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 0279

Word Count: ~49 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a direct and unambiguous answer to the question ("I agree..."). This immediately shows the examiner your line of argument and is a feature of high-level responses.
Relevant Knowledge: You correctly identify a key argument in the immigration debate – the impact on "public services and housing capacity". This demonstrates good subject knowledge.

Targets

Develop Both Sides: In your next timed essay, you must present the counter-argument. An essay that only looks at one side of a "How far do you agree?" question is limited to Level 2 (a maximum of 7 marks).
Explain Your Points (PEEL): For each point you make, try to add an 'explanation' sentence. For example, after mentioning public services, explain *why* they come under pressure. This turns a simple point into a developed argument.
Use Specific Keywords: To strengthen your arguments, try to include specific legal or political concepts. For the 'against' side, you could have mentioned the UK's legal duties under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998.
Structure with a Counter-Argument: A powerful technique is to introduce the other side of the debate with a phrase like "However, others would argue that..." or "On the other hand...". This signals to the examiner that you are evaluating.

Candidate 0283

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You successfully argued both for and against the statement. This is a key skill for "how far do you agree" questions and is essential for getting into the higher mark bands.
Use of Economic Concepts: You used relevant economic ideas like 'skill gaps', 'taxes', and 'state pensions' to support your points. This shows good subject knowledge.
Clear Judgement: You started your essay with a clear, evaluative phrase ("I agree to an extent"). This immediately tells the examiner you understand the need to weigh up the arguments.

Targets

Signposting Your Argument: In your next timed essay, use phrases like "One argument for..." and "However, an argument against..." to make the structure of your answer crystal clear. This helps avoid confusion, like in your second paragraph.
Developing Legal Knowledge: You mentioned "international law". Next time, try to name the specific law, like the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. This adds precision and authority to your point.
Connecting Points to the Question: For each point you make, double-check that it directly answers the question. For example, when you say immigrants are valuable, explicitly state "...therefore, the government should *not* turn people away, which challenges the statement."

Candidate 0417

Word Count: ~180 words

I agree with this view because looking at the government's perspective they are forced to turn away people due to the growing numbers of immigrants coming to the country for better pay and better living standards. Not just that but also looking at the people's perspective is that some are anxious to immigrants coming to the country due to some breaking laws and committing such crimes to people that it had caused people being against immigrants due to immigrants not being an abiding migrant. However I also agree on what Morrissey had said that due to the issue of immigration that the UK have that when you travel to germany for instance that the country and people still have their german identity unlike the UK that when you travel to england you'll hear every accent except from an english accent which could suggests that England is slowly losing its identity as a english country and also due to the country being a diverse as well accepting diverse cultures and widens our experiences such as other types of foods and clothes and as well as entertainment. Although the variety of cultures that the UK has, many people want to come to the UK because due to having shortage of jobs such as health care workers and welders as well. immigrants can also help fill jobs that are in need of more workers and skills gap to fill in that gap. However I also disagree because due to unemployment may rise up and when that happens there is a high chance that many immigrants could be left out in the country with no jobs or also another issue that the government people facing is with people who come to the country with no proper documentation and still be able to go in the country as a illegal immigrant and still be able to live and work. although that in that case to look at the people who got turned away in their perspective we could also say that people come to the country for malicious intent on part of a gang or crime. In my conclusion is that even with the people with proper documentation they could still get turned away due to the rising numbers of immigrants in the country because the government have need to balance of amount of workers that the occupation can only exceed to because although you are heavily prepare or not there is little chance you are granted a visa to be able to work and live in the country due to the rising numbers we unemploy ment or demand and the right needed skills for the job.

Strengths

Excellent Range of Arguments: You covered a fantastic breadth of points in a short time, including economic factors (skills gaps, unemployment), social issues (crime, national identity), and cultural benefits (diversity). This shows strong knowledge.
Clear Evaluative Structure: You consistently used phrases like "However," "Although," and "I also disagree" to signpost your analysis and show the examiner you were weighing up both sides of the debate.
Use of Own Knowledge: Referencing a specific viewpoint (even an unusual one like Morrissey's) to discuss national identity is a great way to bring specific evidence into your answer.

Targets

Use Specific Legal/Political Terms: Next time, try to name a specific law or convention. For example, when discussing people needing help, you could mention the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998. This adds authority to your points.
Structure with P.E.E.L: To make your points even clearer under pressure, try a quick Point-Evidence-Explain structure. For example: (P) Uncontrolled immigration can strain the NHS. (E) This is because more people need access to doctors and hospitals. (Ex) This means the government has a duty to control numbers to protect services for existing citizens.
Signpost Your Judgement Clearly: In your conclusion, start with a really clear sentence that answers the question directly, such as "Overall, I agree to a large extent..." or "On balance, I disagree because...". This immediately tells the examiner your final position.
Link Arguments Directly to the Question: When you make a point, try to explicitly link it back to the "government's duty". For example, instead of just "unemployment may rise up," you could say, "Because unemployment may rise, the government has a duty to control immigration to protect the domestic workforce."

Candidate 04383

Word Count: ~67 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a direct and confident answer to the question ("I completely disagree"). This is excellent as it immediately establishes your line of argument for the examiner.
Relevant Knowledge: You use a valid and important economic argument about immigrants being needed to "fill in the gaps for work". This shows good awareness of the key issues in the immigration debate.

Targets

Develop Both Sides: To move beyond Level 2, your next essay must explore both sides. After your 'disagree' point, try adding a paragraph starting with "On the other hand..." to discuss why a government might feel it must control immigration.
Use Specific Examples: To strengthen your points, try to add a specific example. When you mention filling work gaps, you could name a sector like 'social care' or 'the NHS' which often relies on migrant workers.
Introduce Counter-Arguments: A high-level skill is to acknowledge the other side and then argue against it. For example: "While some argue that immigration strains public services, the tax contributions from working immigrants often help to fund these very services."
Link to Key Concepts: In your next timed essay, try to include a specific Citizenship term. When discussing the duty to help people, you could mention the UK's legal duties under the '1951 UN Refugee Convention'.

Candidate 1234

Word Count: ~102 words

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You built a well-structured argument that looks at both sides of the debate. Using phrases like 'However' and 'On the other hand' clearly showed the examiner you were thinking evaluatively.
Specific Examples: Your point about the pressure on public services was made much stronger by using concrete examples like 'overcrowded schools, longer NHS waiting times and a shortage of housing'. This shows good real-world knowledge.
Clear Judgement: You stated your own opinion clearly ('I believe that...') and supported it with a reason (helping refugees). This is essential for scoring well on 'How far do you agree?' questions.

Targets

Use Legal/Political Terminology: In your next timed essay, try to include one specific piece of legal or political knowledge. For instance, when discussing refugees, you could mention the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998.
Develop Your Points Further: Next time, try adding a 'This shows that...' or 'This means that...' sentence to one of your points. For example, after mentioning pressure on the NHS, you could add: "This means the government must balance its international duties with its duty to protect the welfare of its current citizens."
Add a Concluding Sentence: To secure the highest marks, try to end your essay with a short sentence that directly answers the 'How far do you agree?' part of the question again, summarising your overall view (e.g. "Overall, I agree only to a small extent...").

Candidate 4508

Word Count: ~91 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start your essay with a clear opinion ("I think we should not stop immigration..."), which is a great way to directly answer the question.
Use of Evidence: Your use of specific, relevant examples like refugees from Syria and Ukraine makes your argument about helping those in danger much more convincing.
Developed Reasoning: Your point about cultural diversity is well-explained. You don't just state it's a good thing; you explain *why* by linking it to a more "understanding and respectful" society.

Targets

Develop a Counter-Argument: To move into the higher levels (Level 3+), you must address both sides. In your next timed essay, try to include a paragraph that starts with "However, some would argue that..." and explain a reason *for* controlling immigration.
Use 'Signpost' Language: To make your argument easier for the examiner to follow, try using phrases like "One reason for this is..." or "Furthermore...". These act as signposts for your line of reasoning.
Link to Specific Laws: You mention "human Right" which is great. To add more legal weight, next time try to name a specific law, like the Human Rights Act 1998 or the UN Refugee Convention.

Candidate 3456

Word Count: ~158 words

Strengths

Excellent Use of Evidence: You use precise, recent evidence like the 700,000 net migration figure and named policies (Illegal Migration Act, Rwanda policy) to make your arguments highly convincing.
Clear Two-Sided Structure: You successfully structured your essay to cover both the argument for controlling immigration and the counter-argument for helping those in need. This is crucial for a 'How far do you agree?' question.
Focused Judgement: You state your overall opinion clearly in the very first sentence ("I agree..."). This gives your essay a clear direction from the start.

Targets

Develop a Concluding Paragraph: In your next timed essay, try to save a few minutes to write a short conclusion. It only needs to be 2-3 sentences long, summarising the two sides and then explaining *why* your own view is the most convincing.
Use 'Evaluation Keywords': To make your judgement even clearer in your conclusion, try using phrases like 'On balance...', 'To a greater extent...', or 'Although there is a strong case for..., the most important factor is...'. This signals your evaluation to the examiner.
Link to Citizenship Concepts: Next time, you could strengthen your 'disagree' argument by mentioning a specific law or convention, like the Human Rights Act or the UN Refugee Convention, just as you did with the Illegal Migration Act in your 'agree' paragraph.
Signpost Your Argument: You used "Then again" really well. In your next essay, try using similar 'signposting' phrases to guide the examiner, such as "On the one hand..." and "On the other hand...".

Candidate 4375

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You effectively explore arguments both for and against controlling immigration, which is essential for a high-level answer.
Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the beginning and return to it in the conclusion, showing strong evaluative skills (AO3).
Breadth of Knowledge: You bring in a good range of ideas, from cultural benefits (multiculturalism) and economic factors (jobs, welfare) to security concerns (border control).

Targets

Use Specific Terminology: In your next essay, try to include a specific piece of legal or political vocabulary. For example, when mentioning people fleeing danger, you could name the UN Refugee Convention to show precise knowledge.
Develop Your Points with 'This means that...': After making a point, try adding a sentence starting "This means that..." to explain its importance. For example, after mentioning multiculturalism, you could add: "This means that society becomes more diverse and tolerant."
Link to a UK Law or Policy: To push into the top level, try to connect one of your points to a real UK law or government policy. For example, you could mention the Human Rights Act 1998 when discussing the duty to help people in danger.

Candidate 4388

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Excellent Legal Knowledge: Your reference to the '1951 Refugee Convention' is a high-level piece of specific knowledge. It shows you understand the legal obligations the UK has, which makes your argument much more powerful.
Balanced Argument: You did a great job of structuring your answer to look at both sides. You presented a clear set of points for disagreeing, before moving on to consider the arguments for agreeing. This is essential for a "How far do you agree" question.
Use of Evidence: Mentioning specific examples like "German Jews and Ukraine" was a great way to ground your argument in real-world events. This shows the examiner you can apply your knowledge to support your views.

Targets

Develop Your Points: In your next timed essay, try to add a 'This means that...' or 'The consequence of this is...' sentence after each point. For example, after mentioning strain on housing, you could add: "This means that the government has a duty to existing citizens to manage social housing lists, which can be made more difficult by uncontrolled immigration."
Use More Evaluative Language: To show the examiner you are weighing things up, try using phrases like 'The most significant reason is...', 'A less convincing argument is...', or 'While X is important, Y is more critical because...'. This helps to build your evaluation throughout the essay, not just at the end.
Ensure a Consistent Judgement: Your opening said 'Disagree' but your conclusion said 'somewhat agree'. In your next essay, make sure your final judgement clearly and logically follows from the arguments you have made. A good way to start a conclusion is: "In conclusion, having weighed up both sides, I believe..."

Candidate 4409

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start your essay with a clear line of argument ("I somewhat disagree") and maintain it throughout. This is exactly what examiners look for in a "How far do you agree" question.
Excellent Breadth of Knowledge: You used a fantastic range of distinct arguments to support your view, including cultural (diversity), economic (taxes), and social (filling key jobs like construction) points. This shows you have revised the topic thoroughly.
Effective Evaluation: You successfully argued both sides of the debate, using "However" to pivot to the counter-argument about pressure on public services. This is a key skill for reaching the higher levels.

Targets

Use Specific Terminology: In your next timed essay, try to include a specific piece of legal or political vocabulary. For instance, when discussing people needing help, you could mention the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998 to add legal weight to your points.
Develop the Counter-Argument: You identified a strong counter-argument (pressure on services). Next time, try to develop it with a specific example, just as you did with 'construction' for your own argument. For instance, you could mention "longer NHS waiting lists" or "a shortage of school places".
Signpost Your Conclusion: Even if you're running out of time, starting your final paragraph with a phrase like "On balance," or "Overall," signals your evaluative intent more strongly than just "In conclusion". It shows you are weighing up the arguments you've made.

Candidate 4416

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a direct and unambiguous answer to the question ("I disagree..."). This is fantastic exam technique as it immediately shows the examiner your line of argument.
Range of Arguments: You successfully deployed a variety of arguments to support your case, covering both the economic benefits (filling skill gaps, new businesses) and the social/cultural benefits (diversity, understanding).
Specific Economic Insight: The point about immigrants' "links to their home country" helping local businesses is a really specific and thoughtful piece of analysis that shows developed thinking.

Targets

Develop Both Sides: To move beyond Level 2, you must analyse both sides of the argument. In your next timed essay, aim to write one paragraph explaining the 'agree' position and one paragraph for the 'disagree' position.
Use 'Signposting' Language: To show the examiner you are evaluating, use phrases to introduce the counter-argument. For example: "However, others might argue that..." or "On the other hand, the government has a responsibility to...".
Engage with the Question's Terms: The question specifically mentions "people who genuinely need help". Next time, try to use more specific terms like 'refugees' or 'asylum seekers' and connect your points to the UK's legal duties, such as under the UN Refugee Convention.

Candidate 4423

Word Count: ~354 words

One reason I have for this argument is because uncontrolled immigration can lead to an increase in pressure on national public services like healthcare (NHS), police officers (Metropolitan police) and the fire-fighter service (LFB LFS). This is a negative impact because it prevents UK citizens from accessing essential services as easy as before. However you could argue that national public services is open and applicable for everyone living in the UK. Furthermore, uncontrolled immigration can also cause an increase in unemployment not only for the immigrants but UK citizens as well. It will lead to an increase in homelessness most less notably people because people can't afford essentials and even more pressure on the NHS is poorer people to keep welling sick and can't afford treatment. Finally, uncontrolled immigration can lead to more organised crime and human trafficking/smuggling due to the ease of movement and how simple it is to enter the UK. This has a negative impact on society because it increases stress and may act as a push factor for other people living in the UK decreasing amounts of UK citizens. On the other hand, you could argue that immigration is a good thing because it brings new skills from abroad and also that work contribute to the economy by spending and earning income. For example, most immigrants pay taxes, these taxes go towards growth in the economy and also contribute to state pensions for the unemployed and the elderly. This is a positive impact because the country can have a successful economy, trade ports and the government will be free from debt is everyone continues to pay taxes and shop in the UK. As well as this, immigration brings lots of diversity, culture and the multiculturism and new communities to the UK. This is a positive impact because [Annotation next to bullet points]: which could have opportunities for an increase in crime and which endangers UK citizens. [Page 2] Page 2 multiculturism brings people together, brings new food, skills and new community contribute amongst British citizens whilst expressing new beliefs and sharing it among to others. Finally, immigration brings new energy and innovation to the country which benefits people by connecting with new communities. This is a positive impact because citizens of the UK can experience new skills, creations and generally having a positive and respectable personality for society.

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You built a clearly structured essay with a distinct paragraph for the 'agree' arguments and another for the 'disagree' arguments. This two-sided approach is crucial for answering 'How far do you agree?' questions.
Breadth of Knowledge: You included an impressive range of relevant points under exam pressure, covering economic impacts (taxes, unemployment), social impacts (public services, crime), and cultural impacts (multiculturalism, new skills).
Developing Points: You often went beyond just stating a point by explaining its impact. For example, you didn't just say 'pressure on the NHS'; you explained this means UK citizens find it harder to access services.

Targets

Add a Concluding Judgement: In your next timed essay, aim to write a short concluding paragraph. It only needs to be 2-3 sentences long, starting with a phrase like 'In conclusion,' or 'On balance,'. This is where you state your final opinion and briefly say which side of the argument you find more convincing.
Use Specific Legal/Political Knowledge: To elevate your analysis, try to include a specific piece of legal or political knowledge. For this topic, you could have mentioned the UK's duties under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the role of the Human Rights Act 1998. Even one specific detail can really impress an examiner.
Use Evaluative Language: Try to weave in more evaluative language throughout your essay. Phrases like 'A more significant argument is...', 'However, the most compelling point is...', or 'While this is a valid concern, it is less important than...' help to show the examiner you are constantly weighing up the arguments, not just listing them.

Candidate 4443

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start with a clear, direct judgement ('I agree to a large extent'), which immediately tells the examiner your line of argument and provides a framework for your essay.
Balanced Structure: You successfully argued both for and against the statement, which is essential for a high-level response. You covered key themes like public services, crime, and legal duties.
Specific Legal Knowledge: Your use of the '1951 refugee convention' is fantastic. Citing specific laws or treaties is a powerful way to support your arguments and demonstrates excellent subject knowledge.

Targets

Use Signposting Language: In your next timed essay, try using 'evaluative' signposting words like 'ultimately', 'fundamentally', or 'on balance' in your opening judgement to make it even more analytical.
Connect Your Points: Next time, try to explicitly link your points back to the question. For example, after mentioning public services, you could add: "...therefore, the government's primary duty must be to its existing citizens, justifying stricter controls."
Develop Legal Points: When you mention the Refugee Convention, a great next step would be to name the legal principle it establishes, like 'non-refoulement' (the duty not to return someone to a place of danger).
Cite Specific Policies: To add more depth to your 'for' argument, you could have mentioned a specific government policy related to controlling immigration, like the 'Rwanda Plan' or the 'Illegal Migration Act'.

Candidate 4465

Word Count: ~199 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You started with a very clear stance ("I disagree with this statement"). This is a vital skill for a "How far do you agree" question and it framed your entire argument effectively.
Use of Legal Knowledge: You correctly identified the 1951 Refugee Convention as a key legal obligation for the UK. Using precise evidence like this is how you access the higher marks for AO3.
Evaluative Structure: Your use of "Contrastingly..." to immediately challenge the 'strain on public services' argument was excellent. This shows you are not just listing points but are actively weighing them against each other, which is the essence of evaluation.

Targets

Broaden Your Evidence: In your next timed essay, try to include one more piece of specific evidence. For this topic, you could have mentioned the Human Rights Act 1998 (especially Article 2 and 3) or the role of the Supreme Court in ruling government immigration policy unlawful.
Use 'Signpost' Language: To make your structure even clearer to the examiner, try using phrases that signpost your argument. For example, "A significant argument against the statement is..." or "However, this viewpoint is challenged by..."
Develop with 'Link-backs': After making a point, try to explicitly link it back to the question's wording. For instance, after mentioning the Refugee Convention, you could add: "...therefore, the government does not have a duty to control immigration in this way, but rather a legal duty to help."

Candidate 4476

Word Count: ~441 words

I strongly disagree with this statement as the UK is obligated to protect refugees, controlling immigration could potentially decrease the economy and it also can cause an increase in extremist groups and create a lack of diversity. However, I understand why others might agree with this statement as it can create a high demand for social services and competition in the economy. As well as the government also are required to manage public services. The main reason why I disagree is if the UK government goes through with it, it would be against the 1951 Refugee Convention. For example, the 1951 Refugee Convention states that the UK is obligated to protect refugees and asylum seekers fleeing persecution. Not only that, it somewhat goes against the human rights act 1998, as they're being denied of their right to life which goes against the article 3 and 30 of the human rights act. Another reason why I disagree is if the government turn away people who are seeking protection and security, our economy could potentially decrease. For example, immigration can be often bring economic migrants into the country, these there are people who wish to improve their living quality. Economic migrants bring a bountiful of benefits such as, filling in shortage areas such as teachers and nurses, having specialist skills in certain sectors and helping the economy grow through taxes, worth, shopping and rent. Lastly, I disagree with the statement because it could potentially cause tensions and increase in extremist groups. For example, if there's a lack of migrants entering the country it could cause intolerance in society as there is a lack of diversity. It could also potentially cause poor social cohesion in the UK and an increase in discrimination which is a legal offence as it goes against the Equality Act 2010. Therefore, I disagree as it would cause or go against a numerous amount of laws and potentially cause the economy to fall as there would no longer be any migrants to fill shortage areas. However, others may agree with this statement because uncontrolled migration can increase demands on housing, the NHS and education. This is because it causes competition for jobs and other social services. It also means that there are more people to account for or there's more people entering the country. For example, the net migration to the UK was around 900,000 in 2023, which caused an increase in demands for public services. To prevent this the government introduced a policy: The Illegal Migration Act 2023 to reduce the number of people entering illegally.

Strengths

Impressive Legal Knowledge: You confidently used multiple, highly relevant pieces of legislation and international conventions (1951 Refugee Convention, HRA 1998, Equality Act 2010) to build a powerful and well-supported argument.
Clear Evaluative Structure: Your essay follows a classic and highly effective "I disagree because... however, others agree because..." structure. This demonstrates strong analytical skills and ensures your answer is balanced.
Use of Specific Evidence: You supported your points with concrete examples (teachers, nurses) and specific own knowledge (the net migration statistic and the Illegal Migration Act 2023). This makes your arguments far more convincing than just making general statements.

Targets

Develop the Counter-Argument: Your 'agree' paragraph is good, but a little shorter than your 'disagree' one. In your next timed essay, try to add one more distinct point to the 'other side' to show even greater balance. For example, you could have mentioned the principle of 'parliamentary sovereignty' – the idea that Parliament has the ultimate right to make laws for the UK, including on immigration.
Signpost Your Judgement Throughout: You have a great judgement in the introduction. In your next essay, try to weave evaluative language into your main paragraphs. Phrases like "The most compelling argument against this is..." or "A less convincing reason for this is..." can keep your own viewpoint clear to the examiner.
Add a Concluding Sentence: We know you run out of time in exams, and you are NOT penalised for a brief conclusion. However, in your next attempt, try to save 30 seconds to write a single sentence at the end. This sentence should weigh up both sides and powerfully restate your final judgement.

Candidate 4481

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly and directly in the opening sentence, which gives your essay immediate focus and makes your line of argument easy for the examiner to follow.
Two-Sided Argument: You successfully presented arguments for your own view (economic benefits) and began to develop the opposing view (pressure on services). This is essential for scoring above Level 2.
Use of Specific Knowledge: Your mention of the 'skilled worker visa' is a fantastic piece of specific knowledge. It shows a deeper understanding of the topic and makes your argument far more convincing than a general statement would.

Targets

Use Evaluative Language: In your next timed essay, try to use more 'weighing up' words. Phrases like "The most significant reason..." or "While there is some pressure on services, the economic benefits are arguably greater because..." help to show the examiner you are evaluating, not just listing points.
Link Back to the Question: After making a point, try to add a short sentence that explicitly links it back to the question's focus on the government's 'duty'. For example, "...this evidence suggests the government's primary duty should be to ensure services are staffed, not to turn away needed workers."
Incorporate Legal/Rights Knowledge: The prompt mentioned international law. For a top-level answer, a brief mention of the UK's duties under the 'UN Refugee Convention' or the 'Human Rights Act' would have added another powerful layer to your argument against turning people away.

Candidate 4500

Word Count: ~157 words

Strengths

Excellent Legal Knowledge: You use specific legal knowledge brilliantly by referencing the '1951 UN refugee Convention'. This is exactly what examiners look for to support an argument.
Clear Judgement: Your essay starts with a very clear and direct judgement ('I agree that...'). This immediately tells the examiner your line of argument and helps structure your response.
Use of Evidence: You support your points with good, relevant examples, such as mentioning refugees from 'Syria or Ukraine', the 'Rwanda Policy', and key worker shortages in the 'NHS'.

Targets

Develop Both Sides: In your next timed essay, try to dedicate a full paragraph to the side of the argument you disagree with. Explain *why* someone might believe the government has a duty to control immigration (e.g., strain on public services, national security) before you explain why you think that view is wrong.
Use 'Evaluation Keywords': To make your evaluation even clearer, try using connecting words that show you are weighing things up. Phrases like 'On the one hand...', 'However, on the other hand...', or 'While some may argue...' can help signpost your analysis of both sides.
Structure with P.E.E.L: For your next essay, focus on using the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link structure for each paragraph. For example, after stating that migrants benefit the economy (Point) and work in the NHS (Evidence), you could Explain *how* this helps everyone by reducing waiting lists and filling vital roles.

Candidate 4502

Word Count: ~61 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start your answer with a clear overall judgement ('In my opinion...'). This immediately tells the examiner your line of argument, which is excellent exam technique for a 'how far do you agree' question.
Two-Sided Argument: You successfully show the examiner you understand both sides of the debate. You argue for government control but then use 'however' to introduce the counter-argument about protecting people fleeing war. This is the essential skill for AO3.

Targets

Use Specific Terminology: In your next timed essay, try to include one or two specific key terms. For example, instead of 'fleeing... due to wars', you could use terms like 'asylum seeker' or 'refugee'. This shows the examiner your precise subject knowledge.
Develop Your Points (P.E.E.L): Next time, aim to develop one of your points further. After making a Point (P), try to Explain (E) *why* it's important. For example, *why* does the government need to find housing? (e.g., "to avoid putting too much strain on public services like the NHS and schools").
Refer to a Law or Convention: To reach the higher levels, try to link one of your arguments to a specific law or international agreement. For immigration, you could mention the Human Rights Act 1998 or the UN Refugee Convention. This provides powerful evidence for your argument.

Candidate 4505

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a direct and confident judgement ("I strongly agree"). This immediately tells the examiner your position and sets up your essay perfectly.
Specific Knowledge: Your use of precise examples like "visa limits and salary thresholds" is excellent. This demonstrates strong subject knowledge beyond just general ideas.
Logical Reasoning: You build a clear chain of reasoning, connecting high immigration to increased demand for housing and then to higher rents. This is a well-explained and persuasive point.

Targets

Develop Both Sides: To reach Level 3 (8+ marks), you must address both sides of the argument. In your next timed essay, after making your first point, start a new paragraph with "However, on the other hand..." to introduce the opposing view.
Use Legal/Political Concepts: To add more weight to the counter-argument, try to name a specific law or convention. For this question, mentioning the '1951 UN Refugee Convention' or the 'Human Rights Act 1998' would have been a powerful way to show deeper knowledge.
Structure for Balance: For your next "How far do you agree?" essay, plan a simple three-paragraph structure: 1) Your main argument, 2) The opposing argument, 3) A conclusion where you decide which is stronger and why. This structure guarantees a balanced answer.

Candidate 4539

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Excellent Legal Knowledge: You start your essay with a direct reference to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Using precise legal or political knowledge like this is a high-level skill that immediately impresses examiners.
Balanced Argument: You effectively argue both for and against the statement, considering the humanitarian duties of the UK alongside the practical pressures on public services. This demonstrates strong analytical skills.
Clear Judgement: Your opening sentence, "I disagree to an extent...", establishes a clear and nuanced judgement. This is exactly what examiners look for in a top-level response to a 'How far do you agree?' question.

Targets

Develop Your Points (PEEL): In your next timed essay, for each point you make, try to add one more sentence of explanation. For example, after mentioning 'pressure on schools', you could add '...as an influx of new students may lead to larger class sizes and a need for more resources.' This is the 'Explain' part of PEEL.
Signpost Your Argument: Be careful with your phrasing. In your second paragraph, you wrote 'One reason why I disagree...' but the point about people trafficking is actually a reason *for* controlling borders. In future, pause to check that the point you're making directly supports the side you say it does.
Use Evaluative Language: To strengthen your evaluation, try using more comparative language. Phrases like 'The most significant reason...', 'However, a more compelling argument is...', or 'While the pressure on services is a valid concern, it is outweighed by our legal obligations...' can help you weigh up the arguments more explicitly.

Candidate 4564

Word Count: ~88 words

Strengths

Clear Two-Sided Structure: You effectively present arguments for and against the statement ("cope with numbers" vs. "help refugees"). This is crucial for a "How far do you agree?" question.
Explicit Judgement: You clearly state your own opinion with the phrase "I believe...", which shows the examiner you are evaluating the arguments, not just listing them.
Use of Evidence: You support your point about public services with a specific and relevant example (overcrowded NHS and long waiting times), making your argument more concrete and convincing.

Targets

Introduce Legal Knowledge: In your next timed essay, try to name a relevant law or convention. For example, when mentioning refugees, you could refer to the UK's duties under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
Use Conceptual Language: To add weight to your points, try to use key Citizenship terms. When discussing the government's role, you could use a phrase like "parliamentary sovereignty" to explain their right to control borders.
Develop Both Sides Equally: For your next answer, aim to develop your counter-argument with as much detail as your main argument. For instance, you could explain *why* the UK has a duty to help refugees by mentioning the Human Rights Act 1998.
Signpost Your Conclusion: Even a very brief conclusion can be powerful. Next time, try to end with a concluding phrase like "In conclusion..." or "On balance...", even if you only have time to write one more sentence restating your main judgement.

Candidate 4575

Word Count: ~301 words

disagree Additionally, Another reason why people may disagree is because Migration Migrants has helped helped build the economy by contributing more tax, then they recieve from public services. Futhermore, many migrants may have expertise in many subjects leading to jobs which have insufficient workers be filled by migrants, such as teachers, doctors or lawyers. This shows that migrants can too contribute to the UK's economy. In conclusion, I disagree as migration is beneficial to our country and Economy and it would be against our democracy to go against legislation so the UK must allow migrants because of The 1951 refugee convention On one hand, I agree I disagree because migration allows the UK to grow, improve and become more diverse On one hand, people may agree as migration causes demand on public services such as, and puts pressure on schools and hospitals. When there is demand on public services, more money has to be spent and usually after every taxation year, the chancellor of Exchequer has to borrow money to meet the demands of the public services such as the NHS or education departments. This shows migration causes the government to spend more money on public services agree Another reason why people may disagree is because migration can cause conflict with communities and small areas. This tension can cause communities and areas to collapse and this can cause conflict encourages hate to be going violence and alot of intervention by the police. This shows that not only migration causes conflict, but the conflict causes police to intervene and if it becomes more frequent, demand for money may increase to help fund the police On the other hand, people may disagree as the UK is obligated to protect those seeking protection under the 1951 Refugee convention. This means that refusing to help goes against the legislation and may defy the British democracy. The UK is, Futhermore + the UK has a long history of welcoming those after wars, for example people from the carribean migrated over to help rebuild after WW2. This shows that migration has helped the UK rebuild itself after wars

Strengths

Excellent Knowledge: You used fantastic, specific legal and historical knowledge, such as the 1951 Refugee Convention and the migration of Caribbean people to help rebuild after WW2. This is exactly what examiners look for.
Two-Sided Analysis: You successfully developed arguments on both sides of the debate. You clearly explained reasons for controlling immigration (e.g., pressure on the NHS) and reasons against it (e.g., economic benefits), which is essential for a high-level answer.
Supported Judgement: Your conclusion was clear and directly linked to the arguments you had already made about the economy, democracy, and international law. This turns a simple opinion into a powerful, substantiated evaluation.

Targets

Essay Structure: In your next timed essay, try to plan a simple structure before you start writing: Intro, 2x Agree paragraphs, 2x Disagree paragraphs, Conclusion. This will help your excellent points flow more logically and be easier for the examiner to follow.
Use 'Signposting' Language: To make your evaluation clearer, use phrases that signpost your thinking. For example, start a counter-argument with "However, a more significant reason is..." or "On the other hand, it could be argued that...". This shows the examiner you are actively weighing up the different sides.
Refine Your P.E.E.L. 'Link': You are good at making a point and explaining it ("This shows that..."). To get top marks, add one final sentence that links your paragraph *directly back to the exact wording of the question*. For example, "...therefore, this evidence demonstrates the government's duty to control immigration is vital."

Candidate 4577

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Specific Legal Knowledge: You confidently used specific knowledge like the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the Equality Act 2010. This is a high-level skill that makes your arguments far more convincing.
Clear Two-Sided Structure: Your essay was perfectly structured for this question. You dedicated a paragraph to the 'agree' side and another to the 'disagree' side, making your reasoning clear and balanced.
Good Breadth of Arguments: You didn't just stick to one idea. You explored the issue from multiple angles, including pressure on services, national security, human rights, economic benefits, and cultural diversity.

Targets

Develop Points with 'This means that...': In your next timed essay, after making a point (e.g., "increase pressure on housing"), try adding a sentence starting with "This means that..." to explain the consequence. For example, "...this means that waiting lists for social housing could get longer."
Use 'Weighing Up' Language in Conclusions: To make your conclusion even stronger next time, try using a phrase that explicitly weighs up both sides, such as "On balance...", "Although there are strong arguments for...", or "While X is important, Y is more significant because...".
Link Conclusion to Your Strongest Point: In your next essay, try to make your final judgement refer back to the most powerful argument you made. For example, you could have stated that the UK's legal duties under the 1951 Convention were the most important factor, or that the duty to protect public services for existing citizens takes priority.

Candidate 6782

Word Count: ~156 words

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You have built a clearly balanced argument, looking at reasons both for and against controlling immigration. This is essential for scoring well on 'how far do you agree' questions.
Range of Ideas: You included a good range of different impacts, from public safety concerns to positive contributions like skilled doctors and cultural enrichment. This shows you can think about the issue from multiple perspectives.
Clear Judgement: You finished with a clear personal judgement starting with "I think...". Even a brief conclusion shows the examiner you are trying to evaluate, which is a key skill for AO3.

Targets

Use 'PEEL' Structure: In your next timed essay, try using the PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) structure for your main paragraphs. For example, after your point about doctors, you could add evidence like 'the NHS heavily relies on overseas staff to fill vacancies'.
Add Specific Keywords: To boost your analysis, try to include specific Citizenship keywords. When discussing the government's duty, you could mention concepts like 'national security', 'public services' or 'economic benefits'.
Develop Your Judgement: In your conclusion, aim to weigh up the two sides you have presented. Use phrases like "Although there are concerns about..., the benefits of... are greater because..." to show the examiner you are making a supported final judgement.

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

1. Vague Arguments & Lack of Specific Knowledge: Many students made general points about "laws" or "rights" without naming specific conventions, acts, or key terms (e.g., 1951 UN Refugee Convention, Human Rights Act 1998). This keeps arguments in the lower levels as they lack authority and precision.
👉 Model: For instance, the age of criminal responsibility in England is set at 10 by the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, which is low compared to many other European nations.
2. Undeveloped Points (The 'So What?' Test): Students often stated a point without explaining its significance or consequence. They failed to add a second sentence to explain *why* their point was important, often missing the 'Explain' and 'Link' parts of P.E.E.L.
👉 Model: Having different legal ages for different activities can be confusing; this means that a 16-year-old may not be fully aware that while they can consent to medical treatment, they cannot legally buy a lottery ticket.
3. One-Sided Arguments: A significant number of essays only explored one side of the debate. For a "How far do you agree?" question, failing to present and evaluate a counter-argument limits the response to a maximum of Level 2 (7/15 marks).
👉 Model: While some argue that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to protect vulnerable children, others would contend that this fails to hold young people accountable for serious offences and does not act as a sufficient deterrent.
4. Weak Signposting & Evaluation: Many students listed points without using connective or evaluative language to guide the examiner. Phrases like "However," "On the other hand," or "The most significant reason is..." were underused, making the line of reasoning and the final judgement less clear.
👉 Model: On balance, although the principle of protecting childhood is important, the most compelling argument is that the age of criminal responsibility must be high enough to allow for genuine cognitive development and understanding of consequences.

Teacher Next Steps

1. Knowledge Grenade: Give students a general statement on the board, e.g., "The government has a duty to help refugees." In pairs, they have 3 minutes to 'throw' as many specific keywords, laws, or concepts at it as possible (e.g., 1951 UN Refugee Convention, Human Rights Act 1998, non-refoulement, asylum seeker). The pair with the most relevant terms wins. Spend 5 minutes discussing how these terms make an argument more precise.
2. 'This Means That...' Chain: Teacher writes a simple point on the board (e.g., "Uncontrolled immigration can put pressure on the NHS."). The first student must add a sentence beginning "This means that..." (e.g., "...this means that waiting lists for appointments might get longer."). The next student adds another "This means that..." to develop the chain of consequences. Run this for 3-4 different points to drill the development of arguments.
3. Argument Tennis: Split the class in half. Put the essay question in the middle of the board. One side 'serves' a point agreeing with the statement. The other side must immediately 'return' a counter-point disagreeing with it. Go back and forth for 5 minutes. This is a fast-paced drill to practise generating balanced arguments under pressure.
4. Evaluative Sentence Stems: Provide students with a list of sentence stems on the board (e.g., "On the one hand...", "However, a more significant point is...", "While X is a valid concern, Y is more important because...", "On balance..."). Give them two opposing points from the 'Argument Tennis' activity and ask them to connect them into a single, evaluative paragraph using at least two of the stems. Share the best examples.

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 0279

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 0283

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 0417

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 04383

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 1234

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4508

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 3456

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4375

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4388

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4409

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4416

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4423

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4443

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4465

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4476

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4481

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4500

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4502

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4505

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4539

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4564

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4575

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4577

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 6782

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

Teacher Next Steps