How to Answer a 30-Mark Essay Question (Edexcel A Level Politics): Revision Note
Exam code: 9PL0
What is a 30-mark essay question?
A 30-mark essay asks you to evaluate a view without a source, using your own knowledge
It appears in two places:
Section A of Paper 1 and Paper 2, where you answer one essay from a choice of two, after the source question
Section C of Paper 3, where you answer two essays from a choice of three, on the USA (3A) or global politics (3B)
You have about 43 minutes for each essay, so Paper 3 Section C needs about 86 minutes
The question at a glance
Marks | 30 |
|---|---|
Where it appears | Section A, question 2(a) or 2(b), on Paper 1 and Paper 2, and Section C, question 3(a), 3(b) or 3(c), on Paper 3 |
Assessment objectives | AO1 10 marks AO2 10 marks AO3 10 marks |
Suggested time | About 43 minutes per essay |
Suggested length | About 750–850 words |
Command words and assessment objectives
Every essay starts "Evaluate the view that…", followed by the line "You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way."
Examples from recent papers:
"Evaluate the view that the Labour Party is more internally divided than the Conservative Party." (Paper 1, June 2025 (opens in a new tab))
"Evaluate the view that Prime Ministers now have too much power." (Paper 2, June 2025 (opens in a new tab))
"Evaluate the view that Congress fails to adequately hold the President to account." (Paper 3A, June 2025 (opens in a new tab))
"Evaluate the view that the advantages of globalisation outweigh the disadvantages." (Paper 3B, June 2024 (opens in a new tab))
Paper 2 essays add a synoptic line before the balance line:
"In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas." (Paper 2, June 2025)
This means you should bring in ideas from Paper 1, such as elections, pressure groups or rights
Paper 1 essays do not print this line
Paper 3 Section C prints a line once, as a heading above the questions, not under each question:
"In your answer you should make connections between relevant areas of politics studied from Government and Politics of the USA." (Paper 3A, June 2025)
Paper 3B prints the same line, ending "from Global Politics"
Section C essays need no UK comparison and no comparative theory
The three assessment objectives carry equal marks:
AO1 (knowledge and understanding): accurate, relevant examples and concepts that support your argument
AO2 (analysis): arguments that support and reject the view, with clear chains of reasoning
AO3 (evaluation): weighing the arguments, making judgements and reaching a reasoned conclusion
How is a 30-mark essay question marked?
The examiner reads the whole answer and places it in one of five levels
You must consider both the view and the alternative to it in a balanced way, and your judgement should be reflected in your conclusion
Level | Marks |
|---|---|
5 | 25–30 |
4 | 19–24 |
3 | 13–18 |
2 | 7–12 |
1 | 1–6 |
An answer that does not consider both views in a balanced way cannot go above Level 2 (12 marks)
On Paper 2, an answer with no synoptic points cannot enter Level 5, so it cannot go above 24 marks
Some questions add their own condition, which you will see in the wording
For example, a question asking you to refer to at least three general elections needs three to reach Level 4
What separates the top levels
Level 4 (19–24 marks) answers contain accurate, carefully selected knowledge, consistent analysis with coherent chains of reasoning and mostly justified conclusions
Level 5 (25–30 marks) answers contain thorough, in-depth knowledge, perceptive analysis with sustained chains of reasoning and judgements that are consistently backed up and lead to a fully justified conclusion
The difference is mostly in the judgement
Level 5 answers argue towards a conclusion in every paragraph instead of stating it at the end
How to answer a 30-mark essay question
Step 1: Find the key words in the question
Underline every word that limits the view, not just the topic
Example: in “Evaluate the view that Prime Ministers now have too much power.", you must deal with now and too much, not just with how powerful Prime Ministers are
"Now" means you compare recent Prime Ministers with earlier ones
"Too much" means you need a measure of what too much power would look like
Step 2: Plan three themes and your judgement
Choose three themes, and plan an argument for and against the view within each one
Decide your judgement before you write, so that every paragraph builds towards it
Pick contemporary examples, and use older ones only to show change over time
On Paper 2, plan where your synoptic points fit into the argument, rather than adding them as a separate paragraph
Step 3: Write the introduction
Write a four-part introduction:
a current hook that shows why the debate matters now
a definition of the key term, which gives you something to measure the view against
a signpost to your three themes
your judgement, which you will argue throughout
Step 4: Write one paragraph per theme
For each theme, give the argument for, the argument against and a mini-judgement saying which is stronger and why
Keep every point tied to the question, because material that drifts away from it earns no credit
Writing one side, then the other:
"The Supreme Court is independent. It ruled against Boris Johnson in 2019. However, some people think judges are unelected."
Debating and judging within the paragraph:
"In Miller/Cherry (2019), 11 justices ruled unanimously that Boris Johnson's five-week prorogation of Parliament was unlawful…"
"However, critics argue that independence makes the court unaccountable, because unelected judges are overriding a government that won a mandate at a general election."
"The case for the view is stronger here, because independence allows the court to enforce legal limits that no government can ignore without changing the law."
Step 5: Write a conclusion that comes off the fence
Answer the question directly, in line with your introduction
Explain why your answer is true now, and what might change it in future
Do not just repeat your mini-judgements
What if?
You run short of time: finish the theme you are on, then write a two-sentence conclusion
A conclusion that answers the question is worth more than a third half-finished theme
You are answering in Paper 3 Section C: write only about the USA (3A) or global politics (3B)
Use the time you save on UK comparisons to connect different parts of the course, such as linking Congress to the Supreme Court
Worked Example
Evaluate the view that the Supreme Court is an effective check on the power of the government.
In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas.
You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.
[30 marks]
Model answer:
In November 2023, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the government's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, but by April 2024 Parliament had passed an Act declaring Rwanda a safe country. [AO1] A check is a power that can stop or limit the government, and the Supreme Court checks the government mainly through judicial review, deciding whether ministers have acted within the law. [AO1] How effective it is depends on its independence, its role in protecting rights and the limits set by parliamentary sovereignty. [AO2] This essay argues that the Supreme Court is an effective check on how the government uses its powers, but not on a government that is willing to use its Commons majority to change the law. [AO3]
The strongest argument that the Supreme Court is an effective check is its independence. [AO2] Since 2009, the court has been separate from the House of Lords, its justices are chosen by an independent selection commission and they cannot be removed for their decisions. [AO1] Because judges have no need to please ministers, they can rule against the government in the most politically sensitive cases. [AO2] In Miller/Cherry (2019), 11 justices ruled unanimously that Boris Johnson's five-week prorogation of Parliament was unlawful, and MPs returned to the Commons the next day. [AO1] However, critics argue that independence makes the court unaccountable, because unelected judges are overriding a government that won a mandate at a general election. [AO2] This links to the idea that democratic legitimacy comes from elections, and critics accused the court of entering politics after its 2019 ruling. [AO1] Yet the court in Miller/Cherry did not decide whether Brexit was right, only whether the Prime Minister had acted within the law. [AO3] The case for the view is stronger here, because independence allows the court to enforce legal limits that no government can ignore without changing the law. [AO3]
The Supreme Court also checks the government by protecting rights. [AO2] The Human Rights Act 1998 allows people to challenge ministers in the courts when they believe their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights have been breached. [AO1] This gives citizens and pressure groups a way to take part in politics that does not depend on winning elections, which is why campaigners such as Gina Miller have used the courts to challenge the government. [AO1] In the Rwanda case, the court found a real risk that asylum seekers would be sent on to countries where they could face persecution, so the policy could not go ahead as planned. [AO1] On the other hand, the UK constitution gives the court no power to strike down an Act of Parliament. [AO2] Under section 4 of the Human Rights Act, it can only issue a declaration of incompatibility, which Parliament is free to ignore. [AO1] This falls short of the liberal idea that rights should be protected from the will of the majority, because in the UK they are protected only as far as Parliament allows. [AO2] The view is weaker here, because the court's rights rulings rely on ministers and Parliament choosing to respond to them. [AO3]
Finally, the Supreme Court's rulings usually change what the government does. [AO2] After Miller (2017), the government had to ask Parliament to pass an Act before it could trigger Article 50 and begin leaving the European Union (EU). [AO1] In both Miller cases, the government accepted the ruling, which shows that the court's judgements carry real authority in UK political culture. [AO2] However, parliamentary sovereignty means that a government with a secure majority can reverse a ruling by passing new legislation. [AO2] The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 declared Rwanda a safe country and required the courts to treat it as one, overturning the court's finding of fact. [AO1] First-past-the-post (FPTP) makes this easier, because it often turns a minority of votes into a large Commons majority, as when Labour won a landslide in 2024 on about 34% of the vote. [AO1] The court can also only respond to cases brought before it, so it cannot check a policy until someone challenges it. [AO2] The case against the view is stronger here, because the court's power ends where a determined government's majority begins. [AO3]
In conclusion, the Supreme Court is an effective check on the government only in a limited sense. [AO3] Its independence means ministers must act within the law, as Miller/Cherry showed, but parliamentary sovereignty allows a government with a large majority to change the law when it loses, as the Safety of Rwanda Act showed. [AO3] The court therefore checks the way power is used rather than how much power the government has. [AO3] This balance may shift further, because calls from some politicians for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights would weaken the legal basis for many rights challenges against the government. [AO3]
Mark allocation:
[AO1] knowledge and understanding, [AO2] analysis, [AO3] evaluation
This answer reaches Level 5 (25–30 marks) because:
every paragraph debates an argument for and against the view within one theme
contemporary examples (the Rwanda case, the Safety of Rwanda Act, the Miller cases) support each argument
synoptic points (democratic legitimacy, pressure groups, liberal ideas about rights, FPTP) are part of the argument, not added on
each paragraph ends with a mini-judgement, and the conclusion follows from them
Common errors:
Writing about the Supreme Court in general, without judging how effectively it checks the government
Writing every argument for the view, then every argument against it, so the two sides are never weighed
Using only historical cases, with no link to how the court works now
Alternative content:
Devolution cases, such as the 2022 ruling that the Scottish Parliament could not legislate for an independence referendum
Whether the court is a weaker check than select committees or the House of Lords
Examiner Tips and Tricks
Define the key term in your introduction so that you have something to measure the view against. If the question asks whether something is effective, say what effective would look like, then judge each theme against that measure. A judgement that grows out of your argument is worth far more than one that suddenly appears in the conclusion.
Unlock more, it's free!
Join the 100,000+ Students that ❤️ Save My Exams
the (exam) results speak for themselves:
Was this revision note helpful?
