law, such as the Human Rights Act 1998, must take precedence over purely administrative control.

Teacher Next Steps

1. Law Link-Up Drill: Give students a list of general arguments (e.g., "The UK must help refugees," "The UK can decide who enters"). In pairs, they have 5 minutes to match these arguments to a list of specific laws/conventions (e.g., Human Rights Act 1998, 1951 Refugee Convention, Nationality and Borders Act 2022). Spend the final 5 minutes sharing answers and having students write one "model" sentence using a law correctly.
2. Devil's Advocate Drill: Present the class with a one-sided argument from an essay, e.g., "Controlling immigration is purely a matter of protecting national resources." In pairs, students have 5 minutes to brainstorm the strongest possible reasons *for* this statement, focusing on *why* someone would genuinely believe it. The teacher then cold-calls pairs to explain the 'why' behind the argument, building a more nuanced class understanding before they attempt to rebut it.
3. Signpost Scaffolding: Provide students with a list of jumbled sentences from a model paragraph. Their task is to reorder them into a logical PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) structure. Crucially, provide them with a bank of signposting phrases ("On the one hand...", "A further point is...", "This demonstrates that...") and challenge them to insert at least two into the paragraph to improve its flow and clarity.
4. Judgment Spectrum: Draw a spectrum on the board from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree". Give students three mini-arguments for and against the essay statement. In pairs, they must decide where on the spectrum their final judgment lies. They then have 5 minutes to write a single concluding sentence that starts with "In conclusion, I agree/disagree to a [large/small] extent because..." justifying their position on the line by weighing up the arguments.

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 89670

🛑 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 89670

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

Teacher Next Steps