Feedback Focussing on Evaluation — 15 Marker: 'Citizens are always justified in breaking the law if they believe the government is acting undemocratically or ignoring the needs of the people.' How far do you agree?

Model Answer (Exemplar)

Evaluation Score: 15/15

Word Count: ~440 words (400–450 words are typical for a strong 15-mark response — aim for breadth and depth on both sides, and challenge the word 'always')

Precise, evaluative opening — immediately challenges the word 'always' rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing. This signals Level 4 thinking from the first sentence.I disagree to a large extent with this statement. Whilst there are historical examples where breaking the law was morally justified and produced vital democratic progress, the word 'always' makes this claim far too absolute to defend. Deploys specific historical evidence — the Suffragettes. Names the organisation, specific tactics, and the democratic outcome achieved. This is exactly the kind of knowledge that earns Level 4.The strongest argument in favour of law-breaking as a legitimate political tool comes from history. The Suffragettes — members of the Women's Social and Political Union — broke the law repeatedly through window-smashing, arson, and hunger strikes. Without this direct action, the peaceful petitioning of Parliament had failed for decades. Their law-breaking ultimately contributed to women gaining the vote in 1918 and in full by 1928. Similarly, Rosa Parks deliberately broke segregation laws in the United States in 1955, and the resulting Montgomery Bus Boycott helped dismantle institutionalised racial discrimination. These examples demonstrate that when governments ignore the democratic needs of whole sections of society, civil disobedience can be a powerful and justified response. Introduces social contract theory — John Locke. This is excellent conceptual knowledge that directly addresses the philosophical justification for law-breaking and earns credit for own knowledge beyond the source.This view is supported by John Locke's social contract theory, which argues that governments rule by the consent of the governed. If a government consistently ignores the needs of the people and exhausts all democratic channels, citizens may be morally justified in withdrawing their consent — including through law-breaking. Turns to the counter-argument — the rule of law. Names A.V. Dicey and explains why the rule of law matters. This ensures the essay is genuinely two-sided and not capped at Level 2.However, there are powerful arguments against the statement. The rule of law — the principle that everyone, including governments, is subject to and accountable under the law — is the very foundation of democracy. If every citizen could decide which laws to obey based on personal belief, the legal system would collapse. A.V. Dicey identified the rule of law as a cornerstone of the UK constitution, and undermining it risks opening the door to extremist groups claiming that their political grievances also justify violence. Develops the democratic alternatives argument — voting, petitions, judicial review, the Human Rights Act. This shows awareness of the lawful routes that should be exhausted before law-breaking can be justified.Furthermore, in a functioning democracy like the UK, citizens have many lawful tools to hold the government to account: voting in elections, signing petitions, contacting MPs, peaceful protest protected under the Human Rights Act 1998 (Articles 10 and 11), judicial review, and pressure group campaigns. The existence of these mechanisms means law-breaking is rarely the only option available. When Just Stop Oil activists blocked roads and disrupted ordinary commuters, many argued their actions harmed innocent people who had nothing to do with government climate policy — undermining, rather than building, public sympathy for their cause. Well-substantiated concluding judgement — attacks the word 'always', distinguishes between non-violent civil disobedience in extremis and law-breaking as a first resort. Nuanced and well-evidenced. Earns Level 4.In conclusion, I disagree with the statement's use of 'always'. In extreme circumstances — when democratic channels have genuinely been exhausted and the government is systematically ignoring the rights of citizens — non-violent civil disobedience can be justified, as history shows. However, it should be a last resort, not a first response. Law-breaking that endangers or harms innocent people, or that undermines the rule of law without good cause, is not justified. Citizens in a democracy have a duty to use the democratic tools available to them before resorting to breaking the law.

Why this answer earned 15/15 (Level 4):

Immediately challenges the word 'always' — the key evaluative move that separates Level 3 from Level 4 answers on this question
Specific, accurate historical evidence deployed: Suffragettes (WSPU, 1918/1928), Rosa Parks / Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955), Just Stop Oil
Conceptual knowledge used precisely: social contract theory (Locke), rule of law (Dicey), Human Rights Act 1998 Articles 10 & 11, judicial review
Convincing analysis of both sides — for and against arguments developed with equal depth and with evidence on each side
A clear, nuanced, well-substantiated judgement — justifies civil disobedience only as a last resort in extreme circumstances, not 'always'

📋 The Question & Indicative Content

Edexcel GCSE Citizenship Studies | Bridging Theme C (Law & Justice) & Theme B (Democracy at Work) — 15 marks

"Citizens are always justified in breaking the law if they believe the government is acting undemocratically or ignoring the needs of the people."

How far do you agree with this view?
Give reasons for your opinion, showing you have considered other points of view.
In your answer, you could consider: democratic rights and ways citizens can hold the government to account; the purpose of the law and the consequences of civil disobedience.

📌 Indicative Content — arguments you could have used

These are not the only valid points — any well-reasoned argument is creditworthy. The word 'always' is deliberately absolute — the strongest answers challenge it directly.

✅ Arguments FOR the statement (citizens CAN be justified in breaking the law)

Historical precedent: The Suffragettes (WSPU) broke the law and won women the vote. Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement broke segregation laws and achieved racial equality. Gandhi's Satyagraha achieved Indian independence.
Failed democratic channels: When petitions, voting, and MPs are ignored, law-breaking may be the only effective route for citizens to be heard.
Social contract theory (Locke): Governments rule by consent; if they ignore the people, citizens may morally withdraw that consent.
Unjust laws: Some laws are inherently discriminatory (e.g. apartheid). Breaking them is a moral duty, not a crime in any meaningful sense.
Non-violent civil disobedience: Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil — drawing attention to injustice without directly harming others is a legitimate form of political speech.

❌ Arguments AGAINST the statement (law-breaking is NOT always justified)

'Always' is unjustifiable: Even supporters of civil disobedience would not say it is always justified — violent law-breaking is not justified by political grievance.
Rule of law (Dicey): If everyone decides which laws to obey, the legal system collapses. This is the foundation of democracy, not its enemy.
Democratic alternatives exist: Voting, petitions, peaceful protest (HRA 1998, Arts 10 & 11), contacting MPs, judicial review, pressure groups — these must be tried first.
Harm to innocent people: Blocking roads, disrupting ambulances, damaging property harms ordinary citizens who have nothing to do with government policy.
Dangerous precedent: If law-breaking is justified when citizens 'believe' the government is wrong, extremist groups could use the same argument to justify violence.
Courts offer legitimate redress: Judicial review and the Supreme Court allow citizens to challenge unlawful government decisions without breaking the law.

📊 Mark Scheme Level Descriptors

Level	Marks	What it looks like
4	12–15	Convincing and sustained analysis of both sides. Challenges the word 'always'. Strong breadth and depth. Well-substantiated overall judgement.
3	8–11	Analysis of both sides but unsustained. Reasoned arguments present. Judgement given but not consistently supported.
2	4–7	Some analysis but focused mainly on one side. Limited or implicit overall judgement.
1	1–3	Simple/generalised answer. Little analysis. Judgement missing or asserted without support.
0	0	No rewardable material.

Candidate 10629

Word Count: ~245 words

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You have structured your essay well, arguing both for and against the statement. Using 'On the other hand' clearly shows the examiner you are considering different viewpoints.
Strong Evaluative Conclusion: Your final sentence is excellent. You directly challenge the word 'always' by concluding that law-breaking is wrong *except* in certain circumstances. This shows sophisticated evaluative thinking.
Clear Reasoning: You give clear, logical reasons for your points. For example, you explain that law-breaking can cause harm to innocent people and set a bad example, which are core arguments against civil disobedience.

Targets

Use Specific Named Examples: In your next timed essay, try to support each point with a specific named example. For instance, when arguing *for* law-breaking, you could mention the Suffragettes or Rosa Parks to show how civil disobedience has led to positive change.
Deploy Key Terminology: To boost your analysis, try to include relevant Citizenship key terms. When arguing against law-breaking, you could use the concept of the 'rule of law' – the idea that everyone, including the government, is subject to the law.
Explain Democratic Alternatives: You mentioned 'peacefully protesting' which is great. Next time, expand on this. Name other democratic alternatives like contacting an MP, signing a petition, or using judicial review to show that law-breaking is a last resort.
Structure with P.E.E.L: To ensure your points are fully developed, try to use the P.E.E.L (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) structure for a key paragraph. Make your point, back it up with a named example (Evidence), explain *why* it proves your point, and then link it back to the question.

Candidate 10862

Word Count: ~203 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start your essay with a clear point of view ('I slightly agree'). This immediately tells the examiner your line of argument and is a key feature of high-level essays.
Focus on Democratic Principles: You have a good understanding of a key democratic idea: that governments must listen to their citizens. You correctly argue that ignoring or discriminating against people is a failure of government.

Targets

Develop Both Sides (PEEL): In your next timed essay, try to write at least one full paragraph for the 'disagree' side of the argument. Use the PEEL structure (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) to build a counter-argument, for example, by explaining why the 'rule of law' is important.
Use Specific Examples: To make your arguments more convincing, include a specific example. For this question, you could have mentioned the Suffragettes, who broke the law to win the vote, or talked about groups like Extinction Rebellion to make your points concrete.
Challenge the Question: The word 'always' in the question is an absolute. Top-level answers challenge this. Next time you see a word like 'always' or 'never', try to explain why the situation is more complex. For example, 'While sometimes justified, it is not *always* the right thing to do...'
Use Key Terminology: To boost your mark, try to include specific Citizenship key terms. For example, instead of 'people have the right to speak', you could refer to 'Freedom of Expression under the Human Rights Act 1998' or the concept of 'civil disobedience'.

Candidate 16079

Word Count: ~358 words

I mostly disagree with this statement because Laws are set in place to be followed to protect the people and keep order even if the government is not doing there job correctly and are disregarding the due checks and balances people citizens do not have the right to break laws over such a vast reason because that would be disturbing the peace people however I do believe that people do have the right to protest peacefully and hold the government open accountable for there undeliquiet works. The members to the house of commons are voted in by the people because it is a democratic system meaning the people control the country. So some may belive it is justified to break laws inorder to set the government undemocratic actions inorder to give the citizens there freedoms and purposes but in my opinion breaking the law would not solve the issue if it was would just be worse make it worse instead it is you the citizens can vote in a new government if the other one did not follow through with there promises they had in there manifestos or are not listening to the people and are ignoring there needs that is completely ok to do because it is there rights as citizens. No one is directly above the law so a crime is still a crime and the rules still apply to ever one. But the government is there to act as a voice for the people and they are to contact to want to listen to the people or there problems and solve any problem they might have. If the government is being undemocratic that is also breaking the rules and should be seen as a crime because they are ignoring the people and the laws set. That does not mean a citizens should also break the top laws that are also set in the honour democratic system that would just put them in trouble and would solve nothing. In conclusion there is no justification for breaking the law unless it is extremely crucial to of your safety. The government but must stay diplomatic and if they do not listen to the people they should be replaced with a political party voted by the people who will listen to the people to solve or atleast now try to mend the problem. So citizens want to get a message across they can protest hold the government to account and do anything in there power to solve the problem peacefully because although it is there right as citizens to break the law is not accepted for any reason to breaking the law is not not needed.

Strengths

Clear & Consistent Judgement: You started with a clear opinion ("I mostly disagree") and supported it with logical arguments throughout the essay. This created a very persuasive and easy-to-follow answer.
Strong Conceptual Knowledge: You confidently used key citizenship ideas. Your statement that "No one is directly above the law" is a perfect summary of the Rule of Law, a foundational concept for this topic.
Effective Counter-Arguments: You didn't just say law-breaking is wrong; you explained *why* by pointing to effective, lawful alternatives like voting a government out based on its manifesto promises and using peaceful protest.

Targets

Use Specific Examples: Your arguments were conceptually strong, but could be even more powerful with a named example. In your next timed essay, try to link one of your points to a specific case, e.g., "Citizens can protest peacefully, as seen in the marches led by Martin Luther King Jr."
Challenge the Question Directly: You did this well in your conclusion by allowing for an exception. Next time, try signalling this earlier. You could start an essay by saying, 'The word "always" in the statement is too absolute, because while law-breaking is usually unjustified...' This immediately shows the examiner your high-level evaluative skills.
Define a Key Term: To demonstrate deep understanding, briefly define a key term you use. For example, after mentioning the Rule of Law, you could add, "...this is the principle that everyone, from the Prime Minister to the public, is equally subject to the law."
Develop the 'Agree' Side More: You acknowledged the other side of the argument well. To get top marks, you could briefly explain *why* a group might feel forced to break the law. For instance, "The Suffragettes broke the law because, as women, they had no democratic means like voting to make their voices heard."

Candidate 19678

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Structure: You successfully built a two-sided argument, using "However" to move from one perspective to the other. You also began and ended with a clear judgement, which gives your essay focus.
Strong Evaluation of 'Always': Your conclusion was excellent. By directly challenging the word "always", you showed that you understand the nuances of the debate. This is a key skill for earning high marks in evaluation.
Conceptual Understanding: You showed a good grasp of the core concepts, such as the tension between the need for laws to keep people safe and the demand for justice and fairness from the government.

Targets

Use Specific Examples: In your next timed essay, try to support each point with a named example. For instance, when discussing justified law-breaking, you could mention the Suffragettes or the US Civil Rights Movement. Evidence makes your arguments much more powerful.
Deploy Key Terminology: To sound more like an expert, try to use specific Citizenship terms. For example, instead of "laws keep you safe," you could refer to the principle of the 'Rule of Law'.
Explain Lawful Alternatives: When arguing against breaking the law, you can strengthen your case by mentioning the democratic alternatives that exist. For example, you could mention voting, peaceful protest, petitioning, or contacting an MP.

Candidate 19726

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Structure: You've used a classic and effective essay structure: a paragraph for, a paragraph against, and a final judgement. This makes your argument logical and easy for an examiner to follow.
Balanced Argument: Crucially, you addressed both sides of the statement. This is essential for any 'How far do you agree?' question and is something many students forget under pressure.
Direct Judgement: Your conclusion starts with "Overall I disagree...", which is a fantastic way to signal your final judgement clearly and directly answer the question.

Targets

Use Specific Examples: In your next timed essay, try to support each point with a named example. For this question, you could have mentioned the Suffragettes, Rosa Parks, or Extinction Rebellion to make your arguments more convincing.
Introduce Key Concepts: To show off your Citizenship knowledge, try to use key terms. Instead of "laws keep people safe," you could have referred to the "Rule of Law." This signals a deeper understanding.
Challenge the Question: Look for absolute words like 'always' or 'never'. A top-level skill is to argue that the situation is more complex, e.g., "While law-breaking is not *always* justified, in extreme circumstances it might be..."
Develop Your Reasoning: After making a point, try adding a sentence starting with "This is important because..." or "This shows that..." to explain the link back to the question more deeply and develop your chain of reasoning.

Candidate 20967

Word Count: ~24 words

Strengths

Clear Starting Point: You made a clear start by directly addressing the statement in the question. This shows you understood what the essay was asking you to do.
Identified Key Themes: Your opening sentence correctly identifies the core concepts of the debate: civil disobedience, democracy, and government accountability. This is the right foundation to build on.

Targets

Develop One Point First: In your next timed essay, your absolute first priority is to write one complete argument. For example, you could explain *why* citizens might be justified by using a historical case like the Suffragettes, who broke the law to win the vote.
Introduce an Opposing View: To get beyond the lowest marks, you must show the examiner you can see both sides. After your first point, use a phrase like "However, on the other hand..." to introduce a counter-argument, such as the importance of the 'rule of law'.
Aim for a Simple Conclusion: Even a single sentence at the end can secure crucial evaluation marks. Next time, try to finish with "In conclusion, I believe..." and then state which argument you find more persuasive.
Use a Quick Plan: It looks like you may have run out of time. Before you start writing next time, spend just two minutes jotting down: 1) one point 'for', 2) one point 'against', and 3) your final judgement. This structure will help you write much more quickly.

Candidate 28691

Word Count: ~260 words

Strengths

Good Use of Evidence: You use a specific piece of legislation, the Human Rights Act 1998, to support your arguments about voting and basic needs. This is exactly what examiners look for to reward knowledge.
Two-Sided Argument: You successfully argue both for and against the statement. You consider why citizens might be justified (government ignoring needs) and why they might not be (the need to protect the community). This is essential for a high-level evaluation essay.
Clear Judgement: You state your opinion at the beginning and end of the essay. This gives your writing a clear direction and shows the examiner you are directly answering the question.

Targets

Develop Points with Examples: You make a good point about law-breaking harming the community. In your next timed essay, try to add a specific real-world example. For instance, you could mention how Extinction Rebellion protests blocking roads can stop ambulances, which harms innocent people even if the cause is important.
Challenge the Question's Wording: The question uses the absolute word 'always'. A great way to show top-level evaluation is to argue that it's *sometimes* justified, but not *always*. Explain the difference (e.g., peaceful protest vs. violence).
Structure with P.E.E.L.: To make your arguments clearer under pressure, try using the P.E.E.L structure (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link). For example: **(P)** Citizens are not always justified because law-breaking can harm innocent people. **(E)** For example, Just Stop Oil protests have blocked motorways. **(E)** This stops people getting to work or hospital, undermining public support. **(L)** Therefore, even for a good cause, breaking the law is not always the right path.
Write a 'Weighing-Up' Conclusion: Your conclusion stated your opinion. To improve, try to make it a summary that weighs up both sides first. For example: "On the one hand, breaking the law undermines social order. However, on the other hand, history shows it is sometimes necessary for justice. Therefore, I believe it is justified in extreme cases, but not 'always'."

Candidate 60982

Word Count: ~308 words

Strengths

Clear Structure: You've organised your essay into a 'disagree', 'agree', and 'conclusion' format. This logical structure is a great foundation for any timed essay.
Use of a Specific Example: You used a detailed story about drink-driving and the Supreme Court. Using evidence and examples to support your points is a key skill for achieving higher marks.
Attempted a Judgement: You finished with a clear conclusion stating your overall opinion. Many students run out of time to do this, so it's a real positive that you included one.

Targets

Focus on the Question (DEAL): Before you start writing, spend 30 seconds to **D**ecode the question's key terms (like "undemocratically"). Your essay answered "Are you always listened to in court?" rather than the actual question about protesting government actions. Always **L**ink your points back to the question.
Use Relevant Knowledge: The duress example was interesting, but didn't fit the topic of civil disobedience. In your next essay on this topic, try to use examples like the Suffragettes or Rosa Parks, who broke laws specifically to challenge the government.
Develop Your Reasoning: Your 'agree' point was based on 'right of speech'. To develop this, you could build a chain of reasoning. For example: "Citizens might be justified because democratic channels can fail. If petitions are ignored, law-breaking might be the only way to get attention, as seen with groups like Extinction Rebellion."
Challenge the Question's Wording: The question uses the absolute word "always". In your next essay, try to directly challenge this. A top-level conclusion might argue that breaking the law is justified in *some extreme cases*, but not *always*.

Candidate 67012

Word Count: ~262 words

Strengths

Focus on the Question: You did an excellent job of identifying that the word 'always' was the most important part of the statement. Building your argument around challenging this absolute term is a sign of strong evaluative thinking.
Balanced Argument: You successfully argued both for and against the statement, using words like 'however' to move between different viewpoints. This is essential for a "How far do you agree?" question.
Clear Judgement: Your opinion is clear from the first sentence to the last. You state your view in the introduction and support it through your arguments, leading to a consistent and justified conclusion.

Targets

Use Specific Examples: In your next timed essay, try to support your points with named examples. When discussing justified law-breaking, you could mention the Suffragettes' campaign for the vote or Rosa Parks and the US Civil Rights Movement.
Deploy Key Terminology: To add authority to your arguments, try to use precise Citizenship terms. For example, instead of "go to a judge", you could use the term 'Judicial Review'. The idea that the law is to "keep everyone safe" is the core of the 'Rule of Law'.
Develop Reasoning Chains: To push into the top marks, extend your points further. After making a point, ask yourself 'So what?' or 'Why does this matter?'. For example, when you say breaking the law makes things worse, you could add: "...as it can lose public sympathy and give the government an excuse to introduce even harsher laws."

Candidate 67676

Word Count: ~70 words

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You look at both sides of the debate. You start by explaining why laws are important ('maintain peace') and then consider why people might break them ('government are ignoring their needs'). This is essential for a high-level answer.
Use of Evidence: You include a specific, relevant reason why a government might be biased ('bias to those who benefit them e.g. Rich People'). This shows you are thinking like a Citizenship student, using real-world knowledge to support your point.

Targets

Develop with Examples: In your next timed essay, try to add a specific named example to support a point. For instance, when you mention citizens taking things into their own hands, you could have mentioned the Suffragettes or Rosa Parks to make your argument more powerful.
Engage with Key Words: The question uses the word 'always'. Next time, look for absolute words like this and challenge them directly. You could say, "It is not *always* justified, but in some extreme cases it might be..." This shows strong evaluative skill.
Write a Clear Judgement: At the end of your answer, try to write a short sentence that sums up your overall opinion. For example: "In conclusion, I mostly disagree because..." This directly answers the 'How far do you agree?' part of the question.

Candidate 67801

Word Count: ~251 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly in the introduction and maintain this position throughout your essay, which gives your writing a strong sense of direction.
Two-Sided Argument: You successfully built an argument that looked at both sides of the debate. You explained why people *shouldn't* break the law, but also why some people feel they *must*. This is essential for a high-level mark.
Conceptual Links: You used relevant Citizenship concepts like 'democratic rights' and the idea that laws exist to keep people safe. This shows you are connecting your arguments to the course content.

Targets

Use Specific Examples: In your next timed essay, try to use a named historical or current example. Instead of a generic protest blocking an ambulance, you could mention Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil. This adds factual weight to your argument.
Develop Your Reasoning Chains: When you make a point, try to add one more sentence explaining 'how' or 'why'. For example, when you say ignoring school funding has a negative impact, you could add: "...as a less-educated workforce may lead to lower economic growth."
Challenge the Question's Wording: The question uses the word 'always'. Top-level answers often challenge this directly. In your conclusion, you could say something like: "Therefore, while it may be justified in extreme cases, it is not *always* justified..."
Introduce Key Terminology: To elevate your analysis, try to use more specific terms. For example, you could refer to the 'Rule of Law' (the principle that everyone is subject to the law) or 'civil disobedience' (the act of peacefully breaking an unjust law).

Candidate 67892

Word Count: ~330 words

I disagree with this statement as the government is not only there for your saftey, even if it's acting undemocratic. If this was the government is ever rarley acting undemocratically and if they are there are always checks of power, so no one is really who holds all the power and can use it selfishly. You like going to judges and seeing if laws are really being passed fairly, not if the actual law is fair. However Even if the law isn't fair you'd shower be causing havoc in the society as you wouldn't be doing nothing and you'd put yourself in prison. You can meet and raise concerns to your local MPs at surgeries, or you could write them an email but they probably wouldn't respond as they are busy doing other stuff. However, you could as MPs don't get paid. However, you could say that if your local MP isn't in cabinet it would be really hard to get their point across and the ones of other people, as backbenchers aren't really there to bring ideas to for the government and don't go to cabinet meetings. But they could bring it up when they are scrutinizing cabinet and the Prime Minister (every Wednesday). This would be really effective but only if your MP has good oracy because the PM is receiving a lot of critics on the wednesday. The government would rarely act undemocratic aswell because they'd lose a lot of votes the next general election. The government cannot pass contraversial laws even if the house of commons all agree with it because the house of commons would Lords also has to agree on it aswell, and if they don't it'll be sent back and have suggestions placed on it but they can't fully deny it because 'parliament is soverign.' And if your an adult you'll get a criminal record for breaking laws and probably lose your house, jobs and contact with family just for breaking a law (being put in prison). In conclusion, there are plenty of ways you can show your government you don't agree with them.

Strengths

Excellent Political Knowledge: You have a fantastic grasp of how UK democracy works. Mentioning MP surgeries, PMQs, the role of backbenchers, and the House of Lords shows a level of detail that really impresses examiners.
Strong Evaluative Thinking: You don't just list points; you evaluate their effectiveness. For example, you correctly identify that an MP can raise an issue at PMQs, but then cleverly add that its success depends on their "good oracy". This shows you are thinking critically.
Clear Overall Judgement: From your first sentence ("I disagree...") to your last, your own opinion is clear and consistent. This provides a strong, focused argument throughout the essay.

Targets

Address Both Sides: The question asks "How far do you agree?". To score highly, you must explore reasons *for* breaking the law (e.g., Suffragettes, Rosa Parks) as well as reasons against. In your next essay, try to write at least one strong paragraph for the side you disagree with.
Challenge the 'Always': The statement uses the absolute word "always". A top-level answer will directly challenge this. In your next essay, look for absolute words like 'always' or 'never' and explain why the reality is more nuanced.
Use Specific Examples: While your knowledge of Parliament is great, you could strengthen your argument with a specific historical example of civil disobedience, like the Suffragettes or the US Civil Rights movement, to support the 'agree' side of the debate.
Structure with P.E.E.L: To make your points even clearer, try using the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link structure for your paragraphs. This will help ensure every point you make is fully developed and connected back to the question.

Candidate 68170

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start with a clear judgement ('I mostly disagree') and maintain it. This is exactly what examiners look for in an evaluative essay.
Two-Sided Argument: You built a balanced argument, using 'On the other hand' to effectively analyse both why law-breaking might be wrong and why it might be justified. This is essential for reaching Level 3 and above.
Developed Reasoning: You didn't just state points; you explained them. For instance, you explained *why* protesting is a good alternative (draws attention, shows numbers) and *why* law-breaking might be justified (as an 'escalation').

Targets

Deploy Specific Examples: In your next timed essay, try to support each main point with a specific named example. For instance, when arguing that law-breaking can be justified, you could have mentioned the Suffragettes or Rosa Parks to make your argument more convincing.
Use Key Terminology: To push into the top marks, try to include some key Citizenship terms. When discussing alternatives to law-breaking, you could have mentioned the 'rule of law' or rights protected by the 'Human Rights Act 1998'.
Challenge the Question's Wording: The word 'always' in the question is a deliberate trap. In your next essay, try to attack absolute words like this directly. For example: "Therefore, citizens are not *always* justified, as the situation depends on whether all democratic channels have been exhausted first."

Candidate 71689

Word Count: ~64 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a clear and direct answer to the question ("I disagree"). This immediately tells the examiner your line of argument.
Relevant Arguments: You raise important points against breaking the law, such as it being against "morales" and the potential to "harm people". These are central ideas in this debate.

Targets

Develop Both Sides: For "How far do you agree?" questions, you must argue both for AND against the statement to get above a Level 2. In your next timed essay, try to write one paragraph explaining why someone *might* agree, before explaining why you disagree.
Use Specific Examples: To make your arguments stronger, use real-world examples. For this question, you could have mentioned the Suffragettes or Martin Luther King Jr. to show *why* people sometimes break the law, or the disruption caused by Just Stop Oil to show the *harm* it can cause.
Explain Your Points (P.E.E.L): Try to structure your points using the P.E.E.L method (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link). For example: **Point:** Breaking the law is wrong because it undermines the rule of law. **Evidence:** The rule of law means everyone is equal under the law. **Explain:** If people pick and choose which laws to follow, society could become chaotic.
Challenge the Question's Wording: The question uses the word "always". In your next essay, look for absolute words like this. A great way to evaluate is to argue that it's *not always* justified, but it might be in *some* specific, extreme circumstances.

Candidate 72916

Word Count: ~74 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a clear and direct opinion ("I agree with this statement"), which is exactly what an evaluation question asks for.
Use of Concepts: You bring in relevant legal ideas like a person's rights, mental state as a mitigating factor, and the concept of 'duress' (being forced to act). This shows you are thinking like a Citizenship student.

Targets

Focus on the Question (DEAL): The question is about *political protest* against an 'undemocratic' government. In your next essay, try to Decode the question carefully, looking for keywords like 'government' and 'undemocratic', and Ensure All your points Link back to it.
Use Specific Examples: To make your points stronger, use named examples of civil disobedience. For instance, you could mention the Suffragettes who broke laws to win the vote, or Rosa Parks who broke segregation laws.
Build Two Sides: To reach the higher levels, you must argue both for AND against the statement. Next time, try a 'PEEL' paragraph for the 'agree' side (e.g., Suffragettes) and then a 'PEEL' paragraph for the 'disagree' side (e.g., the importance of the Rule of Law).
Challenge 'Always': The question uses the word 'always'. Top-level answers challenge this. In your conclusion next time, you could argue that breaking the law is justified *sometimes* or in *extreme circumstances*, but not 'always'.

Candidate 76921

Word Count: ~200 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the start and end of the essay, arguing that the rule of law is the most important principle. This gives your essay a strong, focused structure.
Two-Sided Argument: You successfully argued both for and against the statement ("On the other hand..."). This is essential for reaching the higher levels in a "How far do you agree?" question.
Use of Key Concepts: You correctly used important Citizenship ideas like the 'rule of law', the role of an MP, and the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship to support your points.

Targets

Deploy Specific Examples: In your next timed essay, try to support each main point with a named example. For instance, when discussing breaking the law for a cause, you could mention the Suffragettes or Rosa Parks to show how it has worked in history.
Develop Your Points Further: Try to add one more sentence to each point you make, explaining 'why' it is important. For example, after mentioning the rule of law, explain *why* it's the foundation of a safe society (e.g., it prevents chaos and protects everyone equally).
Challenge the Question's Wording: Look out for absolute words like 'always' or 'never' in the question. In your next essay, try to directly challenge this word in your conclusion, for example: "While breaking the law is not *always* justified, there might be extreme cases where it is the only option left."
Introduce More Alternatives: You mentioned speaking to an MP, which is great. Next time, try to list a wider range of legal methods citizens can use to challenge the government, such as peaceful protests, joining a pressure group, or using judicial review.

Candidate 78962

Word Count: ~204 words

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You successfully argued both sides of the case ('for' and 'against'). This is crucial for scoring well on a "How far do you agree?" question and is the foundation of a good evaluative essay.
Clear Judgement: You provided a conclusion that weighs the arguments and makes a final, supported decision. Many students run out of time for this, so including one is a real strength.
Use of Concepts: You correctly used key Citizenship ideas like 'human rights' and 'holding the government to account'. This shows the examiner you understand the principles behind the debate.

Targets

Use Specific Examples: In your next timed essay, try to support each main point with a named example. When arguing that law-breaking can be justified, you could mention the Suffragettes, Rosa Parks, or Extinction Rebellion to make your argument more convincing.
Develop Your Reasoning: Try to build a 'reasoning chain'. After making a point (e.g., "crime will be happening all the time"), explain the consequence by asking 'So what?'. For example: "...so crime will increase, which undermines the rule of law, making society less safe and stable for everyone."
Challenge the Question: For top marks, directly tackle absolute words like 'always'. In your conclusion, you could state: "The word 'always' is too strong. Law-breaking is not *always* justified, but it can be in extreme circumstances when all other democratic options have failed."

Candidate 79180

Word Count: ~180 words

I disagree with this statement. The UK government does not ignore the needs of people or act undemocratically without reviewing backlash. This is because there are many services and policies that are there to help you if you ever need it. One reason why I agree with this statement is because the government acknowledges the reasonable punishment and environment to give a child. For instance, when a child is arrested, they are with an appropriate adult. The judges are also the same height level as them, the defendants are acknowledged by their first names and a youth court is not open to the public all to ensure the defendant is not feeling overwhelmed or intimidated. Therefore, one reason why I disagree with this statement is because the government acknowledges the reasonable punishment and environment to give a child if they are arrested. However, one reason why you could disagree with this statement is because the British constitution voting system, mainly First Past the Post and a Coalition government. For example, in 2010 the 2010 general election, many constituencies were either voting the Liberal Democrats or Conservatives. Since, you need a majority to win an election, people there was a hung parliament and the Liberal Democrats forced themselves to do confidence and supply, not being able to keep some of their manifesto promises, such as decreasing tuition fees. Also, constituencies are different sizes, so a constituency with 30,000 people would have the same amount of seats and MPs and as a constituency with 60,000 people. This makes people angry and could lead to illegal violent protests because they weren't being heard by government, or they don't get what they voted, or they have a wasted vote. Therefore, one reason you could disagree with this statement is because of how the UK voting system works. However, in Britain the United Kingdom, you have the human right to freedom of speech. For instance, you can gather a group of people and protest out of Parliament without facing any legal charges. This means your voices can be heard publicly and the government will not arrest you. However if you do breach any of their laws such as the Equality Act 2010 by publicly disregarding one of your nine characteristics, you will be arrested. There are also common laws, as said in the British constitution which are made by judges in court. These judges acknowledge and take into account your side of the story too so it isn't biased. Overall, I agree with this statement. The UK does not ignore the needs of people or act undemocratically without receiving any political backlash because there are many policies, like the British constitution, or services that help you like the Consumer Citizens Advice Bureau, which gives free advise about consumer rights.

Strengths

Excellent Specific Knowledge: You use strong, specific examples to support your points. Referencing the 2010 coalition government and the Liberal Democrats' broken promise on tuition fees is a great way to show how the voting system can feel undemocratic.
Understanding of Rights & Limits: You show a good understanding that rights are not absolute. Explaining that freedom of speech allows protest, but is limited by laws like the Equality Act 2010, demonstrates sophisticated thinking.
Two-Sided Argument: You have successfully developed arguments on both sides of the debate. You present a case for why people might feel justified (FPTP) and several reasons why they are not (youth courts, right to protest, common law).

Targets

Consistent Judgement: In your next timed essay, make sure your final conclusion matches the judgement you make in your introduction. Read your first and last sentences back to yourself to check they align.
Signpost Your Argument: Use clear topic sentences to guide the examiner. For example, instead of "one reason why you could disagree...", you could write "On the other hand, some argue law-breaking is justified because the UK's voting system can be seen as undemocratic."
Engage with the Key Word: The question includes the word 'always'. In your next essay, try to directly challenge this word in your conclusion. For example, "It is not that citizens are *never* justified, but that they are not *always* justified..."
Structure with P.E.E.L: To make your points even stronger, try to structure each paragraph using Point, Evidence, Explain, Link. After giving your evidence (e.g., 2010 election), explain *why* this makes people feel the government is undemocratic and *link* it back to whether this justifies breaking the law.

Candidate 86120

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear & Consistent Judgement: You state your opinion clearly in the first sentence ("I fully agree") and maintain this focus throughout the essay. This creates a very persuasive and easy-to-follow argument.
Effective Use of Evidence: Your use of the American Revolution, including the specific slogan "No taxation without representation" and the Boston Tea Party, is a fantastic way to support your argument with relevant historical knowledge. This is exactly what examiners look for.

Targets

Develop the Counter-Argument: You identified an opposing view but dismissed it very quickly. In your next timed essay, try to explain the counter-argument in a bit more detail (e.g., explaining the importance of the 'rule of law') before you explain why your own view is stronger. This makes your evaluation feel more balanced.
Use Specific Terminology: To push into the highest marks, try to include key Citizenship concepts. For instance, when arguing against law-breaking, you could use the term 'rule of law'. When discussing legal options, you could mention the Human Rights Act 1998 which protects peaceful protest.
Challenge the Question's Wording: The question uses the absolute word 'always'. Top-level answers directly challenge this. A great technique is to write something like: "However, it is unlikely that breaking the law is *always* justified, as the circumstances are very important..." This shows the examiner you are thinking critically about the question itself.

Candidate 89721

Word Count: ~202 words

Strengths

Balanced Structure: You used the "To some extent... To another extent..." framework perfectly. This ensures you analyse both sides of the argument, which is essential for any question asking "How far do you agree?".
Use of Specific Knowledge: You deployed some excellent and precise terminology. Naming "back benchers" as "watch dogs" and, most impressively, identifying "judicial review" as a lawful way to challenge the government shows strong subject knowledge.
Clear Judgement: You provided a clear and direct conclusion that answers the question. Even though it was brief (which is fine in an exam), it left the examiner in no doubt about your final opinion.

Targets

Use Specific Examples: In your next timed essay, try to support each main point with a named example. For instance, when discussing civil disobedience, you could mention the Suffragettes, Martin Luther King Jr., or Extinction Rebellion to make your argument more concrete and convincing.
Challenge the Question's Wording: The question included the absolute word "always". Top-level answers often challenge this directly. Try starting your conclusion with a phrase like: "While it is not 'always' justified, in certain extreme circumstances..." This shows a higher level of evaluation.
Develop Points with PEEL: To add more depth, think about using the PEEL structure for your paragraphs: **P**oint (make your argument), **E**vidence (use a specific example), **E**xplain (say why your evidence supports your point), **L**ink (connect it back to the question).
Strengthen the Conclusion: Your conclusion states your judgement. Next time, try to also briefly explain *why* you reached it by weighing up the two sides. For example: "In conclusion, while civil disobedience has a place, the existence of robust democratic alternatives like judicial review means citizens are rarely justified in breaking the law."

Candidate 90128

Word Count: ~568 words

I agree with this polarising question due to many underlying factors such as upholding checks and balances, following manifesto pledges and not upholding peoples rights bestowed to them through laws and conventions however some may disagree with the statement due to the idea of parliamentary sovereignty and the right govern through their elected mandate. Firstly, some may agree with the statement as if the government were to break or breach a manifesto promise explicitly then it would be in many cases unjustified and people would then be able to protest against the government as in places like north korea laws opress peoples rights and, such as being unable to speak against the totalitarian rule of their leaders which violates people right to freedom of speakth are limited and if they were to go against these unjust rules it would in many eyes not be the people/electorate breaking the law, but the government in general as people have moral rights that must be given to them and by oppressing their rights, in this instance it would be okay to go against executively inhanced laws as in many countries laws should be made by the legislative branch but in cases like Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran this is not the case so it may be argued its the governments who are in the wrong not the people. However, some may disagree with the statement and believe that in reality people should not rise up against governments as this could cause huge politicial, democratic, economic and in some cases also disaster and pain as scene in Iran were people protested against the totalitarian rule of the dictator (Khomeini) which may sound just but caused huge implications as due to people across the word having backlash with the Iranian government, oil passing through the essential straight of hormuz stopped leading to global economic downturn and pain, highlighting the economic pain caused by these uprisings. leading to why some may disagree with the statement. On the other hand some may again agree with the statement due to many underlying factors about manifesto promises and how they may fraudulantly possition themselves as if a government before an election promised not to do something and was very bold about it (especially when it is democratic) and they then do it like in China were chinese students in the Tiananmin Square then it in some eyes should be completely justified as the public voted for in some cases lying and fraud as, like in China (1989 or 1979) in Tiananmin Square students came out on the streets and protested quite passivly against the government but were meet with extreme government/state attacks on them showing wide spread undemocratic action, and by seeing this, some may argue because of this moment people should always be allowed to protest when the government is unlawful and breaks these pledge. Finally some may again disagree with the statement due to the powerful right of parliamentary sovereignty were parliament/government has the power to legislate things proposed by the government without interference being stopped by judges and the wider public helping them carry out the work of a government and deliver, even if something may be in some cases undemocratic as part of a government when elected sent out manifestos outlaying what they would do and also with mandates meaning that to simple break a parliament Act/laws a being produced now would in reality be breaking law and convention as those against the government have a responsibility to read through and choice these government morally upholding and using their right properly hence why some may think this way. In conclusion I agree with the statement due to the ethical, social and economic, ethical unfairness of not upholding people's rights,

Strengths

Impressive Global Knowledge: Your use of specific, well-chosen examples from North Korea, Iran (including the Strait of Hormuz), and China (Tiananmen Square) was outstanding. This showed a wide-ranging understanding of politics beyond the UK curriculum.
Strong Conceptual Understanding: You confidently used key GCSE Citizenship terms like 'manifesto pledges', 'mandate', and 'parliamentary sovereignty'. This allowed you to build sophisticated arguments rather than just giving simple opinions.
Clear, Balanced Structure: You consistently argued both for and against the statement, using linking phrases like "However" and "On the other hand" to guide the examiner. This two-sided approach is essential for achieving high marks in evaluation.

Targets

Challenge the 'Absolutes': The question used the word 'always'. In your next essay, actively look for these absolute words ('always', 'never', 'only') and make them a central part of your evaluation. Argue why the situation is more nuanced and not always so black-and-white.
Incorporate Specific UK Examples: Your global examples were excellent. To add another layer, try to also include a relevant UK-based example of civil disobedience, such as the Suffragettes' campaign for the vote or the actions of modern groups like Just Stop Oil.
Signpost Your Judgement: To make your line of reasoning even clearer, try using evaluative phrases within your paragraphs. For instance, "The most compelling argument against this view is..." or "While parliamentary sovereignty is important, it is less significant than the protection of fundamental human rights because..."
Develop a 'Weighing' Conclusion: Even a short conclusion can be very powerful. In your next timed essay, try to explicitly weigh up the two sides. A simple structure like: "On one hand [summarise the strongest point for], but on the other hand [summarise the strongest point against]. Overall, I believe [your judgement] because..." can be very effective.

Candidate 90128

Word Count: ~325 words

I personally believe that Citizens are not always justified to break the law even if the government is acting undemocratically or ignoring needs of the people (Point A). Point B will be the opposing view that agrees with the original point. A reason why I disagree with this point is because of the law. For example, if the government fails to act democratically, there is no law in the UK allowing people to commit acts of crime because of this. This is because if a party made it so the age to vote would be a higher level to somehow increase yield of votes, this would not allow people to have violent protests as it is against the law so people can be protected. Another reason for Point A is because of what they voted for that is their choice. For example if they voted Conservative and taxes were low there would be no services. But if people asked for higher tax so they can recieve services for free then ignoring it isn't against the law and is in their manifesto which many people should have known about this. They would not be allowed to commit crimes at all as it would make no sense to steal from Conservative supporters or kill them as life is a protected right and stealing is illegal even if it was from a bad party. However some people may argue that sometimes breaking laws would be justified if a government is being completely barbaric. For example they raise taxes sky high with no explanation and then restrict votes for certain people then if you were to murder the PM or have violent protests for the safety of your life and others (because because high tax means no money, and can't vote for a new government with restricted votes is bad so you could be stuck with high tax and not be able to survive off little money). Another reason why someone may side with point B is because of rights to certain laws. For example if the government promised to increase budget of education and they lie to invest in the military then education becomes scarce as schools close then they can protest or refuse to follow certain laws like paying tax as they are wasting the money on guns and they are lying about where money goes. Also because education is a human right in the UK and is required. In conclusion I believe you should not break the law if government's act undemocratically or ignore needs as the public safety matters more than violence to overtake government or anything and even if they ignore peoples needs it might be because of circumstances that limit people

Strengths

Balanced Argument: You built a very clear and well-structured essay, dedicating two paragraphs to each side of the debate. This is essential for scoring highly on a 'How far do you agree?' question.
Strong Evaluative Focus: Your opening sentence immediately challenged the word 'always' in the statement. This shows excellent analytical skill and is exactly what examiners look for in a top-level response.
Use of Citizenship Concepts: You effectively used key ideas like the 'rule of law', party 'manifestos', and 'human rights' to support your points. This adds credibility and depth to your reasoning.

Targets

Incorporate Specific Examples: In your next timed essay, try to include one or two specific, named examples from history or current affairs. For instance, when arguing for breaking the law, you could mention the Suffragettes or Rosa Parks to show how civil disobedience has led to positive change.
Develop Reasoning Chains: To add more depth, try to extend your reasoning with a "This means that..." or "The consequence of this is..." phrase. For example, after stating education is a human right, you could add: "...this means the government is breaking a fundamental agreement with its citizens, which could justify their refusal to cooperate."
Use Key Terminology: You use concepts well. To secure the very top marks, try to name the specific key terms. For example, when discussing justified law-breaking, you could use the term 'civil disobedience' to describe non-violent protest for a political cause.
Refine Extreme Examples: Your point about a 'barbaric' government was good, but the 'murder the PM' example is very extreme. In future, try to focus on more realistic forms of law-breaking (e.g., non-violent protest, tax refusal, blocking roads) to make your argument even more convincing.

Candidate 91708

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start your essay with a very clear judgement ('I dont agree'). This gives your argument a strong sense of direction from the beginning.
Knowledge of Democratic Processes: You show good knowledge of how citizens can challenge the government lawfully by mentioning the role of a local MP in raising issues in the House of Commons. This is a great real-world example.
Logical Reasoning: Your argument that laws are essential for social order (e.g., the law against murder) is logical and well-explained. This shows you understand the core principle of the 'rule of law'.

Targets

Develop a Two-Sided Argument: In your next timed essay, aim to argue for *both* sides of the statement. Even if you strongly disagree, you must explore the opposing view to get above Level 2. Try using a structure like: 'On one hand... However, on the other hand...'
Use Specific Examples: To strengthen your points, try to include a specific named example from history or current affairs. For the 'agree' side, you could mention the Suffragettes, who broke the law to win the vote for women.
Challenge the Question's Wording: The word 'always' in the question is an extreme. Top-level answers often challenge this directly. In your conclusion, you could argue that it's almost never justified, but perhaps in rare, extreme circumstances it might be. This shows nuanced evaluation.
Define Key Terms: At the start, briefly define a key term like 'civil disobedience' (non-violent law-breaking for a political cause) or 'the rule of law' (the idea that everyone is subject to the law). This immediately shows the examiner your conceptual understanding.

Candidate 91826

Word Count: ~313 words

Strengths

Balanced Structure: You developed a clear, two-sided argument. Your essay structure, with one paragraph against and one for, is logical and easy for the examiner to follow.
Evidence-Based Points: You effectively used real-world examples (BLM protests, Nepalese protests) to support your arguments, which is a key skill for AO3.
Clear Final Judgement: You reached a decisive conclusion and, crucially, explained *why* you had reached it by referring back to your arguments. This shows clear evaluative thinking.

Targets

Challenge the Question's Terms: The question uses the absolute word 'always'. In your next essay, look for words like this and challenge them. Argue that the situation is more complex and that law-breaking might be justified *sometimes*, but not *always*.
Introduce Key Concepts: To add analytical depth, try to include a relevant Citizenship concept. For the 'disagree' argument, you could have mentioned that law-breaking undermines the 'Rule of Law', a core principle of democracy.
Broaden Your Evidence: While your contemporary examples are good, including a classic historical case study like the Suffragettes or the US Civil Rights movement would demonstrate a greater breadth of knowledge.
Develop Your Conclusion: Instead of just picking one side, a top-level conclusion weighs the two arguments against each other. For example: "Although law-breaking can cause chaos, this risk is sometimes outweighed by the need to fight severe injustice..."

Candidate 97128

Word Count: ~180 words

Strengths

Two-Sided Argument: You structured your answer with a clear 'for' and 'against' section, using the phrase "However, at the same time..." to pivot. This is exactly what examiners look for in a "How far do you agree?" essay.
Use of Concepts: You brought in the specific concept of 'Parliamentary Sovereignty' to support your argument. Using specialist vocabulary like this strengthens your answer and shows you are thinking like a Citizenship student.
Logical Reasoning: Your arguments against breaking the law were logical and well-explained, covering the danger to the public, the existence of legal alternatives (protests/strikes), and the principle of the Rule of Law.

Targets

Add Specific Examples: In your next timed essay, try to support one or two of your points with a real-world example. When you say law-breaking is the only way to get attention, mentioning the Suffragettes or the US Civil Rights Movement would make your argument much more powerful.
Challenge the Question: High-level answers often directly challenge absolute words in the question. Next time you see 'always', try to address it in your conclusion, e.g., "Therefore, citizens are not *always* justified, but may be in very extreme circumstances."
Add a Concluding Judgement: Your essay ends after presenting the second side of the argument. Even a single sentence to finish would be valuable. In your next essay, try to add a conclusion that states your overall opinion, for example: "On balance, I disagree because the risk to social order is too great."
Balance Your Argument: Your points against breaking the law were more numerous and detailed than your points for it. Next time, try to give a little more detail to the 'for' side to create a more evenly balanced analysis.

Candidate 98607

Word Count: ~350 words

I partly disagree with this statement as you should always follow the rules however sometime there are valid occations.

One Reason why I agree is Because if the Laws and rules arent followed then you can face Severe Punishments Also if the laws arnt followed then I can disrupt order and can change people veiws for example if someone see a burglary or a robbery then they may belive that it better and it alright. This is one reason why I agree.

However one Reason why I disagree is Because in some causes you are at risk and have to commit the crime. This is for example, you are held hostage and could be told to do an act which is illigal you can face less punishment or no punishment at all as you can Reject

Another reason why I agree is because of parliamentary sovigenty is where parliment has full power. Because of parliamentary sovignity it makes it that parliment can make their own decisions and choose. This makes it so that a parliment makes a deation it because they have full control and power over deation making.

One reason why I disagree is Because the purpose of parliment is to look after the public and their best intrest and if they don't do that it could cause them to lose votes in the next election or to become weaker. Due to the fact that a manifesto was not followed and this can also cause large out breaks and contriversial deations being made.

Another reason why I agree with this statement is Because if a manifesto is not done then people may feel that they have the right to go again the Laws this shows the government that they are unhappy and that the party should follow up with their promises.

However one reason why I disagree is Because in some extreme cases some promises made can not happen due to unexpected events that could take priority for example war, financial crisis ect. This makes the promises of the manifesto needing to be paused or changed and this can cause frustration as they are not following what they said however they are putting the peoples intrest first.

Overall I still partly disagree as there is no reason someone should Break the law.

Strengths

Clear Two-Sided Structure: You consistently structured your essay with points for and against the statement. This is exactly what examiners look for in a 'How far do you agree?' question and ensures you can access the higher levels.
Excellent Use of Key Concepts: Your use of 'parliamentary sovereignty' and 'manifesto' was accurate and relevant. Using subject-specific terminology like this demonstrates strong citizenship knowledge and elevates your arguments.
Strong Evaluative Thinking: You immediately identified that the word 'always' was a problem, stating there can be 'valid occations' to break the law. This shows sophisticated thinking and is a key skill for earning top marks in evaluation.

Targets

Use Specific Examples: In your next timed essay, try to support your points with a specific real-world example. For instance, when arguing that breaking the law can be justified, you could have mentioned the Suffragettes or Rosa Parks to make your point even more convincing.
Develop Your Reasoning Chain: Aim to add one more 'because' or 'which means that...' sentence to each point. For example, after saying breaking the law disrupts order, you could add '...which means that essential services could be affected and public safety put at risk, undermining the very purpose of the law.'
Signpost Your Arguments Clearly: You had great arguments, but sometimes you wrote 'I agree' when the point was actually against the statement. In the exam, double-check that the first sentence of your paragraph (your signpost) accurately matches the argument you are making.
Write a 'Weighing Up' Conclusion: Your conclusion was a little brief. Next time, try to start your conclusion with a phrase like 'On balance...' or 'Although there are strong arguments...'. Then, briefly explain *why* you have chosen one side over the other, perhaps referring to your strongest point.

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

1. Lack of Specific Examples: Many arguments were too general. Top-level answers must support points with named historical or contemporary examples to add weight and credibility.
👉 Model: For instance, the Suffragettes felt justified in breaking the law because, as women, they were denied democratic channels like the right to vote to voice their concerns.
2. Failure to Challenge Absolute Terms: The word 'always' is a deliberate feature of the question. Many students failed to challenge this absolute, which is a key evaluative skill showing nuanced understanding.
👉 Model: The word 'always' is too strong; while civil disobedience might be justified in extreme cases like the anti-apartheid struggle, it is not a universally acceptable response to any government policy.
3. Underuse of Subject-Specific Terminology: Essays often used informal language instead of precise Citizenship concepts. Using key terms like 'rule of law' or 'civil disobedience' demonstrates a deeper, more academic understanding.
👉 Model: Unchecked law-breaking, even for a just cause, fundamentally undermines the 'rule of law', which is the core principle that all citizens and the government are equally subject to the law.
4. Undeveloped Argumentation & Evaluation: Many points were stated but not fully explained. A balanced argument requires developing both sides of the debate and reaching a conclusion that weighs the evidence presented.
👉 Model: This shows that while breaking the law can gain media attention for a cause, it risks alienating public support, which is why many pressure groups prefer to use legal methods like judicial review first.

Teacher Next Steps

1. Example Speed-Dating: Give students a list of key arguments from the essay (e.g., 'Justified law-breaking', 'Harm to the public', 'Legal alternatives'). In pairs, they have 60 seconds to name a specific, real-world example for that concept (e.g., Rosa Parks, Just Stop Oil blocking ambulances, the Gina Miller judicial review case). They then rotate partners for a new concept.
2. Kill the Absolute: Put three absolute statements on the board (e.g., "Protest is never effective," "All laws are fair," "Citizens are *always* justified..."). In small groups, students rewrite each sentence to make it more nuanced and accurate, using phrases like 'In some circumstances...', 'While it is often true that...', or 'This is not always the case because...'.
3. Terminology Relay: Divide the class into two teams. Call out a simple definition or a layperson's phrase (e.g., "The idea that everyone is subject to the law," "Peacefully breaking a law you think is unjust"). The first student in each team runs to the board and writes the correct key term ('Rule of Law', 'Civil Disobedience'). The first team with the correct term gets a point.
4. PEEL Deconstruction: Provide the class with a model PEEL paragraph on the topic. In pairs, students must highlight and label the four different parts: Point, Evidence, Explanation, and Link. Then, give them just a Point and Evidence sentence and challenge them to write the 'Explanation' and 'Link' sentences themselves in under 3 minutes.

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 (citizens CAN be justified in breaking the law)

❌ Arguments AGAINST the statement (law-breaking is NOT always justified)

Candidate 10629

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 10862

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 16079

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 19678

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 19726

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 20967

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 28691

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 60982

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 67012

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 67676

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 67801

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 67892

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 68170

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 71689

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 72916

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 76921

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 78962

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 79180

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 86120

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 89721

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 90128

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 90128

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 91708

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 91826

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 97128

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 98607

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

Teacher Next Steps