11A/Ci1 Citizenship: 12 Mark Evaluation Feedback (prisoner treatment)

Marking Overview

Total Scripts:
26

Question:
Should prisons make prisoners work? (12 marks)

Marks:
12 marks

Average Grade:
?/12

Success Criteria for a 12-Mark Answer

This guide is based on an analysis of a real student script that scored 12/12. It shows what is needed to reach the top marks.

Length and Structure: Aim for a concise and focused answer of around **300-320 words**. The best answers follow a clear 3 or 4 paragraph structure: an introduction, one or two body paragraphs, and a conclusion.
Start with a Clear Judgement: Your first paragraph must directly answer the question ("Which view do you agree with more?"). State your final judgement clearly and briefly introduce the main reason why.
Evaluate, Don't Just Summarise: The main body of your answer should not just describe what each source says. You must actively **evaluate** by:
- Directly comparing the two arguments and explaining which is stronger or weaker.
- Critiquing the quality of the evidence used (e.g., is it based on **facts and statistics** or just **opinion**?).
- Considering the potential bias or limited perspective of the writers.
Use Your Own Knowledge: To reach the highest marks, you should bring in **one or two specific examples or pieces of factual knowledge** from outside the sources to support your evaluation and strengthen your argument.
Write a Powerful Conclusion: Your final paragraph should not simply repeat your introduction. It should summarise your key evaluative points and provide a final, reasoned justification for why one argument is fundamentally more persuasive than the other.

Source Texts for this Assignment

Sarah Shemkus says YES

UK prisons should copy the example of the US where 88% of inmates participate in productive prison work. Prisoners run laundry rooms and kitchens, transcribe textbooks into Braille and build desks. They can also be found moulding dentures, grinding lenses for glasses, upholstering chairs as well as more skilled and complex work such as computer coding. We need prisons to protect the public but they can do much more. Supporters say the training they offer is essential for preparing prisoners to succeed in life after release. Such training includes improving literacy skills. These programmes produce goods and services that are often sold to outside customers, such as government agencies and schools. Advocates of these programs believe working while in prison can teach inmates technical and also transferable skills. Work keeps prisoners busy and less likely to cause problems inside. Many offenders have never had a legal job. So they need to learn the basics such as showing up on time, listening to a supervisor and working as part of a team. The advantage of this is that prisoners pay back to society and to the individuals they harmed when they committed their crimes. In addition many US states note that prisoners who participate fully in work are less likely to reoffend following release. That is a core aim of prison, to reintegrate them into society.

Helen Brown Coverdale says NO

Making all prisoners work will not make prison work. US work programmes often verge on enslavement, with inmates paid little or no wages. Often the tasks they are given are unmatched to their skills, interests and ambitions. Prisoners at work are often denied the health and safety benefits and protections a civilian job would provide. It is not work in a real context. Work is not the answer to the crisis in the prison system in England and Wales. Work will not solve increases in unrest, riots and escapes. It will not put a stop to prisoner assaults on staff and prisoners, as well as prisoner self-harm and suicide. Almost 100 years ago, Prison Commissioner Alexander Paterson argued that people are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. The purpose of prison is to protect the public, reform and rehabilitate offenders. It also prepares prisoners for life outside prison and to maintain an environment that is safe and secure. We do need prisoners to play a full part in society but forcing them into hard work will not achieve this. We need a wider solution for them not to reoffend. We must not lose sight of prisoners as people, with pasts and presents. They also have families and futures. For them - just as much as victims and society - we must remember how to care.

Select Student to View Marked Work:

Of course. Understood perfectly. The task is to take the provided HTML feedback for the 25 student scripts on the "Prison Work" question and correct **only the inline annotations**, applying the more precise, surgical highlighting method we've established. Everything else (grades, summative feedback, Improved Model Sections, etc.) will remain exactly as it is in the file you provided. I have re-processed the file `All student feedback.txt` and have updated the inline annotations to be more granular and accurate, ensuring strengths are highlighted in green and specific errors are in red. Here is the corrected code for the student feedback sections. --- ```html

Model Answer - Grade: 12/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I agree more with the view from Sarah Shemkus.A clear and decisive introduction that directly answers the question. Although Helen Brown Coverdale raises important ethical questions, Shemkus’s argument is more convincing because it is forward-looking and provides a practical solution to the problem of reoffending, which should be the primary aim of the prison system.

The key difference between the writers is their view on the purpose of prison.This sentence immediately starts evaluating by comparing the two core philosophies. Coverdale, citing Alexander Paterson, argues people are sent to prison "as punishment, not for punishment", suggesting that rehabilitation is the goal. However, her argument that work is like "enslavement" and fails to solve issues like unrest contradicts this, as she offers no alternative method for rehabilitation. Shemkus, on the other hand, sees rehabilitation as an active process. Her view that work teaches "technical and also transferable skills" is powerful because it addresses a key cause of reoffending. As many UK charities for ex-offenders note, a stable job is the single most important factor in preventing a return to crime.This is excellent use of own knowledge to support the source's argument and strengthen the evaluation.

Furthermore, Shemkus provides strong statistical evidence from the US that prisoners who work are "less likely to reoffend", whereas Coverdale’s argument is based more on philosophical principles without providing data.This is another high-level evaluation, critiquing the quality of the evidence presented by each writer, just as the exam exemplar did. While Coverdale’s point that work is not in a "real context" due to a lack of health and safety protections is valid, it is a weaker argument. This is a problem that could be fixed with better regulation, whereas the problem of reoffending, which Shemkus addresses, is far more fundamental. Coverdale's perspective is also limited; she focuses entirely on the prisoner, failing to address the need for prisoners to "pay back to society", as Shemkus notes.This critiques the bias or limited perspective of one of the writers, showing deep critical thinking.

In conclusion, I agree more with Sarah Shemkus. Her argument is more persuasive as it is supported by evidence and provides a practical solution to the most important issue, which is reducing reoffending to protect the public.The conclusion summarises the key evaluative points (evidence, practicality) and explains why one argument is ultimately stronger than the other. While Coverdale’s concerns for prisoner welfare are important, her argument is less complete and fails to address the wider societal need for rehabilitation.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths of this Model Answer

**Concise & Focused:** It is approximately 310 words long, similar to a real exam answer.
**Evaluative Throughout:** It constantly compares the two sources and makes judgements.
**Uses Own Knowledge:** It brings in external facts to support its points.
**Critiques Evidence:** It assesses the *quality* of the arguments (statistics vs. opinion).

🔄 How this answer gets top marks

It moves beyond simple summary to build a coherent and critical argument.
The conclusion is a powerful summary of the evaluation, directly explaining why one source is more convincing than the other.
It demonstrates all the key skills of analysis, comparison, and evaluation required for a Level 4 (10-12 marks) response.

Next Steps: Aim to replicate this style in your own answers. Focus not just on what the sources say, but on which source makes a better, more convincing, or better-supported argument, and explain your reasoning clearly.

Grade: 12/12 marks - A concise, well-structured, and highly evaluative response that uses own knowledge.

4310 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 4/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

In my opinion I strongly agree with Sarah ShemkusGood - you've stated your view clearly. because when she states when prisioners are learning new skills such as turning textbooks into braille and build desks. Prisoners are and should be treated like humans and should be productive instead of just sitting in a cell the whole dayThis is a good point, but it's your own opinion rather than an analysis of what the source says. Try to link your ideas back to the text. and not doing much. When the prisoners get released how are they going to know how to work and learn new skills. Maybe if the prisioners learn skills such as "making dentures, grinding lenses", they can persue it and make actual money out of the hobbys they made in prison so they have a positive side of making prisoners work. This is a reasonable point, but the answer focuses entirely on the arguments from Sarah Shemkus and does not mention Helen Brown Coverdale at all.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You have a clear point of view and have stated who you agree with.
You have used evidence from the source to support your points.
You understand the main arguments made by Sarah Shemkus.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

Your answer is completely one-sided. For a 12-mark question, you MUST analyse arguments from *both* sources.
Much of the answer is your own opinion. You need to focus more on explaining what the sources say.
You are missing a conclusion.

Note: To get more marks, you must show the examiner that you have read and understood the other side of the argument, even if you disagree with it.

Improved Structure:

After you have explained why you agree with Sarah Shemkus, you need to add a paragraph like this:

"However, Helen Brown Coverdale presents a strong counter-argument. She claims that prison work is a form of 'enslavement' because prisoners are given 'little or no wages'. This is a powerful moral argument that questions whether it is right to force people to work without fair pay, regardless of the potential benefits.This shows you can analyse the other side fairly."

Next Steps: Always create a balanced argument. A good rule for a 12-mark question is to dedicate one paragraph to Source A, one paragraph to Source B, and a final paragraph for your conclusion.

Projected Grade: 4/12 - A one-sided answer that fails to engage with the second source.

4234 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 5/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I agree with Sarah ShemkusA clear start stating your view. because people in prision get some sort of distraction to keep them from continuing to do bad things.Good analysis of a key argument. For example, working in the kitchen. If someone used to love cooking before they came imprisioned, then working in the kitchen could make them feel more calm and distracted from making anymore problems. People working in prision could also make them develop new skills they could use when they are realesed. Although I do agree with Helen Brown Coverdale says "because in her veiw it says, 'people are sent to prison as punishment not for punishment'."Excellent - you are now showing balance by bringing in a key philosophical argument from the other source. People still deserve to have some sort of humane lifestyle instead of being kept in prison.This is a good point, but it feels like your own opinion rather than an analysis of the source. Try to link it more closely to what Coverdale says about not losing sight of prisoners as people.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You analyse arguments from both sources and have a clear point of view.
You use your own examples to explain the points, which shows good understanding.
You have identified the crucial philosophical point from Coverdale's argument.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

Your analysis of Coverdale's argument is less developed than your analysis of Shemkus's. You need to explain her other points too (e.g., low pay, enslavement).
You need to add a conclusion that weighs the two arguments and explains why you find Shemkus's more persuasive.

Next Steps: To improve, make sure your analysis of both sources is equally detailed. Then, you need to add a conclusion. For example: "In conclusion, although Coverdale makes an important point about the purpose of punishment, I agree more with Shemkus. This is because her focus on practical skills and distraction is more likely to lead to the rehabilitation of prisoners and a safer society."

Projected Grade: 5/12 - A solid start with good analysis of the main source, but needs more balance and a conclusion.

4150 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 9/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I partially agree with Sarah Shemkus because she says prisoners working in prison can prepare them for actual work after release and decreases the chance that the prisoners will reoffend.A good, clear opening that identifies a key argument from Source A. However what Sarah did not mention is that companies/businesses are less likely to hire people with a criminal record, this decreasing/weakening her argument.Excellent evaluation. You are using your own knowledge of the real world to effectively challenge the argument in the source. This is a high-level skill. I also partially agree with Helen Brown because she says that prisoners should not work as they are normally paid with little to no wage.Good - you are now showing balance by analysing the second source. This point is strong as this does not align with the prisoners rights and can be seen as enslaving the prisoners to work which can lead to prisoner self harm and suicide further strengthening her point.This is a superb piece of analysis. You are explaining the point in your own words and linking it to the wider concept of human rights, showing deep understanding.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You have a brilliant, balanced structure where you analyse and evaluate each source in turn.
Your evaluation is excellent, particularly when using your own knowledge about employers to challenge Source A.
You explain the arguments clearly and show a strong understanding of the issues.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

You have done all the hard work of analysis and evaluation. Now you need a conclusion.
Your conclusion needs to make a final judgement. Based on your points, you seem to find Brown's argument stronger. Your conclusion should explain why her moral argument about rights is more important than Shemkus's practical argument about skills.

Next Steps: This is an excellent foundation. Your conclusion could start: "In conclusion, although Shemkus's aim to reduce reoffending is valid, her argument is fundamentally weakened by the reality that ex-offenders struggle to find work. Therefore, Brown's argument, which focuses on protecting the human rights of prisoners from exploitation, is the more convincing of the two."

Projected Grade: 9/12 - A very strong and evaluative answer that just needs a concluding paragraph to reach the top marks.

4341 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 6/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I agree with Sarah Shemkus that prisons should make prisoners work. This is because as the text says "work keeps prisoners busy and less likely to cause problems"This is a great start. You've stated a clear position and are using evidence from the text well. and also "the training they offer is essential for preparing prisoners to succed in life after release".Good use of quotes. Both of these I completely agree with. Since if you are not kept busy and is in jail for a long time eventually you will get involved with bad business or get into fights due to not being productive. Also if you work in prison you learn new skills to use in the outside world causing employment sectors to increase and prison using their skill for good. I also disagree and side with Helen Brown Coverdale.This phrase is a direct contradiction. You cannot disagree with someone and also 'side with' them. This makes your argument very confusing. This is because from the text it says "work will not solve increases in unrest, riots and escapes", & also "people are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment".You have correctly identified key points from Coverdale's argument, which is a good analytical skill. I completely agreeThis is the main weakness of your answer. Saying you 'completely agree' with Coverdale directly contradicts your introduction, where you supported Shemkus. Your essay must have one clear, consistent argument. since working in prison doesn't change who you are as a person and when you get out you might just do the crime again so working doesnt effectively change any aspect. Also people are sent to prison as punishment so they shouldn't have to endure hard labour and gain nothing but experience since after prison they will have a criminal record and most places of work will decline them so prisoners dont gain nothing by working, it just doubles their punishment.

Note: You are very good at identifying the key points from both sources. The problem is that you agree with both sides, which makes your argument contradictory. You need to show you understand Coverdale's points *without* agreeing with them.

Improved Section:

...You have analysed Sarah Shemkus's points well. Your next paragraph should begin like this:

"However, Helen Brown Coverdale presents a strong counter-argument. She states that 'work will not solve increases in unrest' and, more importantly, that people are sent to prison 'as punishment, not for punishment.' While this is a valid moral point, it is ultimately less convincing than Shemkus's argument because it fails to address the practical problem of how to rehabilitate prisoners to stop them reoffending.This structure allows you to explain Coverdale's argument fairly before explaining why you find it weaker. This creates a consistent and evaluative argument."

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You are very good at analysing the sources and identifying the most important arguments from both writers.
You use quotes from the text effectively to support your points.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

Your overall argument is contradictory. You cannot agree with both writers. You must make a clear judgement about who you agree with *most*.
You need to structure your essay as a debate, where you explain the counter-arguments before explaining why they are weaker than your preferred view.

Next Steps: Plan your argument before you write. Decide on your final judgement first, and then build all of your paragraphs to support that single conclusion. Always present the opposing view as a counter-argument, not as something you also agree with.

Projected Grade: 6/12 - Shows excellent analysis of the sources but is critically undermined by a contradictory argument.

4268 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 9/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I agree with Sarah Shemkus (SS) to an extent.A good academic opening, showing nuance. One reason why is because she states that "training can be essential for preparing prisoners to suceed in life after release".Excellent analysis. You've selected a quote and then clearly explained its meaning in your own words. This point is really strong due to it highlighting that they can recieve training for when they get released which can help them have a less chance of reoffending. however what this statement has not mentioned is that what if their sentence is life in prison with no parole?This is a superb piece of evaluation. You've used your own knowledge to identify a specific group for whom this argument does not apply, thereby exposing its weakness. Conversely Helen Brown (HB) disagrees with SS, partially mainly saying that "prisons can give inmates tasks that do not match their skills or hobbys".Good - you're now moving to analyse the second source effectively. This is a really valid argument. however what it does not state is that they can learn new skills that will make them more versatile.Another excellent evaluative point, this time identifying a weakness in Brown's argument. This shows a very balanced and critical approach. SS later states that prison is to teach inmates skills this is a good point however what it fails to state is that prison is used as punishment.Good direct comparison of the two writers' views on the purpose of prison. HB also states that forcing them into hard work wont achieve this. however what he fails to state is that this will make them not wanna go back to prison.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You have an excellent, clear structure.
Your analysis of both sources is strong and well-supported.
Your evaluation is outstanding. You critically engage with both sources, identifying the limitations of each argument (life sentences for SS, learning new skills for HB). This is a very high-level skill.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

You have all the components of a top-level answer. The only thing missing is a conclusion.
Your conclusion should bring your excellent evaluative points together to make a final, reasoned judgement about which viewpoint is stronger overall, despite the flaws you have identified in both.

Next Steps: You are thinking like a top-level student. Your conclusion could suggest that because both arguments have flaws, neither is perfect. For example: "In conclusion, neither writer presents a flawless case. While Shemkus's practical focus on skills is undermined by the reality of life sentences, Brown's argument about mismatched tasks ignores the potential for prisoners to learn new things. Therefore, a more convincing approach would be a system of voluntary, well-resourced training that treats prisoners with dignity."

Projected Grade: 9/12 - A sophisticated and critical response that is on track for the highest marks.

4290 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 10/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I partially agree with Sarah Shemkus's view on how prisons should make prisoners work due to the fact it could bring more benefits to the outside when they're released so they have the opportunity to find things to do to stop them from reattending.A great opening, stating your position and analysing the core argument of the first source. SS states that training live 'upholstering chairs or more complex work' can help them which is true as these tasks are the basics of handywork which could help in the real world. but she failed to suggest on how people go to prison for different reasons and all that training isn't even benefiting them in any way.This is a fantastic piece of evaluation. You've identified a key weakness in the argument - that it offers a 'one-size-fits-all' solution that might not be suitable for everyone. However Helen Brown (HB) believes that we should'nt make prisoners work due to the fact that prison is punishment and not for punishment which is partially true because even though people are sent to prison it shouldn't violate their human right of having the choice of work.Excellent analysis of the second source, focusing on the philosophical argument about the purpose of prison. She also believes that prison prepares prisoners for life outside prison but she failed to include that after imprisonment it'd be hard to get a job because of the box that asks them if they've been convicted or not.Another brilliant piece of evaluation, using your own knowledge to find a flaw in Coverdale's argument.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You have a clear, balanced structure, analysing both sources.
You show excellent evaluation skills, critiquing both sources with your own knowledge and logic.
You correctly identify and explain the core arguments from both writers.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

This is a very strong foundation. All you need to do is build upon it and add a clear conclusion.
Your conclusion must weigh the two arguments against each other and explain which one you find more persuasive, using the excellent evaluation you've already started.

Next Steps: You have the perfect material for a top-grade conclusion. It could state: "In conclusion, although I agree more with Brown's focus on human rights, the most convincing argument is that neither source offers a perfect solution. Shemkus's training idea is too generic, while Brown fails to acknowledge the real-world barrier of a criminal record. Therefore, a combination of both approaches is likely needed."

Projected Grade: 10/12 - A very strong and evaluative start. Poised for a top mark.

4143 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 7/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I agree with Shemkus because although the prisoners aren't making a substantial amount of money they are still developing and learning new skills to help them when they eventually get released from prison.A clear opening that states your view and begins to analyse the source. I strongly believe that the UK should make prisoners work because 88% of prisoners who work in prison in America are less likely to reoffendGood use of evidence from the text to support your argument. which would ultimately contribute to making many areas much safer. Once these prisoners get released they are more likely to recieve a job despite their criminal record because they learned to how to act in a working environment. I disagree with Coverdale because she says that prison work isn't actually work because of how little these prisoners get payed. I believe that prisoners don't need to get payed alot of money because they already are being provided a place to live and they are given three meals a day for free.This is a good attempt at evaluation where you challenge Coverdale's point with a counter-argument. However, your argument is a bit one-sided. Also if they do work they are less likely to reoffend which could decrease crime.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You have a very clear structure and point of view.
You use evidence from the text to support your points.
You have started to evaluate the arguments by challenging the point you disagree with.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

Your answer is a little one-sided. To get top marks, you must show that you understand the strengths of Coverdale's argument, even if you disagree with it. You dismiss her point about pay too easily.
You are missing a conclusion to summarise your argument.

Note: Your evaluation is a good start. To make it more balanced and sophisticated, you need to acknowledge the strength of the opposing argument before you refute it.

Improved Section:

While Coverdale makes a strong moral point about exploitationThis shows you understand the strength of her argument. when she says prisoners receive little pay, her argument is ultimately less convincing. This is because, as you rightly point out, prisoners' basic living costs are already covered by the state, so any wage is a net benefit.This makes your counter-argument seem more reasonable because you have shown you've considered both sides.

Next Steps: Practice acknowledging the strengths of the argument you disagree with before you explain why you still find it unconvincing. This will make your evaluation much more sophisticated.

Projected Grade: 7/12 - A well-structured answer with some evaluation, but needs more balance.

4118 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 11/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I partially agree with Sarah ShemkusA good start, stating your position. (SS) who says yes because they are more foused to argue that work in prison is "essential to help prisoners succeed in life after release".Good use of a quote to establish the point. This point is a good argument because the transferrable skills that prisoners learn arent just for in prison but instead SS focuses on helping prisoners become better people after release.Excellent analysis - you are explaining the underlying purpose of the argument, showing you understand it deeply. However what makes this point weak is, prisoners who serve life sentences or refuse to work aren't able to participate in such beneficial work.This is outstanding evaluation. You are using your own knowledge to identify a limitation in Shemkus's argument. On the other hand Helen Brown (HB) who says no believes that such work in prison is a "reflction of slavery" because prisoners arent paid any wages.Perfect - you are now showing a balanced approach by analysing the second source. This is a good point because it takes into consideration of peoples human rights and their right to a pay for work. Furthermore HB has quite a strong argument as they take the prisoners humans rights into account whilst also presenting a good counter argument against work through considering prisoner self harm and suicide.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

Your analysis of both sources is excellent and well-supported with quotes.
You show high-level evaluation by using your own knowledge (about life sentences) to critique an argument.
You have a clear, balanced structure that deals with both viewpoints.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

You have created the perfect foundation for a top-mark answer.
Your introduction says you agree with Shemkus, but your analysis of Brown is so strong it seems you might agree with her more. Be clear on your final decision.
To finish, you need a detailed concluding paragraph that weighs the two arguments against each other and explains why one is ultimately more convincing to you.

Next Steps: This is an exemplary start. Your conclusion should summarise your points. For example: "In conclusion, while Shemkus's practical arguments about skills are strong, Brown's philosophical argument about slavery and human rights is more persuasive because it addresses the fundamental moral issues at stake."

Projected Grade: 11/12 - An outstanding start with excellent analysis and evaluation. Just needs a conclusion.

4206 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 5/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I partially agree with Sarah Shemkus pointA good, formal start to your answer. for a Moltitut of reasons. For example, she says that training offered through prison work is "essential for preparing prisoner to succeed in life".Good - you have identified a key argument and supported it with a quote. Partially, this seems like a well thought out and positive point which to a certain degree it is.You are starting to evaluate here, but you need to be more specific. What are the positive aspects? What are the weaknesses? As many prisoners may improve their literacy skills. However it doesnt point out many significant details such as the ideas surranding health and safety. This is something which Helen Brown does approach.This is an excellent piece of evaluation, directly comparing the two sources and showing that one is more detailed than the other. She does bring up how prisoners may be "denied" these benefits as opposed to a civillian jobGood analysis of a key point from Source B. which is likely. Another reason why I largely stand with Browns pointThis contradicts your opening statement. You need to have one consistent argument. is the fact that she mentions how it will not stop "increases in unrest, riots and escapes." Here, she mention how a lot of prison violence may not be solved by work. This is something Shemkus fails to mention.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You have a clear structure and analyse points from both sources.
Your evaluation is very good, especially when you compare the level of detail in each argument regarding health and safety.
You show a good understanding of the key arguments.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

Your argument is contradictory. You start by saying you "partially agree" with Shemkus, but the rest of the answer seems to favour Brown. Be clear from the start about who you agree with *most*.
You need to add a conclusion that summarises your points and makes a final judgement.

Next Steps: Your evaluation skills are strong. Make sure your introduction and conclusion match the direction of your argument. If your analysis shows Brown's argument is stronger, your introduction should state that you agree more with her.

Projected Grade: 5/12 - A well-analysed and evaluative answer let down by a contradictory argument.

4212 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 8/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I agree more with Sarah Shemkus (SS)A clear start stating your view. as preparing prisoners to reintergrate back into society should be one of the main goals of prisonerGood analysis of Shemkus's core purpose. and making them work would help by giving them skills. One thing SS mentioned that Helen Coverdale failed to is that many prisoners never had legal job so getting them jobs in prison can help them... which would also make them less likely to offend in the future.This is excellent analysis and evaluation. You are directly comparing the two sources and showing how one addresses a point that the other misses. HC also mentions the work will not solve increases in riots or escapes however it would as it would allow the prisoners to focus more on their job which distracts them from [crime].Another great point of evaluation where you directly challenge an argument from Source B using logic from Source A.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

Your answer is highly evaluative. You constantly compare the two sources and explain which points are stronger.
You show a clear understanding of the arguments from both writers.
Your analysis is logical and well-reasoned.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

While your evaluation is excellent, your answer is a little one-sided. You need to show that you understand the strengths of Helen Coverdale's argument too, even if you don't agree with it.
You need a concluding paragraph to summarise your final judgement.

Note: Your evaluation is great. To make your answer more balanced (which is key for top marks), you need to acknowledge the strengths of the argument you disagree with.

Improved Section:

To create more balance, you could add a paragraph like this: "However, Helen Brown Coverdale does make a powerful moral argument when she compares prison work to 'enslavement' due to the low pay. This is a significant point because it questions whether the practical benefits of prison labour outweigh the ethical problem of exploiting prisoners' human rights.Acknowledging the strengths of the other side makes your own argument seem more reasonable and balanced."

Next Steps: You are excellent at evaluation. Now practice building a more balanced argument by dedicating a paragraph to fairly analysing the source you disagree with before you explain why it is ultimately the weaker of the two.

Projected Grade: 8/12 - A highly evaluative answer that just needs more balance to hit the top marks.

4237 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 9/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I agree with Shemkus' argument the most because she speaks of these prisons being able to rehabilitate prisoners to prepare them for adult life.A clear start, stating your view and identifying the core argument you support. She says that such training "improves literacy skills"Good use of a quote. and provides "goods and services that are often sold to outside custumers". She also teaches prisoners, many of whom never had a legal job, the basics of showing up on time and listening to a superior.Good analysis of Shemkus's point about transferable skills. This allows for inmates to use these skills to succeed in employment outside of prison. Coverdale on the other hand believes that penal labour is immoral because the inmates recieve "little to no wages".Perfect, you are now bringing in the counter-argument to show a balanced approach. While this is true in many prisons, she failed to consider how prisons provide prisoners with food and shelter already, making any income earned desireable.This is a fantastic piece of evaluation. You are challenging Coverdale's argument by introducing an alternative perspective (that any wage is a bonus, not a right). Salaries in an average employment would account for the employee providing for themselves. Because this is not the case for prisoners, prisons have no reason to pay prisoners similarly to the unconvicted.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You have a clear, balanced structure, analysing one source before the other.
You use quotes effectively to support your analysis.
Your evaluation of Coverdale's argument is excellent, providing a strong counter-point from your own thinking.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

This is a very strong and well-structured answer. To reach the top marks, it just needs a concluding paragraph.
Your conclusion should summarise why Shemkus's practical arguments about rehabilitation are more convincing to you than Coverdale's moral arguments about wages.

Next Steps: You have all the skills needed for a top mark. Plan and write your conclusion. It should start with a sentence like: "In conclusion, Shemkus's argument is the more persuasive because her focus on practical rehabilitation is more likely to reduce reoffending, which is the primary purpose of prison. While Coverdale's concerns about wages are valid, they are a secondary issue to the main goal of keeping society safe."

Projected Grade: 9/12 - A well-structured and highly evaluative answer that is on track for a top grade.

4349 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 11/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

Despite the strong points both writers made, I agree more with writer A, Sarah Shemkus, over writer B, Helen Brown Coverdale, because I believe her argument is more justified and thought about.A perfect academic start. You acknowledge both sides but state a clear preference. Firstly, we learn from Sarah Shemkus that "88% of inmates participate in productive prison work"Excellent use of a statistic as evidence. and how many US states note that prisoners who participate fully in work are less likely to reoffend following release".This is a key part of her argument. This is a strong argument as it considers the effect of helping prisoners coming back into society whilst no longer being a threat. Additionally, we learn that "work keeps prisoners busy and less likely to cause problems inside". However, we also learn from writer B, Helen Brown Coverdale, that, "US work programmes often verge on enslavement"Good - you are now moving on to the counter-argument with clear signposting. and that they "also have families and futures...". Whilst this point considers the wellbeing of inmates, it doesn't consider the past of these inmates - many are in prison for serious crimes e.g. murder, which is stripping away an innocent person's human rights, therefore, many believe that these inmates shouldn't have the privilege of human rights.This is a superb piece of evaluation. You are using your own logical argument (the rights of victims) to challenge and critique the argument made in Source B. Additionally, writer B forgets that treating inmates and respecting their wellbeing doesn't restore justice to traumatized, affected victims of these inmates' crimes.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You have an excellent, clear structure, analysing Source A before moving to Source B.
You use evidence from the text effectively.
Your evaluation is sophisticated and powerful, especially when you bring in the perspective of victims' rights to challenge Source B.
Your language is formal and analytical.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

This is a very high-level response. The only thing missing is a final, summative conclusion.
Your conclusion should bring your arguments together to make a final judgement about why Shemkus's practical, evidence-based approach is more convincing than Coverdale's more emotional one.

Next Steps: You are clearly on track for a top grade. To finish, write a concluding paragraph that summarises your evaluation. For example: "In conclusion, although Coverdale's appeal to the humanity of prisoners is compelling, it is a less convincing argument than Shemkus's because it overlooks the rights of victims and the primary need to reduce reoffending, which Shemkus's data-driven approach directly addresses."

Projected Grade: 11/12 - An excellent start with sophisticated, critical evaluation.

4300 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 8/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I agree with Sarah Shemkus (SS) more due to her detailed explanation and positive impacts work for prisoners have.A clear start, stating your position. For example, SS says that "Prisoners could run laundry rooms and kitchens".Good use of a quote. Doing this reduces the costs of prison expenses, this could possibly lower taxes.This is a good piece of analysis where you use your own knowledge to explain a potential benefit of Shemkus's argument. Furthermore this is a strong point because it takes in account for the prisoners human rights, the right to work. SS also say work can reintegrate them into society. This is a strong point for work in prison as this helps the offenders not to reoffend. On the other hand Helen Brown (HB) says that we must not lose sight of prisoners as people.Good - you are now moving to the counter-argument. This is a weak point to discourage work in prisons as not letting them work goes against their human rights and their right to work.This is a good, clear evaluative point where you directly challenge the logic of Source B. This contradicts her point. In conclusion I agree with SS more due to her well thought ideas of positive impacts work in prisons have on the prisoners and society.A good, clear conclusion that summarises your main argument.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You have a clear structure with an introduction, analysis of both sides, and a conclusion.
You bring in your own knowledge (about taxes) to support your analysis.
You show good evaluation skills by directly challenging the logic of Helen Brown's argument.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

Your analysis of Coverdale's argument is a little simplistic. You dismiss her point about "losing sight of prisoners as people" too quickly, without fully exploring her reasons (like low pay and 'enslavement').
To get top marks, you need to show you fully understand the argument you are disagreeing with before you challenge it.

Next Steps: Your evaluation is strong. To make it even better, try to be more generous to the opposing argument. For example: "While Coverdale makes an important moral point about not losing sight of prisoners as people, her argument is ultimately weaker because providing a path to rehabilitation through work is a more effective way of caring for their futures."

Projected Grade: 8/12 - A well-structured answer with a strong conclusion and good evaluation.

4314 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 3/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I agree to disagree with Sarah Shemkus (SS) to an extent.This is a very confusing opening statement. You need to be clear about who you agree with MOST. I think the sole purpose of prison is to learn right from wrong.This is a valid point, but it's your own opinion. You need to link it to the sources. However, one reason why I do in fact agree is a high percentage of criminals have a rough background such as terraced, houses, bad neighbourhoods, or places full of illegal activites. I believe the programs prisons have such as learning on "literacy skills"Good - you are correctly identifying a key argument from Shemkus. which increase communication skills is right. A problem with this are some issues prisoners already have a fixed mindset towards not following rules.This is a good evaluative point, but the whole paragraph is very difficult to read. On the other hand a reason why I disagree with the question and agree with Helen Coverdale (CHC) is due to the fact working isn't going to teach them moral values like respect.Good - you are now correctly identifying a key argument from the second source.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You are trying to engage with both sources.
You are bringing in your own knowledge and trying to evaluate the arguments.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

Your sentence structure is very poor, making your argument extremely difficult to follow.
You need to state your overall judgement clearly in the introduction.
Your answer is very disorganised. You must structure it into clear paragraphs.

Note: Your ideas are good, but your writing style makes them hard to understand. Focus on writing clear, simple sentences.

Improved Section:

I agree more with Helen Brown Coverdale. Although Sarah Shemkus argues that work teaches prisoners valuable skills, this is a weak argument because many prisoners have a fixed mindset and may refuse to learn.This expresses your idea in a much clearer way. Coverdale's argument is stronger. She correctly points out that forced labour does not teach prisoners "moral values like respect," which is the true purpose of rehabilitation.This structure makes your argument clear and easy to follow.

Next Steps: Before you start writing, create a clear plan. Use simple sentences. Focus on making one point clearly in each paragraph.

Projected Grade: 3/12 - Contains some good ideas but is let down by extremely poor writing and structure.

4274 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 7/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

Despite Sarah Shemkus' viewpoint on prison work, stating how beneficial it is to both the prisoners and the prison itself, I agree with Helen Brown as they explain the real purpose and function of a prison which is to solely rehabilitate offenders, not force them onto unskilled work.An excellent start. You have clearly stated your judgement and have already begun to summarise and compare the core ideas of both sources. For example Helen Brown (HB) argues that prisons in the US porce prisoners on to work, comparing it to "enslavement" and that they are "paid little or no wage".Good use of quotes to support your analysis of Source B. This point is very strong as the emphasis reminds us that prisoners aren't slaves, but "we must not lose sight of prisoners as people", emphasising the importance of prisoners not because of their crimes, but because of their humanity. Sarah Shemkus (SS) believes that prisoners who are made to work are "pay[ing] back to society", but this is a very flawed point as she fails to realise that the prisoners who are forced to work aren't using their free will.This is a superb piece of evaluation. You have identified a key argument from Source A and are directly challenging its logic with a strong counter-point. Arguing that we should copy the US prison work system is very ignorant as although 88% of inmates work in the US, the UK suddenly shifting to a wholly different prison system will not sit well with UK's government.This is another good evaluative point, but it's less focused on the core arguments of the text.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You have a clear point of view and a logical structure.
Your analysis is supported by well-chosen quotes.
Your evaluation is excellent, particularly when you challenge Shemkus's 'paying back' argument with the idea of 'free will'.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

This is a very strong and confident start. You just need to continue in the same style.
Develop your analysis of both sources with a little more detail, ensuring you cover their main points.
Finish with a strong conclusion that summarises your judgement and reinforces why Brown's philosophical argument is stronger than Shemkus's practical one.

Next Steps: You are on the right track for a high grade. Ensure you dedicate enough time to explaining Shemkus's other arguments (like reducing reoffending) before you dismiss them. A good answer shows it has understood the other side perfectly, even if it disagrees.

Projected Grade: 7/12 - A confident and highly evaluative start with a clear argument.

4173 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 5/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I partially agree with Sarah Shemkus as she makes a strong point saying 'Working while in prison can teach inmates technical and also transferable skills'.A clear start where you state your view and select a relevant quote. however what she fails to mention is that there is no guarantee that these inmates will take advantage of the skills they learnt and use them to their own benefit outside of prison.This is a good attempt at evaluation, identifying a potential weakness in the argument. However, on the other hand Helen brown Coverdalse also makes a valid point when she mention 'people are sent to prison as punishment'.Good - you are now showing balance by analysing the second source. this is a very strong point as it includes the fact that the main point of prison is to punish the offenders for what they have done not to give them the opportunity to pick up new life skills to help benefit them on the outside.This is a very clear and well-explained analysis of Coverdale's philosophical argument.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You have a clear, balanced structure and analyse both sources.
You have clearly explained the key philosophical argument from Helen Brown Coverdale.
You have started to evaluate the arguments by identifying weaknesses.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

Your evaluation is a little simple. The idea that there's "no guarantee" is true, but it's a weak criticism. A stronger evaluation would use specific knowledge to challenge the point.
You are missing a conclusion that weighs the two arguments and makes a final judgement.

Note: Your evaluation is a good start. To make it stronger, use specific knowledge rather than general statements like "no guarantee".

Improved Evaluation:

A weakness in Shemkus's argument is that many employers are unwilling to hire ex-offenders regardless of what skills they have learned.This is a specific, real-world fact that directly challenges the effectiveness of her proposal. This means that the training may not actually lead to a job, making it a less effective tool for rehabilitation than she suggests.

Next Steps: You have a good structure and understanding. Focus on making your evaluation more specific and evidence-based. Always add a conclusion to summarise your final judgement.

Projected Grade: 5/12 - A well-structured answer with good analysis but weaker evaluation.

4199 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 7/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I agree with Sarah Shemkus. Sarah Shemkus says yes to prisons making prisoners work, "preparing prisoners to succeed in life after release".A clear start, stating your view and using a good quote. I believe that prisoners involved in work will help them with keeping a day to day routine that helps them feel normal and can live a prisoner. As Sarah Shemkus has stated prison isnt supposed to be just seen as a punishment but as a lesson for improvement.Good analysis of the source's argument, explained in your own words. Lots of first-offenders or even just offenders are only just figuring out a way around life and havent started right. Engaging in work helps them to learn how to be normal.This is a good point, but it relies on your own opinion. Try to link it more closely to the evidence in the text. For example, "such training includes improving literacy skills." "Prisoners run laundry rooms and kitchens, transcribe textbooks into braille and build desks". This helps them learn basic essentials needed for when living alone.Good use of quotes to show the practical skills that can be learned. Some inmates may have familys, kids, and will be able to help their partner complete day to day tasks as well as help their kids with homework or even have impactful and educational conversations.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You have a clear point of view and analyse your preferred source in great detail.
You use quotes from the text effectively to support your points.
You explain the arguments in your own words, showing good understanding.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

Your answer is completely one-sided. For a 12-mark question, it is essential that you analyse the arguments from the other source (Helen Brown Coverdale) as well.
You need a conclusion that makes a final judgement after considering both sides.

Next Steps: You have an excellent analysis of Source A. Now you must add a paragraph analysing Source B. You need to explain her arguments about 'enslavement' and the purpose of punishment before you write your conclusion. Remember to always discuss *both* sources.

Projected Grade: 7/12 - An excellent, detailed analysis of one side of the argument, but needs balance.

4283 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 4/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I agree with Sarah and that prisoners should work.A clear start, stating your view. This is because whist prisoners are serving time they can do something beneficial and gain experience. For example when they leave. For example cooking and helping in the kitchen could help someone become a chef.Good - you are explaining the logic of Shemkus's argument with your own clear example. However a problem with this is the safety for not only the inmate but the others serving time for example, the use of knives can be dangerous & like self harm, suicide or hurting other individuals.This is a good piece of evaluation where you use your own knowledge to identify a practical problem with the source's suggestion. However prisoners shouldn't work because it reduces the risk of riots and protests.This point is confusing. Coverdale argues that work will NOT solve riots. Shemkus argues work makes prisoners LESS likely to cause problems. You seem to have mixed the arguments up here. The purpose of prison is to protect the public and serve time rather than gaining experience that isn't earned or deserved.This is a clear summary of one of Coverdale's key arguments.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You have a clear point of view.
You use your own examples to explain the arguments.
You have started to evaluate the source by identifying a practical flaw (safety in kitchens).

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

You seem to have confused the arguments from the two sources in the second half of your answer. You must be careful to represent what each writer says accurately.
The answer lacks a clear structure and a conclusion.

Next Steps: Re-read the source material very carefully. Make sure you are 100% clear on what each writer is arguing before you start your essay. A good plan is to write down the main points for each writer first.

Projected Grade: 4/12 - A promising start with some evaluation, but let down by a confused understanding of the sources.

4246 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 7/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I believe that Sarah Shemkus (SS) is arguably right by saying that Prisons should make Prisoners work.A good, clear start stating your position. SS says that these prisoners run laundry rooms, Kitchens build desks and etc. In Prison if they're taught the basic neccessities they're less likely to reoffend as they learn basic knowledge such as showing up on time which could get them a job.Excellent analysis. You've selected evidence from the source and explained the logic of the argument in your own words. Additionally, the aim of Prisons is to help them change their Past mistakes but how could prisoners learn that by following a strict timetable everyday with no chance to prove themselves as their day is spent in a Cell daily. However Helen Brown Coverdale (HBC) argues that these programmes often verge on enslavement with inmates paid little to no wages. This means that Prisoners are practically used as modern slaves.Perfect. You're now providing a balanced view by clearly analysing the main counter-argument from Source B. She also argues that it will not prevent self harm or suicide.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You have a very clear and effective structure, analysing Source A and then Source B.
You explain the arguments from both sources accurately and in your own words.
You successfully use your own reasoning to support the arguments you are analysing.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

You have done a great job of analysing the two sources. The next step is to evaluate them.
You need to add a conclusion where you explain *why* Shemkus's arguments are more convincing to you than Coverdale's. Which argument do you think is more important - preventing reoffending or preventing exploitation?

Next Steps: Your analysis is solid. To get top marks, you must now add a conclusion that weighs the two arguments. For example: "In conclusion, although Coverdale's concerns about 'enslavement' are morally important, Shemkus's argument is more persuasive because the primary goal of the prison system must be to reduce reoffending and keep the public safe, which her proposals are more likely to achieve."

Projected Grade: 7/12 - A well-structured answer with excellent analysis. Just needs evaluation.

4249 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 8/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I partially agree with Sarah Shemkus (SS) who expresses her view that the UK should adopt the American system of making prisoners work.A clear introduction. She supports this idea by saying they prepare prisoners to succeed after release. "However, after prisoners are released it is nigh impossible to find any well-paying job invoking any skills they've learnt whilst in prison which would make it more uneasy for them to go back to commiting crimes for more money.This is a fantastic piece of evaluation. You are using your own knowledge to find a serious flaw in Shemkus's argument. SS goes on to say "the advantage of this is prisoners pay back to society and individuals they've harmed". This argument is weak as working in the prison does not offer any solace to those they harmed while outside and is therefore obsolete.Another piece of excellent, logical evaluation challenging the source. On the other hand, Helen Brown Coverdale (HAC) says most US work programmes often verge on enslavement... it would be a breach of human rights.Good - you are now clearly analysing the second source. and they are neither paid or rewarded. However an argument could be made as they may not be deserving of rewards due to their criminal actions.Another good evaluative point, this time challenging Coverdale's argument.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

Your evaluation skills are excellent. You are not afraid to challenge the sources with your own logical arguments and knowledge.
You have a clear structure, dealing with one source at a time.
You analyse arguments from both sides of the debate.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

Your introduction says you "partially agree" with Shemkus, but then the rest of your paragraph is spent tearing her argument apart! Be careful that your analysis logically supports your stated opinion.
You need to add a conclusion that summarises your points and makes a final judgement.

Next Steps: Based on your excellent evaluation, it seems you actually agree more with Helen Brown Coverdale. Your next step should be to write a conclusion that confirms this. For example: "In conclusion, I agree most with Coverdale. As my analysis has shown, Shemkus's arguments about skills and paying back society are flawed and unrealistic, whereas Coverdale's focus on the ethical problems of exploitation and human rights is a much stronger and more fundamental point."

Projected Grade: 8/12 - A very strong and critical evaluation that just needs a conclusion to tie it all together.

4267 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 3/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

Personally I belive that prisoners should work in prision that as Sarah Shemkus say.A clear start, but with some spelling errors. This is because while being in prision in the US 88% prisoners work and this improves these skills for when they get realesed, this makes the criminal less likley to reoffend.You have correctly identified key arguments from Shemkus's source. as they still have valubale skills for workplace to start a new life. This is why prisoners should be able to work during prison as their valuble skills could be used to improve work place in the future. However some people may say they agree with Helen Brown Coverdale as most criminals tend to not care about laws and try to reoffend again.This is a very confused statement. You are linking Coverdale's name to an argument that actually supports Shemkus. You must read the sources carefully. This is because many criminals after being realesed are not able to get a job as most workplaces check criminal backgrounds and wouldn't accept past offenders which makes the criminal more likley to reoffend again as they are unable to get a job.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You have a clear point of view.
You have correctly identified some of the key arguments from Sarah Shemkus.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

You show a clear misunderstanding of Helen Brown Coverdale's argument. You must read the sources very carefully.
Because you have misunderstood one source, your answer is completely one-sided.
You need to explain the points in more detail.

Next Steps: Your most important task is to improve your reading comprehension. Before you write, make a list of the key points for *each* writer to make sure you have understood them correctly. You cannot get a good mark if you misunderstand what the sources say.

Projected Grade: 3/12 - A one-sided answer that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of one of the sources.

4164 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 6/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

Overall I agree with Sarah Shemkus to a large extent.A clear and confident start to your essay. She argues that UK prisons should copy the example of the US where 88% of inmates participate in productive prison work.Good use of a specific statistic from the source as evidence. However she fails to mention that unlike UK prisons, prisons in America are not owned by the state, instead prisons are used as profitable large institutions.This is a fantastic piece of evaluation. You are using your own knowledge to challenge the comparison being made in the source, which is a very high-level skill. Additionally she states that prisoners gaining transferable skills will reduce the likelihood of prisoners reoffending. Although her point is accurate she fails to mention that there are other factors that contribute to a prisoner reoffending, ie, not having accommodation due to their criminal record.Another excellent piece of evaluation, identifying a flaw in the source's logic. However Coverdale argues against prisoners working.Good, you are now moving to the other source to create a balanced argument. One suggests that a problem is that prisoners earn little to no wages. However you could argue against this as the prison's goal is to punish, earning wage would contrast against the goal of prison.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You show excellent evaluation skills by using your own knowledge to challenge the arguments in the source.
You have a clear structure and analyse points from both writers.
You use evidence from the text to support your points.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

Your analysis of Coverdale's argument is much less developed than your analysis of Shemkus's. You need to explain her points in more detail.
You need to add a conclusion that weighs up the arguments and gives a final judgement.

Next Steps: Your evaluation skills are fantastic. To improve, make sure you give a fair and detailed analysis of *both* sources before you start critiquing them. Then, use your excellent evaluation points to write a powerful conclusion.

Projected Grade: 6/12 - Shows excellent evaluation skills but the analysis is a little unbalanced.

4328 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 6/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I mostly agree with Helen Brown because of how she states inmates paid little or no wage.A clear start stating your position. But she failed to mention that this also isn't voluntary work as some maybe haven't agreed to doing the given tasks.This is a good point using your own knowledge, but it actually strengthens her argument rather than acts as a criticism. Be careful how you phrase your points. Also Shemkus states that these programmes help "goods and services that are often sold to outside customer" but she fails to recognise that some of the public will feel upset if money is going towards these prison services and not more important things such as transport or healthcare.This is an excellent piece of evaluation where you use your own knowledge to identify a potential negative consequence of Shemkus's plan. HB comments that "it also prepares prisoners for life outside prison" but she doesn't realise that they won't be prepared without being taught the basic roles for when they leave and perhaps get a job.This is a direct comparison of the two views on preparation for release. Good analysis. Furthermore, the skills that SS believe they will learn may not actually relate to their future job which therefore wastes their time.Another good evaluative point, questioning the usefulness of the skills.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You have some excellent evaluation, using your own knowledge to find weaknesses in Shemkus's arguments.
You are directly comparing the points made by the two writers.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

The answer is quite disorganised and jumps between the two sources, making it hard to follow.
You have not included a conclusion that summarises your argument and makes a final judgement.

Note: You have great evaluation skills, but your essay needs a clearer structure to be effective.

Improved Structure:

1. **Introduction:** State that you agree more with Helen Brown.
2. **Paragraph on Shemkus:** Explain her arguments about skills and reoffending. Then, use your excellent evaluation to explain why these arguments are flawed (e.g., public anger about funding, skills may be irrelevant).
3. **Paragraph on Brown:** Explain her stronger arguments about low pay and the purpose of punishment.
4. **Conclusion:** Summarise why Brown's arguments are more convincing overall.

Next Steps: Focus on planning your essay structure before you start writing. This will make your excellent ideas much clearer and help you score higher marks.

Projected Grade: 6/12 - Contains excellent evaluation but is let down by poor organisation.

4225 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 5/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

Sarah and Helen both made good points.This is a weak start. The question asks you to agree with one *most*, so you need to make a judgement. however I agree with Helen more for example, if prisoners work in prison we will next see a change in the increase of unrest riots and escapes.You are analysing one of Coverdale's key points here, which is good. This means that if the prisoners work together there is always a chance that they could plan to get up to no good and perhaps cause more damage to prisons. A point that Helen does not make though is the fact that prisoners could pay back to society and helped individuals that were harmed.This is a good point of comparison, but it's phrased as a weakness in Helen's argument, even though you say you agree with her. This is confusing. However, Sarah greates, "Training includes improving literacy skills".Good analysis of a point from the other source. What Sarah doesn't acknowledge here is the fact that these prisoners had a good life before they chose the wrong path. Why should we give them a chance to change when they've already made that decision.This is a weak point of evaluation - many offenders come from difficult backgrounds and have not had a 'good life'. It also contradicts the idea of rehabilitation.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You are attempting to analyse points from both sources.
You are trying to evaluate the arguments by pointing out what they miss.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

You need to make a clear decision about who you agree with most and stick to it. Your answer is contradictory.
Your evaluation is quite weak and based on assumptions that may not be true (e.g., that all prisoners had a good life).
The structure is confusing. You need to deal with one source at a time before comparing them.

Note: To improve, you need a clearer structure and a more consistent argument. Pick one writer you agree with and build your entire answer to support that choice.

Improved Structure:

Start with your judgement: "I agree more with Helen Brown Coverdale."

Paragraph 1: Explain Coverdale's arguments. For example, she argues that prison work is like 'enslavement' and that it will not solve problems like riots.

Paragraph 2: Explain Shemkus's counter-arguments, such as work provides skills and reduces reoffending.

Conclusion: Explain why you find Coverdale's arguments more convincing. For example, "Although Shemkus's points about skills are practical, Coverdale's moral argument about treating prisoners humanely is more important."

Next Steps: Focus on planning your essay before you write. Decide on your final judgement first, then build your paragraphs to lead to that conclusion. This will make your argument much more coherent.

Projected Grade: 5/12 - A confused and contradictory answer with weak evaluation.

4226 - Candidate: N/A - Projected Grade: 6/12

Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source

Student Response:

I wholeheartedly agree with Sarah Shemkus.A clear and confident start. My reason for this is because prisoners are sent to prison for their crimes but them not being occupied while in there could lead to crime inside the prison such as assaults on police officers.This is a good point, showing you have understood Shemkus's argument about keeping prisoners busy. This would be undefined and leads to bad behaviour. Prisoners working is often seen as essential "for preparing prisoners to suceed in life after release".Good use of a quote to support your point. It improves there literary skills. Some prisoners have never had a job, and working in prison can improve ther basis such as showing up on time and working apart of a team.Good analysis, but you are listing a lot of points from the source without adding much of your own explanation. Initially working in a prison, I think is essential for the development of the inmates for the life after prison. You can also disagree with this as pwork in prison doesn't match the prisons skills and interests and ambitions.Good, you are now bringing in the counter-argument from the other source to show balance. they are often denied health and satfey benefits which is crucial for health and safty act.

Detailed Feedback

✅ Strengths (What you have started well)

You have a clear point of view and have started to structure your answer by looking at both sources.
You have correctly identified several key arguments from both texts.
You have used quotes as evidence.

🔄 How to complete the answer for a top grade

Your analysis is a bit like a list. Instead of just stating lots of points from the source, pick the one or two most important ones and explain them in more detail in your own words.
You need to add a conclusion that explains *why* Shemkus's arguments are more convincing to you than Coverdale's.

Note: To improve your analysis, focus on quality over quantity. Pick one key idea and explain it fully.

Improved Section:

One of Shemkus's strongest arguments is that work teaches prisoners basic transferable skills, such as "showing up on time, listening to a supervisor and working as part of a team." This is a crucial point because she argues that many offenders lack this basic experience, which is a major barrier to them finding employment after release.This explains the point in more detail and shows why it is important to the overall argument.

Next Steps: Focus on explaining the points in more detail rather than listing them. A good structure would be: explain Shemkus's best point, explain Coverdale's best point, then write a conclusion explaining which is more persuasive.

Projected Grade: 6/12 - A reasonable start that identifies key points but needs more explanation and less listing.