These are the two passages you were given in the exam. The key arguments are highlighted so you can see the full range of points available to you. After the passages, there is a list of own knowledge ideas that could have strengthened your answer.
Sarah Jenkins argues for Loyalty to the Party
When voters elect an MP, they are primarily endorsing a political party and the manifesto it stands on. The MP is the vehicle for that party's national platform. Therefore, their first duty is to support their party in Parliament to deliver the promises made to the entire country during the election. To do otherwise would be to betray the trust of the millions who voted for that party's vision for the country.
Effective governance requires discipline and cohesion. A government cannot function if its MPs constantly break ranks to vote on narrow, local interests. For a government to pass its budget, reform public services, and manage the economy, it needs the reliable support of its MPs. An MP who prioritises their constituency over the party line contributes to weak government and political instability, which ultimately harms everyone.
Furthermore, political parties provide the essential support structure, research, and resources that allow an MP to work effectively. Acting as a lone wolf is rarely effective. By working as part of a united team, an MP has a far greater chance of influencing policy and achieving positive change, both locally and nationally. Loyalty to the party is not a betrayal of constituents; it is the most practical way to serve them.
Tom Harris argues for Loyalty to Constituents
An MP's first and most important duty is to the people who elected them in their local constituency. They are sent to Parliament to be the champion of their local area, to voice its specific concerns and to fight for its interests. This direct link between the representative and the represented is the cornerstone of our democracy. An MP learns about these local needs through surgeries and community engagement, not from party headquarters in London.
An MP must also be a person of integrity, free to vote according to their conscience and their judgement of what is best for their community. If they believe a party policy will harm their constituents – such as closing a local hospital – they have a moral obligation to oppose it. History is filled with brave independent-minded MPs who stood up to their party on matters of principle, and they are rightly celebrated for it.
Ultimately, MPs are accountable not to party leaders, but to the voters in their constituency at the ballot box. If an MP consistently ignores the wishes of local people in favour of the party line, they will, and should, be voted out. This accountability is the most powerful check on political power we have, and it only works if the MP's primary loyalty is to the people they serve.
💡 Own Knowledge You Could Have Used
These are things from outside the source that would have pushed your answer into the top marks. You didn't need to know all of these — even one or two would have made a difference.
-
The whip system: In Parliament, each party has "whips" — senior MPs whose job is to make sure their party's MPs vote the way the party wants. Sometimes this pressure is very strong. You could argue that this system already forces MPs to follow the party line, so they need the freedom to rebel when it really matters for their local area.
-
MPs who rebelled and were proved right: In 2003, many Labour MPs voted against their own party and the Prime Minister (Tony Blair) over the Iraq War. At the time they were criticised, but later many people agreed they were right. This shows that going against your party can sometimes be the braver and better choice.
-
Coalitions and minority governments: After the 2010 election, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a coalition government. This shows that even when a party doesn't have full control, government can still work — so Jenkins's argument that breaking ranks always causes "instability" doesn't always hold up.
-
Real local issues vs national policy: You could have used specific examples of local issues that clash with what the national party wants — like a hospital being closed, a school losing funding, a local bus route being cut, or a food bank being shut down. These show why an MP might need to put their constituency first.
-
The idea that MPs should use their own judgement: There is a long-standing idea in British politics that an MP is not just a messenger who does whatever voters or the party tell them. Instead, they are elected to use their own thinking and make decisions they believe are right — even if that means disagreeing with the party. You could argue this supports Harris's point about integrity and conscience.
-
Independent MPs: Some MPs leave their party (or are thrown out) and sit as independents. They can still represent their local area and vote freely, but they lose party resources and support. This is useful for evaluating Jenkins's argument that the party provides essential resources.
-
Government majority: A government needs more than half of MPs to vote with them to pass laws (this is called a "majority"). If too many MPs rebel, the government loses votes and can't get anything done. You could use this to support Jenkins — or to challenge her by pointing out that a few rebels don't always cause collapse.
-
Smaller vs larger parties: In a large party like the Conservatives or Labour, one MP rebelling is less noticeable. In a smaller party like the Green Party or Reform UK, every MP matters more, so there is more pressure to stay loyal. This adds nuance to the debate.
Word Count: 335 words (320 - 340 words are expected/analysis of 2-3 points for each writer)
I agree more with Tom Harris's argument that an MP's primary loyalty should be to their constituents, although Sarah Jenkins raises important points about the need for party discipline.
Jenkins argues that voters are 'primarily endorsing a political party and the manifesto it stands on', making the MP a 'vehicle' for delivering national promises. There is some truth to this; governments do need a reliable majority to pass legislation such as the annual budget. However, this view reduces MPs to lobby fodder. The whip system already pressures MPs to follow the party line, and when this goes too far it stifles genuine debate in Parliament. Jenkins's claim that breaking ranks leads to 'political instability' is overstated; minority governments and coalitions, such as the 2010 Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition, have still governed effectively.
Conversely, Harris argues that an MP's 'first and most important duty is to the people who elected them', acting as a 'champion of their local area'. I find this more convincing because there is a long-standing principle in British politics that an MP is not simply a messenger for their party — they are elected to use their own judgement and stand up for what they believe is right, even if the party disagrees. Harris is right that an MP who learns about local needs through 'surgeries and community engagement' is better placed than party headquarters to judge what is best for an area. A party leader in Westminster cannot fully understand the impact of closing a local hospital or cutting a bus route; only the local MP can.
Jenkins also claims that 'acting as a lone wolf is rarely effective' and that the party provides essential resources. Yet history shows otherwise. MPs who defied their party over the Iraq War in 2003 were later vindicated by public opinion, proving that principled rebellion can be more effective than blind loyalty. As Harris argues, MPs are ultimately 'accountable not to party leaders, but to the voters', and this accountability is democracy's most powerful safeguard.
Ultimately, party unity matters, but it must never override an MP's duty to represent the people who put them in Parliament.
Quality of Evaluation
Excellent. The evaluation is sustained throughout. The student analysed 2–3 key points from each writer (manifesto mandate, party discipline, local representation, accountability). Arguments were not merely stated but weighed against each other (e.g., "Jenkins's claim that breaking ranks leads to 'political instability' is overstated"). Crucially, own knowledge was used to strengthen analysis: the whip system, the 2010 coalition, the principle that MPs should use their own independent judgement, local service examples, and the Iraq War rebellion all go beyond the source text and demonstrate top-level understanding.
Strengths
- Clear, sustained line of reasoning with a firm overall judgement.
- Integrated quotes from both writers throughout.
- Nuanced concession to the opposing side before rejecting it.
- Own knowledge used five times to add depth beyond the source material.
Targets
- Maintain this high standard by incorporating even more precise political vocabulary (e.g., "parliamentary sovereignty", "representative democracy").
I agree with Tom Harris as his argument is mostly about staying loyal to the people who voted you specifically and helping them at their best interests. Constituents' needs are more important as they voted for you and not your party. MPs aren't accountable to party leaders but to the voters in their constituency. If an MP doesn't support the interests of the people...
Some people may agree with Sarah Jenkins as they believe that your political party is the most important thing and nothing else is above it. The MP's job would be to help put their party above everything else; they have to support their party to fulfill their promises they'd put in their manifesto. If not, it would make people think twice about putting this government in power. A party that puts the needs of the constituency above the party will make things harder and make people not want them in power anymore.
In conclusion, I think Harris is correct as he thinks you should support your constituency which is your main priority in parliament.
Quality of Evaluation
Reasonable. You cover both writers and have a clear structure: position → Harris points → Jenkins points → conclusion. Your strongest evaluative moment is when you explain the consequence of breaking manifesto promises ("it would make people think twice about putting this government in power") — this is your own reasoning, not just a repeat of the source. However, most of the answer describes what each side believes rather than explaining
why those arguments are strong or weak. To push higher, add "because" reasoning after each point and use direct quotes from the source.
How to Turn Description into Evaluation:
Instead of: "MPs aren't accountable to party leaders but to the voters"
Try: "Harris argues MPs are 'accountable not to party leaders, but to the voters'. I agree because if an MP ignores the people who elected them, those voters will simply choose someone else — so loyalty to constituents is also just common sense for any MP who wants to keep their seat."
Strengths
- Clear Structure: You have a clear opening position, address both sides, and end with a conclusion. This is a solid framework.
- Consequence Reasoning: Your point about people "thinking twice" about supporting the government shows you are reasoning about the real-world impact of the arguments, not just repeating them.
- Both Sides Addressed: You give fair space to Jenkins's argument even though you disagree with her.
Targets
- Add "Because" Reasoning: After every point, explain why it matters. This turns description into evaluation.
- Use Direct Quotes: Put the writers' exact words in quotation marks (e.g., Harris says MPs should be a "champion of their local area"). This shows you are working closely with the source.
- Write More: At 175 words you are well below the target. Aim for 2–3 developed points per writer.
I half-heartedly agree with Sarah Jenkins as she explains why loyalty to the party is important because you working yourself and being loyal to your party is not betrayal, it's the most practical way to serve the constituents.
On the other hand, Tom Harris argues the opposite: you should be loyal to the constituents. He argues if you are not loyal to the people who voted for you, should you not be voted out? If you aren't loyal to your constituents, they can't just do everything for you. If you don't listen to its voice, they will just vote for someone else in the next election, then you will lose your power.
A bad MP is one who does not listen to its constituency; this means that the MP will never notice the problems in its constituency.
Quality of Evaluation
Developing. Your opening is surprisingly sophisticated — "half-heartedly agree" shows you're weighing the argument rather than just picking a side. Your Harris section is the strongest part: you build a logical chain from disloyalty to losing votes to losing power, which is genuine cause-and-effect reasoning. Your final sentence is also good independent thinking — a bad MP "will never notice the problems" in their area. The Jenkins section is too brief and mostly paraphrases the source. To push higher, develop both sides equally and add your own reasoning to each point.
Developing the Jenkins Section:
"I half-heartedly agree with Jenkins because she makes a fair point that loyalty to the party is 'the most practical way to serve' constituents — after all, a united party can actually pass laws and make changes. But I think this only works if the party's plans are actually good for your local area. If they're not, blind loyalty could hurt the very people you're supposed to represent."
Strengths
- Nuanced Opening: "Half-heartedly agree" is more sophisticated than simply picking a side — it shows you are genuinely weighing the arguments.
- Logical Chain: Your Harris section builds a clear cause-and-effect argument: ignore constituents → they vote for someone else → you lose power.
- Independent Thinking: Your final sentence about a bad MP never noticing local problems is your own idea, not from the source.
Targets
- Develop Jenkins Equally: Your Jenkins section is one sentence. Give her argument the same attention you give Harris — explain why her point about party loyalty might be true, then explain why you only "half-heartedly" agree.
- Use Direct Quotes: Put the writers' words in quotation marks to show you are engaging directly with the source text.
- Write Much More: At 113 words you are far below the target. Aim for at least two developed points about each writer.
I personally agree with Jenkins' argument of being loyal to your political party. However, Tom Harris does make some fair and strong points too. Firstly, I agree with Sarah Jenkins' point where a government can't be successful if MPs are constantly debating over small issues in a local area. The UK is becoming an ageing population, more people living longer and less people having children. Most of the population are likely old and retired, so political issues will not be a problem in certain wards. However, there are also local councils who deal with the actual local issues and have votes of others. A constituency MP is there to deal with the problem. If an MP ignores its people, they lose validation and should be voted out.
On the other hand, Tom Harris does make a strong point where if an MP ignores its people, they lose the chance of losing the satisfaction and the validation and should be voted out. A local council does not have all the power in a ward. In the government. For example, if a city lacks standard services. It is up to the government's revenue and the Chancellor of Exchequer to decide where the money goes. A councillor is limited to its budget and can't make the necessary changes the people want. That is what an MP is there for (to deal with this problem). However, a government won't prioritize its finances with one specific constituent, so it is not easy for the MP to clearly speak for its people.
Quality of Evaluation
Good. This is a thoughtful answer with three pieces of own knowledge not found in the source: the ageing population, local councils, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's role in allocating budgets. You don't just repeat the source — you bring in wider political knowledge to evaluate the arguments. Your point about councillors being "limited to their budget" is particularly strong because it explains
why MPs matter for local issues. The answer is slightly repetitive (the "voted out" point appears twice) and could use direct quotes from the source.
Avoiding Repetition:
You make the "voted out" point twice. Instead of repeating it, use the second paragraph to develop a new Harris point — for example, his argument about MPs having a "moral obligation" to oppose harmful policies.
Strengths
- Own Knowledge (x3): The ageing population, local councils, and Chancellor of the Exchequer are all your own ideas — not from the source. This is exactly what top answers do.
- Balanced Ending: Your final sentence acknowledges the limits of an MP's power, showing you can see complexity rather than just picking a side.
- Real Political Understanding: Your point about councillors being limited by their budgets shows genuine understanding of how government works.
Targets
- Avoid Repetition: The "voted out" point appears in both paragraphs. Each paragraph should make a different point.
- Use Direct Quotes: You describe what the writers say but never quote them directly. Even short quotes would strengthen your answer.
- Expand Slightly: At 252 words you're close to the target. One more developed point would bring you into range.
I agree with Sarah Jenkins's point because it discusses how government cannot function if MPs break ranks to vote on local issues, contributing to weak government and instability. Someone may disagree to a certain extent because pleasing your constituency means that people will vote for you again etc.
Moving forward, Tom Harris argues for loyalty to constituency by saying MPs PROVIDE CONSTITUENCY VOICE to the people... Some may disagree with him because having to primarily focus on ideas they have for the constituency over on... looks bad and it leads to the MP having to deal with one or the other.
Quality of Evaluation
Limited but shows potential. Despite being very short, there is more evaluation here than it first appears. You identify arguments from both writers (Jenkins's instability point, Harris's constituency voice), and — importantly — you challenge
both sides. You question Jenkins by noting that pleasing constituents gets you re-elected, and you question Harris by noting that focusing only on local issues "looks bad". This is the right approach. The problem is length and development — every point is started but not finished. You need to explain your reasoning fully.
Developing a Point Fully:
Instead of: "Someone may disagree because pleasing your constituency means people will vote for you again etc."
Try: "However, someone could disagree with Jenkins because if an MP ignores their local area just to follow the party, the people who voted for them might feel betrayed and vote for a different candidate next time. So putting the party first could actually backfire."
Strengths
- Both Sides Challenged: You don't just pick a side — you question both Jenkins and Harris, which is exactly what evaluation means.
- Right Instinct: Your point about constituency focus "looking bad" for an MP shows you understand the tension in the debate.
Targets
- Finish Your Sentences: Several points trail off with "etc." or "..." — every sentence needs to complete a thought.
- Develop Each Point: After stating each argument, explain why it matters using the word "because" followed by your own reasoning.
- Write Much More: At 88 words you are far below the target. Aim for at least two fully developed points about each writer.
From my own opinion I believe I agree with Tom Harris the most. One reason I agree with Tom Harris is because when he says "be the champion of their LOCAL area" he means they're only in charge of helping that specific area. This has its strengths as since MPs have their own designated areas to help with, that means each area will get a fair and equal treatment as there are MPs for each area. It also means the government won't need to stress about which area needs more help or not.
However some may disagree with me as they would want a multiple range of options for the area they live in. Meaning if a lot of MPs were to help lots of areas those areas would be changed more as each MP have their own ideas and shares and can help both locally and nationally.
One reason I don't agree with Sarah Jenkins the most is because when she says "Loyalty to the party is not a betrayal of constituents it is the most practical way to serve them". This doesn't make sense to me as if an MP chose to prioritize party over a constituency who has a small majority rather than a large one who needs more help. However a person may agree with her because when she says "Therefore, their first duty is to support their party in the parliament to deliver the promises made to the entire country during the election". This is a great statement as the main point of an MP is to help their people with their wishes, love, also their safety and have a philanthropic environment.
Quality of Evaluation
Reasonable. You engage with both writers and — unlike many students — you use direct quotes from the source, which shows close reading. Your "designated areas" reasoning is your own thinking and adds real depth. You also challenge Jenkins ("this doesn't make sense to me") and present a counter-argument to your own position, which shows balance. The answer loses clarity in the second half where sentences become long and tangled. To push higher, keep each sentence to one clear point.
Keeping Sentences Clear:
Instead of: "This doesn't make sense to me as if an MP chose to prioritize party over a constituency who has a small majority rather than a large one who needs more help."
Try: "I disagree with this because an MP might be told to follow the party line even when their local area desperately needs help — for example, a constituency with high poverty shouldn't be ignored just because the party wants unity."
Strengths
- Direct Quotes: You quote both Harris ("champion of their LOCAL area") and Jenkins ("Loyalty to the party is not a betrayal..."). This shows strong engagement with the source.
- Own Knowledge: Your "designated areas" point — that each MP covering a specific area ensures fair treatment — is your own reasoning and adds depth.
- Balanced: You present counter-arguments to your own position ("However some may disagree with me..."), which is mature evaluation.
Targets
- Keep Sentences Short and Clear: Your second half has very long sentences that lose their point. Aim for one idea per sentence.
- Develop Jenkins Further: You say you disagree with Jenkins but don't fully explain why. After "this doesn't make sense to me", give a clear, specific reason.
- Write More: At 218 words you are below the target. More development of your Jenkins evaluation would bring you closer.
I mostly agree with Sarah Jenkins because in one of her arguments she says the MP's first duty is to support their party in Parliament to deliver their promise (manifesto). I agree with this statement due to the main reason they get voted is because of their Manifesto. A reason why I may not agree with much is when she says an MP who prioritizes their constituency over the party line contributes to weak government and political instability; this could be disagreed upon by constituents who help the MP to win the election.
I partially agree with Tom Harris because in his argument he stated that if they believe a party policy will harm their constituent such as closing a local hospital they have a moral obligation to oppose it. I agree with this statement because an MP shouldn't do what someone suggests but what morally is right.
Quality of Evaluation
Good for its length. Despite being short, there is genuine evaluation here. Your strongest moment is when you challenge Jenkins's own argument — you agree with her manifesto point but then push back on her instability claim by noting that constituents help the MP win. This self-challenge (agreeing with a writer but questioning part of their argument) is exactly what top answers do. Your Harris section also shows evaluation: you don't just describe his hospital point, you explain
why moral duty matters. The main issue is length — you need to develop more points.
Developing the Harris Section:
"Harris also argues that MPs learn about local needs through 'surgeries and community engagement'. I agree because a party leader in London cannot understand the specific problems in every area — only the local MP can, and that local knowledge is what makes them effective."
Strengths
- Self-Challenge: You agree with Jenkins but then question her instability argument — this is sophisticated evaluation that shows you're thinking critically, even about the side you support.
- Moral Reasoning: Your point that an MP should do "what morally is right" rather than just follow orders is strong independent evaluation.
- Direct References: You closely reference both writers' actual arguments rather than making vague generalisations.
Targets
- Write Much More: At 138 words you are well below the target. You need at least one more developed point per writer.
- Use Quotation Marks: You paraphrase the writers closely but don't use quote marks. Embedding their exact words in quotes shows closer engagement with the source.
- Develop Harris Further: You only cover one Harris point (moral obligation). His arguments about local knowledge and accountability would give you more to evaluate.
I mostly agree with Tom Harris, due to his argument for an MP's loyalty to his constituents, he defends their sole purpose. Sarah Jenkins argues for an MP's loyalty to the party. She argues that an MP's first duty is to support their Party in Parliament to deliver the promises made to the entire country. Although there are some truths to this, a promise made before might have to be amended or removed due to circumstances in the future. Unforeseeable events take place and an MP might have to stand against it due to the wellbeing of their constituents.
She also argues that an MP who prioritizes their constituency over the party contributes to weak government. I disagree with this statement because constituents vote for an MP to represent them. An MP's sole purpose is to look out for their constituency. If any action isn't good for a constituency, an MP's job is to prevent that action from happening. On the other hand, Tom Harris argues for loyalty to constituents. He argues that MPs are not accountable to party leaders but to their constituency. An MP is the direct link between the constituents and the government; they are the top priority of any decision made. This means that they are most accountable to the constituents. He believed that if an action harms the constituents the MP's job is to try and stop it.
Quality of Evaluation
Very good. You engage critically with both writers and your evaluation is sustained throughout. Your strongest moment is your challenge to Jenkins's manifesto argument: you point out that promises "might have to be amended or removed due to circumstances in the future" — this is your own thinking and it's a politically mature point. You also directly disagree with Jenkins's weak government claim and explain why. Your description of an MP as "the direct link between the constituents and the government" is a strong original phrase. To reach the top band, use direct quotes from the source.
Adding Direct Quotes:
Instead of: "He argues that MPs are not accountable to party leaders but to their constituency."
Try: "Harris argues that MPs are 'accountable not to party leaders, but to the voters in their constituency'. I agree because this direct link between an MP and their community is what makes democracy meaningful — without it, MPs are just following orders from London."
Strengths
- Own Knowledge: Your point about "unforeseeable events" requiring manifesto promises to change is not in the source — this is your own politically mature thinking.
- Sustained Evaluation: You don't just describe — you challenge Jenkins's arguments directly ("I disagree with this statement because...") and explain why.
- Strong Original Phrasing: Describing an MP as "the direct link between the constituents and the government" is your own language and captures the argument precisely.
Targets
- Use Direct Quotes: You paraphrase both writers closely but don't use quotation marks. Embedding their exact words would strengthen your answer.
- Expand Slightly: At 218 words you're below the target. Developing one more point — perhaps Harris's argument about MP surgeries and local knowledge — would bring you into range.
I agree with Tom Harris' argument for loyalty to constituents as the political party didn't vote to get them into parliament and these parties will know less about what's best for their constituents through surgeries, emails and working alongside the community and overall just knowing their community and seeing how they can better it, but some cons of this are that they could be dropped from the political party.
Someone may agree with Sarah though as she says "To do otherwise would be to betray the trust of millions who voted for that political party." This is right as a benefit for one constituency could be a disadvantage for another constituency. A benefit for someone isn't a benefit for someone else and that's why we have constituency MPs to get an accurate representation of the country. More reasons why people shouldn't listen to their constituencies is because if you're in a smaller party (e.g., 2 seats in parliament) you have to abide by that party's manifesto, because if you don't you'd distort the image of the party, but if you're in a big party you are more likely to listen to the constituency as there are more people who can represent the party and won't be as such a bad look as if you were in a small party.
Quality of Evaluation
Good. There is genuine independent thinking here. Your strongest point is your analysis of smaller versus larger parties — you argue that in a party with just 2 seats, rebellion "distorts the image", but in a larger party there's more room for dissent. This is own knowledge that goes well beyond the source and shows real political understanding. You also use a direct quote from Jenkins and evaluate it fairly. The main weaknesses are the long, tangled sentences and the slightly disconnected final point. To push higher, keep sentences shorter and make sure each point flows logically into the next.
Untangling the Party Size Point:
"Party size matters here. If a small party like the Green Party (with only a few seats) has an MP rebel, it could destroy the party's image. But in a large party like Labour or the Conservatives, one rebel MP is less noticeable — so larger parties can afford to let their MPs focus on local issues."
Strengths
- Own Knowledge — Party Size: Your point about small parties (2 seats) versus large parties is impressive independent thinking not found in the source.
- Direct Quote: You quote Jenkins directly ("To do otherwise would be to betray the trust of millions..."), which shows close engagement with the source.
- Balanced Evaluation: Your point that "a benefit for one constituency could be a disadvantage for another" is mature, balanced reasoning.
Targets
- Shorter Sentences: Your final point is one very long sentence. Break it into 2–3 shorter ones so your excellent ideas come through more clearly.
- Develop Harris More: Your Harris section is brief. Expand on why local knowledge from surgeries makes an MP more effective than party headquarters.
- Write More: At 182 words you're below the target. More development would strengthen what is already a thoughtful answer.
I mostly agree with Sarah Jenkins... One point she stood out to me was when she states that 'their first duty is to support their party in Parliament to deliver the promises made to the entire country'. This stood out to me because if you fail to deliver the promises made by the party and all the other MPs within government, you are guilty of betraying the whole nation which shows how important parties are.
However I agree with Tom Harris's argument about the importance of loyalty towards your constituencies. He argued 'Ultimately, MPs are accountable not to party leaders, but to the voters in their constituency'. This is a strength towards his arguments, as if MPs rely on the voters to continue voting for them and the people rely on the MP's to solve local issues an area of conflict arises... purely on the people to vote for them... loyalty towards their party betrays their whole constituents.
Quality of Evaluation
Reasonable. Your first half is strong — you use a direct quote from Jenkins and explain what it means in your own words ("guilty of betraying the whole nation"). You also quote Harris and begin to build an interesting evaluation about the "area of conflict" between party loyalty and constituent loyalty. This is a perceptive observation. The answer loses clarity in the second half where sentences trail off. To push higher, complete your thoughts and develop the "conflict" idea further — it's a really promising line of reasoning.
Completing the "Conflict" Point:
"This creates a conflict: MPs rely on voters to keep them in their seat, but voters rely on the MP to fight for local issues. If the MP follows the party instead, they break that trust — and as Harris argues, they 'will, and should, be voted out'. So the MP has to choose between pleasing their party and keeping their job."
Strengths
- Direct Quotes: You quote both Jenkins and Harris directly, which shows close reading of the source.
- Strong Jenkins Evaluation: Your explanation that failing to deliver promises means "betraying the whole nation" is clear, well-reasoned evaluation.
- Perceptive Observation: The "area of conflict" between voter reliance and party reliance is a sophisticated point — develop it further.
Targets
- Complete Your Sentences: The second half trails off with "..." — every sentence needs to finish its thought clearly.
- Develop the Conflict Idea: Your observation about the conflict between voter loyalty and party loyalty is excellent — but you need to explain what this conflict means and who "wins".
- Write More: At 155 words you are well below the target. Your ideas are good — they just need more space to develop.
Somebody may believe that S.J's argument is better because if you are in a party which... But on the other hand someone may believe that people are the ones choosing everything. It also says that one who follows constituency line contributes to weak parliament. But what if everyone does own ideas AND listens to community.
Some may agree with Tom Harris because the people direct the community... However, someone else may believe in community because some issues are apt and waste, but at the same time... If you responded would show you care for your constituency. Then they may vote for you again.
Quality of Evaluation
Limited but with a spark. This is very short and many sentences trail off unfinished. However, there is a genuinely perceptive moment: "But what if everyone does own ideas AND listens to community" — this challenges the whole premise of the debate by asking whether the two sides even need to be in conflict. That's a sophisticated question. You also show basic understanding of both writers' positions and attempt to reason about accountability ("they may vote for you again"). The main barriers are length, incomplete sentences, and using "somebody/someone" instead of stating your own view.
Building on Your Best Idea:
Your question "what if everyone does own ideas AND listens to community" is actually a brilliant challenge. Here's how to develop it:
"Jenkins says MPs must follow the party, and Harris says they must follow their constituents. But why can't an MP do both? If an MP listens to their local community AND works with their party, they could represent their area without causing the 'political instability' Jenkins worries about. The best MPs find a balance."
Strengths
- Perceptive Challenge: "What if everyone does own ideas AND listens to community" questions the entire either/or setup of the debate — this is genuinely impressive critical thinking.
- Both Sides: Despite the short length, you reference both writers' positions.
Targets
- State YOUR Opinion: Don't say "somebody may believe" or "someone may believe". The question asks what you think. Start with "I agree with..." and own your position.
- Finish Your Sentences: Several sentences trail off with "..." — every thought needs a complete ending.
- Write Much More: At 95 words you are far below the target. You have good ideas — you just need to develop them into full paragraphs.
- Develop Your Best Point: Your "what if both" idea is your strongest moment. Build a whole paragraph around it — explain how an MP could balance party loyalty with constituency duty.
I mostly agree with Tom Harris as his argument is for the local people and giving what they want instead of a bunch of constituencies under the same rules that don't benefit all. This is because he argues that MPs are sent to parliament to fight for their constituency and deliver their needs and specific concerns, and to be their voice.
Also Sarah Jenkins has a very good argument as well for Loyalty to the Party.
On one hand Tom Harris argues for Loyalty to the constituency. This idea is favourable for me because it truly lets the MPs be expressive of their concerns and to act as a voice for their people. An MP should also have morals, integrity and strong, decisive leadership for the people. If they believe their political party will harm them in some way, if they are closing food banks that many locals rely on, then they should have a moral belief that the decision is wrong and bring supporters against it.
Sarah Jenkins can be considered a polar opposite. Someone on their side may argue that going against your party is like not working as a team and being a lone wolf which isn't effective. Although this is also a very good point, someone else may argue that there may be more votes than seats for a party, so is it truly equal.
On another hand, Sarah Jenkins argues for Loyalty to the Party, a polar opposite of Harris' idea. Her idea is also favorable and good. This is because she argues that for a party to work, they must have the support of their MPs in order to influence their policy and to achieve positive changes. She says that acting alone will damage your party as it shows you don't agree with their policy, therefore making you look weak. An MP will have a far greater chance if they work to achieve positive changes such as reforming public services, managing the economy and to work as a united team is more efficient.
However she states that if you don't do this you would betray the trust of millions which personally I disagree with. This is because someone can argue that fighting for your constituency would actually be more helpful to the locals, giving them what they specifically need, instead of forcing their own people to go under rules that they did not vote for them for.
Quality of Evaluation
Very good. This is a thorough, balanced answer that engages with both writers in genuine depth. You evaluate Harris's integrity argument and strengthen it with your own food banks example — excellent own knowledge. You treat Jenkins fairly ("her idea is also favorable and good") even while disagreeing, which shows maturity. Your votes-versus-seats challenge is another piece of independent thinking. The answer is slightly repetitive in places (the "polar opposite" framing appears twice) and could be tightened. To push to full marks, cut the repetition and use direct quotes.
Cutting Repetition:
You introduce Jenkins twice as a "polar opposite". Merge these into one developed Jenkins section — this frees up words for deeper evaluation of her arguments.
Strengths
- Own Knowledge — Food Banks: Your food banks example is not in the source and perfectly illustrates why an MP might need to oppose their party.
- Own Knowledge — Votes vs Seats: Questioning whether the system is "truly equal" when votes don't match seats is sophisticated independent thinking.
- Fair to Both Sides: You acknowledge Jenkins's argument is "favorable and good" even while disagreeing — this shows evaluative maturity.
Targets
- Cut the Repetition: Jenkins is introduced twice as a "polar opposite" and her arguments restart. Merge these into one flowing section.
- Use Direct Quotes: You describe both writers' arguments closely but rarely use their exact words in quotation marks.
In the passage both Sarah Jenkins and Tom Harris can be considered as polar opposites where Sarah Jenkins argues for loyalty to the party which can host a whole load of issues and some strengths. Additionally Tom Harris argues for loyalty to constituents which brings about equal representation and strengthens the community, where I mainly agree with Tom Harris's views due to it creating a sense of belonging.
Firstly. On the one hand Sarah Jenkins argues for Loyalty to party where she believes that an MP's primary job is to primarily endorse a political party and the manifesto it stands for, where the MP is the vehicle for the party's national performance which sounds great and unifying on paper, but can have a whole load of issues as an MP is not elected by a whole country of their party but the people, and if it puts the people who put faith in them under their party it can anger the individuals and people and make them feel left behind and forgotten about. Additionally if a Party holds a majority of 20 (365 seats) the government may not necessarily need their vote and may forget some MPs making people feel forgotten and divide the constituency as an MP is supposed to defend all people no matter who voted for who and if they only follow the party anger arises.
However Tom Harris believes in loyalty to the constituents who voted for the MP which is a strong point as it shows the MP cares about their constituency and listens to them making a healthy relationship. Additionally if an MP follows things in a party's manifesto they don't like it makes the party look not only weak but careless about individuals which breaks party unity and hinders them in the polls showing many places where this point conveys a strong message.
Overall both have good strong points but there is some area of improvement as for Sarah Jenkins' view, if a party narrowly won the constituency... particular party more than 48% will be left behind as they didn't vote for that party's vision and ideas and by only following the 51% of people vision and anger can arise.
Quality of Evaluation
Excellent. This is one of the strongest answers in the class. Your critical evaluation of Jenkins is sustained and sophisticated — you challenge her manifesto argument by pointing out that MPs are elected locally, not nationally, and that ignoring local voters makes people feel "left behind and forgotten". Your own knowledge is impressive: the point about parliamentary majorities (a government with a majority of 20 might forget some MPs) and the narrow constituency argument (48% left behind) both go well beyond the source. You also present Harris's position with clear evaluative reasoning. To reach full marks, tighten the sentence structure in the second half.
Tightening Sentences:
Instead of one long sentence, try: "If a party narrowly wins a constituency — say 51% to 48% — then almost half the voters didn't choose that party. If the MP only follows the party line, those people are completely ignored. That's not representation."
Strengths
- Own Knowledge — Parliamentary Majority: Your point about a majority of 20 (365 seats) and MPs being "forgotten" is sophisticated political reasoning not in the source.
- Own Knowledge — Narrow Victories: The 51% vs 48% argument shows you understand that following the party line can ignore nearly half a constituency.
- Sustained Critical Evaluation: You don't just describe Jenkins — you challenge her at multiple points with your own reasoning.
Targets
- Tighten the Second Half: Your ideas become harder to follow in long sentences. Break them into shorter, punchier points.
- Use Direct Quotes: You paraphrase both writers closely but rarely use their exact words in quotation marks.
One strength that Sarah Jenkins made is that the first duty of a party is to uphold their promises and their manifesto (a group action that helps a party get elected). This should be possible however she stated that it is betrayal of the country if they don't uphold their promises; there could be negative issues that may impact this as for example financial issues. I believe that she thinks that an effective government relies on communication and loyalty.
Another point that Sarah Jenkins stated is that prioritizing your constituency over the political party could lead to the downfall of an MP. There are Positives and Negatives about this, for example others can argue that everyone should be looked after.
One point that Tom Harris made is that community engagement is key as this is taking care of the community. Tom Harris has mostly left wing views or views that rely on a political party. One downside to his argument would be that he believes the first duty is to prioritize the people who voted for him. This could ruin the reputation of or could possibly lead to the government getting cut. He also believes that an MP is there to voice their views.
Quality of Evaluation
Developing. You engage with both writers and show good instincts — your point about financial issues preventing manifesto promises being kept is a valid, independent challenge to Jenkins. You also attempt to evaluate Harris's argument by identifying a downside (damaging government reputation). The main weakness is that many of your points are started but not finished: you say "there are Positives and Negatives" but only give one brief example, and your Harris evaluation trails off. To push higher, develop each point fully — explain the "because" behind every claim.
Developing a Half-Finished Point:
Instead of: "There are Positives and Negatives about this, for example others can argue that everyone should be looked after."
Try: "This is partly true — an MP who ignores their party could lose support and resources. But the flip side is that everyone deserves to be looked after, and if the party's policy harms a local area, the MP has a duty to speak up rather than stay silent."
Strengths
- Financial Issues Challenge: Your point that financial problems could prevent manifesto promises being kept is a valid real-world challenge to Jenkins.
- Both Sides: You address both writers and attempt to identify strengths and weaknesses in each argument.
- Interpretation: You draw your own conclusions about what Jenkins believes ("effective government relies on communication and loyalty").
Targets
- Finish Every Point: Don't just say "there are positives and negatives" — explain what they are and why they matter.
- State Your Own Position: You never clearly say which writer you agree with more. The question requires this.
- Use Direct Quotes: You describe what the writers say but don't use their exact words in quotation marks.
- Write More: At 175 words you're well below the target. Developing your half-finished points would bring you much closer.
Sarah Jenkins does have some good points but focuses more on the party's views and less on the people's. You can see that when she says "government cannot function if its MPs constantly break rank to vote on narrow, local interests." Meaning the people's needs are not what should be focused on and the party should be the one to have a say on what happens on local areas so the people don't really have a say even though MPs are supposed to represent the people.
A good point I think she had was when she said, "By working as part of a united team an MP has a far greater chance of influencing policy and achieving positive change both locally and nationally". I think this is a good point because working as a team is very efficient and gets good results but not listening to the people who put you in power so does not set a good image and makes the parties look controlling.
Tom Harris had some really good points and seems to be more to Left wing with more Labour party views than Sarah Jenkins who is more conservative right wing. A good point Tom Harris had was that he believes "Your first and most important duty as an MP is to be a voice and a champion for the people who elected you in your local constituency" and I think that is a good view because being someone people who did vote or didn't vote for you can trust to share their views is very important because in a democracy the power belongs to the people.
Tom Harris made another good point but could be a bit controversial and it was that "If an MP consistently ignores the wishes of the local people in favour of the party line they will and should be voted out" and I agree the people should come first and the party's views should come second.
Quality of Evaluation
Good. You cover both writers with genuine evaluation throughout. Your strongest skill is explaining what arguments
mean in practice — for example, you explain that Jenkins's point about not breaking ranks means "the people don't really have a say", and that teamwork is efficient but "makes the parties look controlling". You use four direct quotes across both writers, which is the most of any student. Your political spectrum observation (Harris as Labour, Jenkins as Conservative) is your own analysis. To push higher, make your overall position clearer from the start.
Making Your Position Clearer:
Weave your preference into your analysis: "Harris argues MPs should be a 'champion of their local area'. I find this more convincing than Jenkins because a party leader in London cannot understand the impact of a hospital closing in a small town — only the local MP can."
Strengths
- Excellent Use of Quotes: You use four direct quotes from the source — more than any other student in the class. This shows close engagement with the text.
- Explaining What Arguments Mean: You don't just repeat what the writers say — you explain what their points mean in real terms ("the people don't really have a say").
- Own Knowledge — Political Spectrum: Placing the writers on the left-right political spectrum is your own analysis and shows wider political awareness.
Targets
- Make Your Position Clearer: The question asks "which writer do you agree with more?" Make sure your overall preference comes through clearly — even a phrase like "I find Harris more convincing" woven into your analysis would help.
- Develop Jenkins's Weaknesses: You identify good Jenkins points but your criticism ("makes parties look controlling") could be developed further with a specific example.
- Expand Slightly: At 258 words you're close to the target. One more developed point would bring you into range.
I agree with Tom Harris as his argument is about being loyal to the Constituents. This is because the people in the constituencies have to stay there most of the time and need what is best for them. He says that an MP must also have integrity, meaning that they should be the best MP for the place that they represent using their own conscience. This shows that by not listening to others and using your own belief, you can make the right decision.
He also said that MPs are sent to Parliament to be a champion of the local area, meaning that they are sent to say what the community needs.
On the other hand, Sarah Jenkins has made good political points. She said that for the government to maintain its economy it needs the MPs. This means that you can't just help your local area all the time because it may destroy the economy for everyone. She also says that an effective government needs discipline and cohesion. This means that you can't just benefit your area.
She also said that you should support Parliament in fulfilling the promises they made to their country. This means that you should help others as well and deliver everyone's promise to them and not just your constituency.
Quality of Evaluation
Reasonable. You cover both writers and — importantly — you explain what each argument
means in practical terms, which is a useful evaluative skill. Your strongest moment is when you challenge Harris's side: "you can't just help your local area all the time because it may destroy the economy for everyone" — this shows you can see weaknesses even in the argument you support. Your Harris section has a perceptive take on the conscience argument ("by not listening to others and using your own belief, you can make the right decision"). The main weakness is that you don't evaluate Jenkins's points — you describe what she says without judging whether she's right or wrong.
Turning Description into Evaluation:
Instead of: "She says an effective government needs discipline and cohesion. This means that you can't just benefit your area."
Try: "Jenkins argues that an effective government needs 'discipline and cohesion'. She has a point — a government that can't pass laws because its MPs keep rebelling would be chaotic. But I still think Harris is more convincing because MPs who blindly follow the party could end up supporting policies that hurt their own community."
Strengths
- Practical Explanations: You explain what both writers' arguments mean in real terms, not just repeating their words.
- Challenging Your Own Side: Your point about helping only your local area potentially destroying the economy shows you can see weaknesses in the argument you support.
- Perceptive Take on Conscience: Your interpretation of Harris's integrity argument — that thinking independently leads to better decisions — is good evaluative reasoning.
Targets
- Evaluate Jenkins, Don't Just Describe Her: You explain what Jenkins says but never say whether she's right or wrong. Add "I agree/disagree because..." after each Jenkins point.
- Use Direct Quotes: You describe both writers' arguments but don't put their exact words in quotation marks.
- Write More: At 188 words you're below the target. Developing your Jenkins evaluation would bring you closer.
I agree with Tom Harris because he said an MP must also be a person of integrity free to vote according to their conscience and their judgment of what is best for their community. I agree with that 'cause doing what's best for their community actually shows how the MPs are thinking about the community and people.
He also said ultimately, MPs are accountable not to party leaders but to the voters in their constituency. I agree with that since they shouldn't be accountable to party leaders but they definitely should be to their constituency and with the other statement it shows he actually listens to their people.
I slightly disagree with Sarah Jenkins because she said an MP who prioritizes their constituency over the party line contributes to weak government and political instability. I disagree with that statement because I personally think it would strengthen their party since it will show the MP cares about the party and their constituency and people in the constituency will like it since the MP actually tries their best so he/she listens to them.
Overall I mostly agree with Tom Harris but Sarah has a few like better points than Sarah like she said reform public services and manage the economy and I agree with that statement but I agree more with Tom Harris.
Quality of Evaluation
Developing. You cover both writers and have a clear position. Your strongest moment is when you challenge Jenkins's "weak government" claim — you argue that supporting the constituency would actually
strengthen the party because it shows the MP cares. That's a valid and well-reasoned counter-argument. The main weakness is repetition: your first two paragraphs make the same point (Harris cares about community) without adding new reasoning. Your conclusion attempts to be balanced but the wording gets confused.
Avoiding Repetition:
Your first two paragraphs both say "the MP cares about the community". Keep the first, and replace the second with a different Harris point — for example: "Harris also argues that MPs learn about local needs through 'surgeries and community engagement'. I agree because a party leader in London can't know what a specific town needs — only the local MP can."
Strengths
- Good Challenge to Jenkins: Your argument that prioritising constituency would strengthen a party (by showing the MP cares) is a valid counter-argument.
- Both Sides: You address both writers and attempt a balanced conclusion.
- Clear Position: Your preference for Harris is stated from the start and maintained throughout.
Targets
- Make Each Point Different: Your first two paragraphs say the same thing. Each paragraph should introduce a new argument or reason.
- Proofread Your Conclusion: Your final sentence is confusing ("Sarah has better points than Sarah"). Read it back to yourself before submitting.
- Write More: At 164 words you're well below the target. Replace the repeated point with a new one to add length and depth.
I mostly agree with Sarah Jenkins for loyalty to the party because of supporting for your party to deliver your promises that were made the whole election and if you do otherwise that's betraying the trust in the party and who voted for them.
A member of parliament is not betrayal of constituents but loyal to the party and serving them. To change and work as a united team shows that it is a greater way of achieving positive change. If the MP doesn't contribute enough it can lead to harming people. Breaking the ranks of the vote can lead to the Government not functioning properly and reform public services is for government to pass its budget. The MP can't function properly and do votes if they don't support the party because of weak government and the constituency over the party line.
For the Government if they act more against another party or when they are supporting the party and don't have discipline then they won't be able to function because effective governance who would make a big change for the country requires cohesion and discipline. Political parties also provide resources that allow MPs to work effectively.
Quality of Evaluation
Limited. You have a clear opening position (Jenkins) and you reference several of her arguments — manifesto promises, united team, discipline, party resources. However, the answer is almost entirely one-sided: Tom Harris is never mentioned. The question asks you to refer to
both writers. The other main issue is that you describe Jenkins's arguments without evaluating them — you don't explain
why these points are strong or weak, and you don't add your own reasoning. To improve, you must engage with Harris and add "because" reasoning to each point.
How to Add Harris and Your Own Reasoning:
After your Jenkins section, add: "However, Tom Harris argues that MPs should be loyal to their constituents because they are 'the champion of their local area'. I can see why people agree with this — if a party policy would close a local hospital, the MP should fight against it rather than just following orders."
Strengths
- Clear Position: You state your agreement with Jenkins from the start.
- Multiple Jenkins Points: You reference several of her arguments (manifesto, united team, discipline, resources).
Targets
- Include Harris: The question requires you to discuss both writers. Tom Harris is completely absent from your answer.
- Evaluate, Don't Just Describe: After stating each Jenkins argument, explain why you agree using "because..." and your own reasoning.
- Use Your Own Words: Much of the answer is very close to Jenkins's original text. Put her words in quotes and then explain them in your own language.
In my opinion, I agree with Tom Harris. The reason I personally believe this is Tom Harris showed me that a person of Integrity, an MP should be free to use their own judgement with clear conscience on what is best in their Constituency; for example, he believes an MP has a moral obligation to oppose closing a hospital.
On the other hand, I somewhat agree with Sarah Jenkins because she believes an MP's first duty is to support their party which makes more attractive for its standards, and always loyal to your party. Some may agree with her because the manifesto is a chosen vote to be loyal to your party and if you weren't to believe in their point, you betray the trust of millions who voted. Which to Tom Harris I agree there is an alarmistic mindset.
Overall, I agree his thoughts.
Quality of Evaluation
Developing. Despite being very short, there is genuine evaluation here. You engage with both writers, explain Harris's integrity argument clearly, and — most impressively — you characterise Jenkins's betrayal argument as having an "alarmistic mindset", which is a valid critical judgement. You're not just describing what the writers say; you're assessing their tone and approach. The answer needs much more development, but the evaluative instinct is there.
Developing the "Alarmistic" Point:
"Jenkins warns that breaking from the party means 'betraying the trust of millions'. But this is alarmistic — one MP disagreeing on one issue doesn't destroy the whole party. In fact, Harris would argue it shows the MP has integrity and is thinking for themselves."
Strengths
- "Alarmistic" Critique: Calling Jenkins's betrayal argument "alarmistic" is a genuine evaluative judgement — you're assessing the quality of her reasoning, not just describing it.
- Both Sides: You address both writers and give reasons for your position.
- Concrete Example: You reference Harris's hospital closing example to make his argument real.
Targets
- Develop Every Point: Your ideas are good but too brief. After each argument, add a full explanation using "because..." and your own reasoning.
- Use Direct Quotes: You paraphrase both writers closely. Put their exact words in quotation marks.
- Write Much More: At 110 words you're far below the target. You have the right evaluative instinct — you just need to develop it.
In my opinion, I mostly agree with Tom Harris. This is because he starts with saying that MP's most important duty is to the local constituency. I highly agree with this as you were elected by the people. My second point why I chose him is that an MP should be a person of integrity, free to vote this is rightful in my opinion as you can prevent things from closing for example, a local hospital.
I disagree with Sarah Jenkins' point which was that government can't function if MPs break rank to vote on local interest. Surely passive things like local issues are more important than whatever they read... lack hygiene... these can result to health problems costing the wh...
Quality of Evaluation
Reasonable. You engage passionately with both writers. Your Harris section has clear evaluative reasoning — you explain
why you agree (the people elected you, you can prevent hospitals closing). Your Jenkins challenge is your strongest moment: you argue that local issues like hygiene and health problems are more important than party discipline. This is genuine own reasoning — you're not just describing, you're judging. The answer is let down by being far too short and the Jenkins section being cut off mid-sentence. The answer is also one-sided — you argue for Harris but don't acknowledge any strengths in Jenkins's position.
Completing the Jenkins Challenge:
"I disagree with Jenkins when she says the government 'cannot function' if MPs break ranks. Surely local issues like poor hygiene, lack of healthcare, and failing schools are more important than party unity? These problems cost the government more money in the long run if they're ignored — so an MP who fights for local services is actually helping the country."
Strengths
- Passionate Jenkins Challenge: Your argument that local health issues are more important than party discipline is forceful and well-reasoned.
- Clear Position with Reasons: You don't just say you agree with Harris — you explain why for each point.
- Concrete Example: The hospital closing reference makes Harris's argument feel real and practical.
Targets
- Acknowledge Jenkins's Strengths: Even if you disagree with her overall, mention one point she makes that has some truth — this shows balanced evaluation.
- Complete Your Sentences: Your Jenkins challenge is cut off mid-thought. Finish every argument fully.
- Write Much More: At 120 words you're far below the target. Develop your Jenkins section and add at least one more Harris point.
I agree with Tom Harris's argument as to the reader it mainly shows about an MP's role as he describes an MP as a voice fighting for the people's wishes from a local area and an MP should suggest their interest out everywhere, e.g. a higher city than just a citizen.
On the other hand Sarah Jenkins thinks the government should support their party and uphold their manifesto promises and if they don't they betray the trust of many... who voted. So if anybody faces injuries they are still held responsible although the government are a good point she argues.
Quality of Evaluation
Limited. You attempt to address both writers, which shows you understand the question structure. Your Harris section identifies his role as a "voice" for the community, and your Jenkins section references her manifesto and betrayal arguments. However, most sentences don't complete clear thoughts, and the evaluation is very brief. Your final sentence attempts to make an interesting point about responsibility but the meaning gets lost. To improve, slow down and make one clear point per sentence.
Making One Clear Point:
Instead of trying to fit everything into one sentence, try: "Harris argues that an MP should be a 'voice' for their local area. I agree because the people voted for that specific MP to represent them — if the MP ignores them and just follows the party, those people have no one fighting for their interests."
Strengths
- Both Sides: You attempt to address both Harris and Jenkins, which shows you understand the question.
- Harris's Core Idea: You identify Harris's key argument — an MP should be a voice for local people.
Targets
- One Point Per Sentence: Your sentences try to combine too many ideas. Make one clear point, then move to the next sentence.
- Explain Why: After every argument, add "because..." and give your own reason.
- Write Much More: At 95 words you're far below the target. Aim for at least two developed points about each writer.
I mostly agree with Tom Harris as his argument is mostly about local areas and representation. The reason why is due to the fact he says, "If an MP consistently ignores the wishes of local people in favour of the party line, they will and should be voted out." I strongly agree with this statement as you should be representing your constituency and raising any issues in Parliament to ensure equality and a good community.
On the other hand, some may disagree due to the fact that an MP represents you nationally and an MP's duty is to support their party in Parliament and delivering the promises made on the manifesto. Some may also say that an MP has a higher chance of achieving positive change both locally and nationally.
Another reason why I agree with Tom Harris is because I think an MP's most important duty is to represent the people who elected them in their local constituency as their vote got you into your position and you can return the favour.
In conclusion, I agree with Tom Harris' view as you should represent the people who elected you in your constituency.
Quality of Evaluation
Reasonable. This is the best-structured answer in its score band — you have a clear opening, address both sides, give multiple reasons for your position, and end with a conclusion. You use a direct quote from Harris and explain why you agree. Your "return the favour" point is your own reasoning about the MP-voter relationship. The Jenkins section is the weakness: you describe her arguments ("some may disagree") but never evaluate them — you don't say whether she's right or wrong, or why.
Evaluating Jenkins:
Instead of: "Some may also say that an MP has a higher chance of achieving positive change both locally and nationally."
Try: "Jenkins argues that working as a team gives MPs a 'far greater chance of influencing policy'. There is some truth to this — a united party can pass laws more easily. But I think this only works if the party's policies actually help your local area. If they don't, the MP should have the courage to speak up."
Strengths
- Clear Structure: Opening position → Harris reasons → Jenkins → more Harris → conclusion. This is a solid essay framework.
- Direct Quote: You quote Harris directly ("If an MP consistently ignores..."), which shows close reading of the source.
- "Return the Favour": Your point about MPs repaying the voters who put them in their position is your own reasoning.
Targets
- Evaluate Jenkins: You describe what Jenkins supporters might say but never judge whether she's right or wrong. Add "I agree/disagree because..." to her arguments.
- Write More: At 153 words you're well below the target. Developing your Jenkins evaluation would add the length and depth needed.
- Add Own Knowledge: Bring in a real-world example (like a hospital closure or local issue) to strengthen your argument.
I agree with Tom Harris because I think that the MPs should stay loyal to the people who elected them in their local constituency and support and fight for their community. They can learn these through local needs through surgeries and community engagement not from party headquarters in London. MPs are accountable not to party leaders but to the voters in their constituency. At the ballot box if an MP consistently ignores the wishes of local people they will be kicked out.
On the other hand I also agree with Sarah Jenkins because they should support their political party because their first duty is to support their party in parliament and deliver promises made to the entire country like healthcare, education and more public services. MPs can be seen as weak if they support their constituency over their party which harms everyone. It is also not really effective if they work by themselves because they are basically making their lives harder and would be greater chance of influencing policy and achieving positive change by working as part of a united team.
Quality of Evaluation
Reasonable. You cover both writers fairly and your Harris section has a strong cause-and-effect chain: MPs learn through local engagement → they're accountable to voters → if they ignore people, they'll be "kicked out". Your Jenkins section adds own knowledge (healthcare, education, public services as examples of promises). The main weakness is that you don't judge or challenge either writer — you present their arguments without saying whether they're strong or weak. You also need to state which writer you find
more convincing overall.
Adding Your Own Judgement:
After your Jenkins section, add: "Although Jenkins makes a fair point about teamwork, I still think Harris is more convincing. An MP who follows the party without thinking could end up supporting a policy that hurts the very people who elected them — and that's the real betrayal."
Strengths
- Both Sides Covered: You give fair space to both Harris and Jenkins, which shows you understand the question requires balance.
- Cause-and-Effect: Your Harris section builds a logical chain from local engagement to accountability to being "kicked out".
- Own Knowledge: Healthcare, education and public services are your own examples of manifesto promises — not in the source.
Targets
- Evaluate, Don't Just Describe: You present both writers' arguments but never say whether they're strong or weak. Add "I think this is convincing because..." or "I disagree because..."
- Make an Overall Judgement: The question asks which writer you agree with more. Make this clear.
- Write More: At 168 words you're below the target. Adding your own judgements and reasoning would increase both depth and length.
I mostly agree with Tom Harris as his argument is about Loyalty to Constituents and duty to their residents. This is because being loyal to the people of your constituency is the first duty of the MP as it was the people of the constituency who voted for the MP. This allows an MP to campaign for what their people want without being restricted by their party.
On the other hand Sarah Jenkins argues for Loyalty to the Party, arguing that when a voter elected an MP they are voting primarily for the Party and not specifically if an MP aligns with its party's views. However allowing MPs to be loyal to the party can cause an MP to move away from his original beliefs which were why the voters voted for him.
Ultimately, I agree more with Tom Harris being loyal to your constituents through surgeries and community engagement keeps the most powerful check we have on political power.
Quality of Evaluation
Good for its length. This is a well-structured answer with clear evaluation throughout. Your strongest moments are: (1) your point about MPs being able to "campaign without being restricted by their party" — this is your own reasoning, and (2) your challenge to Jenkins: party loyalty could pull an MP "away from his original beliefs which were why the voters voted for him". That's a sharp, well-articulated counter-argument. Your conclusion is excellent — you reference Harris's specific language about surgeries and community engagement. The only issue is length — at 145 words, you need to develop more points.
Adding Depth with a Specific Example:
"For example, if a party decided to close a local hospital to save money nationally, the MP for that area should be free to oppose it — because the voters who put them in parliament trusted them to protect local services, not to blindly follow the party line."
Strengths
- Sharp Jenkins Challenge: Your point that party loyalty could pull an MP away from the beliefs voters elected them for is a well-articulated counter-argument.
- Clear Structure: Position → Harris reasoning → Jenkins with challenge → conclusion. Excellent framework.
- Strong Conclusion: Your final sentence references Harris's specific language about surgeries and community engagement, which shows close engagement with the source.
Targets
- Write Much More: At 145 words you're far below the target. Your framework is excellent — you just need to develop each section with more points and examples.
- Use Direct Quotes: You paraphrase both writers closely. Putting their exact words in quotation marks would strengthen your answer.
- Acknowledge Jenkins's Strength: Before challenging her, briefly acknowledge what's valid in her argument — this shows even more balanced evaluation.
To a bigger extent I agree with Tom Harris as she says you should be loyal to the people who elected them. This is because it wouldn't be loyal and would be seen as betrayal to not serve the people who elected you because there must be a reason for you specifically to be voted for example, to give representation, voice its specific concerns and fight for its values. This is important as if you ignore the wishes of local people, you will lose popularity and should and will be voted out, showing loyalty is representing the citizens who elected you and attending public meetings or surgeries and community engagement to show interest and present what people need.
On the other hand, Sarah Jenkins argues for Loyalty to the party as... Although this has a lot of its perks, there are majority of disadvantages for example people feeling that they haven't been represented well... betrayal of constituents and local citizens. This also has a lot of pros. This is because an MP has a far greater chance of influencing policy and achieving positive change, both locally and nationally. Furthermore an MP who prioritises party over their constituency contributes to a powerful government and political stability increasing popularity.
Quality of Evaluation
Very good. This is a genuinely balanced, well-reasoned answer. Your Harris section builds a clear logical chain: voters choose an MP for specific reasons → ignoring them is betrayal → they'll lose popularity → they'll be voted out → loyalty means attending surgeries and engaging with the community. This cause-and-effect reasoning is exactly what top answers look like. Your Jenkins section is also evaluative rather than descriptive — you weigh up both the disadvantages (unrepresented constituents) and advantages (policy influence, stability) of party loyalty. To reach the top band, use direct quotes and expand slightly.
Adding a Direct Quote:
"Harris argues that an MP's 'first and most important duty is to the people who elected them'. I agree because there must be a reason voters chose that specific person — to give their area a voice in parliament."
Strengths
- Logical Chain of Reasoning: Your Harris section builds a compelling cause-and-effect argument from election to betrayal to being voted out.
- Genuinely Balanced Jenkins Section: You don't just dismiss Jenkins — you list both pros (policy influence, stability) and cons (unrepresented constituents). This is mature evaluation.
- Practical Detail: You reference "surgeries and community engagement" as the way MPs show loyalty — linking back to Harris's specific argument.
Targets
- Use Direct Quotes: You reference both writers' arguments accurately but don't use their exact words in quotation marks. Even short quotes would push you higher.
- Expand Slightly: At 195 words you're below the target. Developing one more specific example would strengthen your answer.