11Z Citizenship: 12 Mark Evaluation Feedback

I agree with writer A (Alex Chen) more, this is due to the fact that he makes a lot of valid points and things that people should look at.A good, clear start stating your position. An example of this is when Alex talks about how the voting age should be lowered to 16. Alex explains why 16 years olds should vote with very valid arguments such as 16 year olds being able to pay taxes.Excellent - you've clearly identified and quoted a key argument from Source A. And emphasizes how cohesion is being clearly overlooked. Alex also explains how young people are going to be effected more than older people who decide to make their decision as older people may not live with the long term effects but the young will, so the younger generation should have a say in what happens.This is superb analysis. You have not just identified the point, you have explained the reasoning behind it perfectly. This shows that Alex Chen makes valid points as he shows reasonable explainations with good examples. However others may disagree with what Alex said as young people are not really mature and are inexperienced making them easy to be influenced by their favourite artist and choose what they chose.Fantastic. You are now analysing the counter-argument from Source B, showing a balanced approach. This is essential for a high-level answer.

I agree with writer B: Sarah Williams about how "Experiences matters in democracy" as it creates stability in legislation rather than chaos.A brilliant start. You've stated your position and immediately selected a key quotation from the source to analyse. This is because Sarah Williams (SW) states how politics involves incredibly complex decisions, perhaps suggesting the depths of the sevirity and also "require real-world experience". The strength is SW's arguement is that she cares for the stability of our democratic system rather than leaving it to underage teenagers that are unpredictable and can easily be influenced.Excellent evaluation. You are not just saying what she argues, but explaining the strength and underlying value behind her argument. Futhermore, SW states how "our current system already gives young people... to participate", which emphasizes how they give valuable experiences through school councils. I don't agree with writer A: Alex Chen (AC) about giving 16 year olds more political responsibility as they lack the fundamental requirements which was mentioned from SW.Good - you are now moving on to the other source and using Source B's arguments to critique it. This shows good integration. For example, AC states how "young people deserve a much stronger voice in how our country is run" perhaps portraying the parliament, which as full of older politicians, as selfish. This right here is wrong as the older politicians live in the House of common represent their consistuencies in order to represent the peoples voices, which clearly opposes AC's point.This is a good attempt to use your own knowledge, but the point is a little confused. The argument isn't that they don't represent their constituencies, but that their personal experience is different from a young person's.

I agree with Alex Chen (AC) the most.A clear statement of your position from the start. This is because at an age of 16 years old we are able to take on adult rights such as looking at paying tax which would allow them to take charge. Adding on to this, access to things such as social media allows instant access to news and political information meaning most 16 year olds understand political issues better than adults who don't bother to research before voting.Excellent analysis. You've identified a key argument and explained it with a strong comparative point. However on the other hand it would be reasonable to agree with Sarah Williams (SW) as lowering the voting age and giving teenagers more political power would be a serious mistake that could damage our democratic system.Perfect. Using this kind of signposting shows a clear, well-organised structure for a balanced argument. For example the majority of teenagers may know a thing or two about politics through social media yet the majority of teens would have no clue about even the basics of politics still. This is shown as in the UK overall only 10% of students pick Citizenship for their GCSEs.This is an outstanding skill! You have introduced your own evidence to support the source's argument. This is essential for top marks.

I agree with Alex Chen (AC) to a large extent.A good, academic way to state your position. This is due to the fact that young people are more politically aware compared to young people 20 years ago for example, with the constant development of social media / platforms like tiktok or youtube allow young people to be constantly updated on world events which help them become more politically aware.This is excellent analysis. You've taken the source's point about technology and developed it with your own specific, modern examples (TikTok, YouTube). This argument is strong because it highlights the fact that technological improvements help young people learn about political issues easier. On the other hand, a person might agree with Sarah William (SW).Good. You are showing the examiner you are going to provide a balanced answer by looking at the other side. This is because although some young people are politically aware, majority of them are too irresponsible and unknowledgable about different political views.You are now clearly analysing the key argument from the second source.

I agree with Source A because of their strong argument.A clear start, though you could name the author. For when you are 16 you are allowed to work and pay VAT which means a 16 year old has enough experience to vote. Source B says schools should teach more about gournment actually works, this means that young people are going to grow up with enough knowledge rather than exclude them from politics.This is a very clever piece of analysis. You are taking a point from Source B and turning it around to actually support Source A's argument. This is a high-level skill. However, the flaws with this argument is that young people are also more likely to be influenced by social media and celebrity opinion.Good - you are showing balance by acknowledging the weaknesses in the argument you support. and young people has low voter turnout and rather they do find ways to get what they want.This point is a little unclear. Are you saying they protest instead of vote? It needs more explanation. Overall Source B has more valuable points than Source A.This contradicts your introduction. Be careful to maintain a consistent argument throughout.

I agree with Sarah Williams point about needing experience to vote.A clear introduction stating your position and identifying the key argument you support. This is because Sarah Williams states that young people are more likely to be influenced by social media, friends and celebrity opinions.Good - you have accurately identified a key argument from the source. This shows the strength in her argument as she is stating that young people are easily influenced meaning if they were allowed to vote there is a possibility that their opinions would not be represented as they are just blindly following the opinion of a celebrity. However some may agree with Alex Chen's view about lowering voting age to 16 as problems such as climate change mostly young people will be facing these problems so they should have a say on what should happen.Excellent. You are now clearly explaining the counter-argument from the other source, which shows you are building a balanced answer.

I mostly agree with Sarah Williams as she makes good points on how younger people haven't experienced paying taxes, running a business.A good, clear start stating your view and selecting a key piece of evidence from the source. And also how many young politicians look back and realise how naive they were. Which I agree with, younger generation are too easily influenced by social media.Good, you are clearly explaining which point you find most convincing and why. Alex Chen believes that younger people 16 and above should be able to vote as they have to live with the long term effects.Excellent - you are now showing balance by accurately explaining the main argument from the other source. I agree to a degree with what there saying, for example climate change. This happend because of the older generations decisions. Inconclusion I believe Sarah Williams is right as younger people are too easily instlueced by social media.This is a good start to a conclusion, but a full 12-mark answer needs a more developed final paragraph that explains WHY one argument beats the other.

Both writers have some great points to reason with their opinions but I personally agree with Sarah Williams.A clear start that states your overall judgement. This is because as young people we are easily presuade by does who are famous or we don't really know who to vote as we haven't had as much experience of the real world.Good - you have clearly explained the key arguments from Source B in your own words. so I think we shouldn't be able to vote just yet. Both writers. Alex Chen has made a good when he said "decisions are made by older politician who won't live the long-term consequences of their choices".Excellent. You are now accurately quoting from the other source to show you are considering both sides. this is a good point because the express his opinion and bases it with a real fact. Also "Sarah Williams" has made some good point because she said a 16 year old might not be aware of money decison.This is a valid point, but you've already discussed Sarah Williams. Try to keep your paragraphs focused on one writer at a time to improve your organisation.

I agree with Point B. This is because (Sarah Williams) makes excellent points about how young people may be influenced by social media trends or other stars.Good clear start, you've stated your view and selected a key argument from the source. Younger peoples are often on social media more then older people and their brains are still developing so they are often more insluenced by other people.This is a good explanation where you add your own reasoning to support the source's point. She fails to mention this will greatly improve the voter turnout which makes the process more democratic.This is a good critical point, but you should save it for your evaluation in the conclusion. Alex Chen also makes a valid point about how young people live with the consequences of older people's actions.Excellent, you are now bringing in the other source to create a balanced argument. which is a valid point but he fails to mention that with instant access to news comes misinformation.Another good critical point. You are thinking evaluatively about the sources.

I agree with writer A: Alex chen because he states that at 16 people can work, pay taxes and even vote in some elections so they should be able to have a voice in how our country is run.A very good start. You've stated your view and accurately summarised the key 'taxation' argument from Source A. Another reason I agree with writer A is because voter turnouts are low and they are only getting lower but giving young people a voice and allowing them to vote would bring the voter turnout up.This is an excellent point where you bring in your own knowledge (about low turnout) and link it to the source's argument. On the other hand, I disagree with writer B: Sarah Williams because she states that young people are influenced by social media and trends but so are older people.This is a great piece of evaluation. You are directly challenging the logic of Source B's argument. In today's society everyone even elderly people are on social media and trends so giving 16 year olds a voice doesn't change anything but more of the society's opinion. Overall I wholeheartedly agree with writer A the most because it benefios young people.This is a simple conclusion. For top marks, you need to expand this into a paragraph that weighs up the strengths of both sides before confirming your final judgement.

I agree with Writer B (Sarah Williams) because this anqument "Experience Matters In Democracy" Is a strength.A good start, stating your position and identifying a key argument. they mentroned a various number of valid points son example "young peonce are more likely to be Insluenced by social media friends and celebrity opinions" which is an valid anquement is because most young peopce don't know how to make their own choices and can be easily Insluenced.Good. You've selected a quote and then explained in your own words why it is a strong point. This is good analysis. as they may not understand politics. The Reason why I don't agree with Alex Chen Chen because Alex he mentions "Young People today are more Insormed ben even through social media" but the slawi'n this arguement Is that people can often spread misinformation on social media.This is an excellent evaluative point. You are directly challenging the argument in Source A with a valid criticism. and most young people don't understand politics as well.

I agree with Sarah Williams as she makes strong point's.A clear, simple start to your answer. For exsample "yong people are more likely to be influenced by social media trends and celebritys".Good - you have selected a key quote from the source. I agree with this point as it has been proven that most yound adult's vote what their parents vote instead of doing any research on politics. and if the voting age is made at the age of 16 they have less life experience and are esewer to influence.This is a good explanation of the source's argument in your own words. Whereas even the Alex Chen malles good point's like "At 16 you can work pay taxse's and even vote".Excellent, you are now bringing in the counter-argument to show a balanced view. She fail's to mention how a majority of 16 year old's dont work.This is a good attempt at evaluation, questioning the premise of Chen's argument.

I agree with Sarah Williams more as she understands and knows what will most likely happen if 16 year olds were able to vote.A clear introduction stating your view. Although A.C talks about 16 year olds can work and pay taxes, this does'nt mean that they can vote and they may not know what it's like running a business or dealing with practical realites of adult life.This is a good piece of analysis. You are directly comparing a point from Source A with a counter-point from Source B. Apart from that, 16 year olds nowaday are heavily influenced by social media.This is a key point from Source B, but you need to explain why this is a problem. This explain shows that if they were to vote they would probably listen to something it would be from something they saw onling and they might vote for not looking at the pros and cons that comes along with it.

Source A states, to give young people a voice, which to a certain extent, I disagree because some young people have not matured, they don't know alot about politics.You are analysing the source here, but your own opinion should ideally be saved for the conclusion. First, just explain what the sources say. 18 should be the voting age, 18 are legally adults, they can live alone and vote, get a job, pay taxes, but with under 18, they have not experienced paying taxes etc at all.This is a good point where you bring in your own knowledge to support the argument against votes at 16. Source B explains, "experience matters in democracy" I agree with them fully, we already have appropriate ways for people to participate, through school councils.Good - you are now accurately identifying and explaining a key argument from Source B. and loads more. Young people arent quite responsible yet.

I agree more with Alex Chen (AC) than Sarah Williams (SW).A clear start stating your position. This is because CAC describes clear points on how she thinks that people aged 16 should be able to vote.Be careful - Alex Chen is male. And you need to explain WHAT these clear points are. She then further experts on her point referring to how young teenagers are more awared due to technology and social media.Good, you have identified one of the key arguments from Source A. However, she failed to mention was that they are more likely to be influenced by social media.This is a good evaluative point, but it's confusing because you are mixing up the two sources' arguments. (SW) did mention this. Her point is based on how people aged 16 should not be able to vote. She also mentions how teens have not yet experienced paying taxes, raising children or running businesses. However this has nothing to do with the vote.This final sentence is a weak evaluation. Experience of these things is highly relevant to Sarah Williams' argument about maturity.

I feel as I agree with writer A more as it goes into depth on why the voting age should be lowered.A good start, clearly stating which writer you agree with. It uses points such as 16 paying taxes this shows that 16 year old do experience adult adulthood.You have identified the key point, but your explanation is very simple. which is the main reason it is argued the voting age shouldn't be lowered.This part of the sentence is quite confused. A source also explains how 16 year olds are more likely to do research before having an political view.This is another good point identified from the source, but it is not explained at all.

I agree with writer A more than writer B because she talk about the long term effect on society and how it won't effect old people because they won't live as long as young people.You have identified a key argument from Source A, but your explanation is very basic. however also opinion b felt how child easy inslence by people on society media.You have identified a key argument from Source B, but it is not a proper sentence and is not explained. People who vote. often a 16 child pay tax and have a job they should be pos should have right to vote because is they are responsible to have a job they should be able to vote.

Alex believes young peope deserve a vote on how a country is run he believes young people should be able to work and pay taxes and even vote in elections.You have identified some points from Source A, but you have not explained them or structured them into a proper paragraph. he believes in democracy. On the other hand, Sarah believes giving teenagers more political power could be a serious mistake.You have identified an idea from Source B. She also thinks it can damage our current democratic system.This is just a list of points from the sources without any analysis or explanation.