My wife and daughter love students who struggle to relate to English or to school. They are life’s motivators, building relationships, making students see school in a better light. They are brilliant at it.
It’s like taking a couch potato and persuading them to run.
That’s not me.
I’m not motivated by the students who are switched off by English. Loads of other people do that better than me. I’m motivated by students who want to get better.
It’s like taking an average runner and coaching them so they achieve school, county, and regional records.
Regular readers will know that I have been marking students on my Paper 1A course, with unlimited marking for 30 days. That’s because I only want to mark work from students who want to learn to get top grades.
Some send me no marking - the course is working, all on its own.
Others send me loads, every week. Often they don’t even wait for me to mark their previous effort - they’re all work, work, work. They keep getting better, but it’s much slower than it should be. Pay more attention, work less hard, get better marks.
And then there are my favourites. They send me an answer, pay attention to my feedback, and their next answer is 100%. They make me look good.
One of them sent me this piece of persuasive writing. It is outside my offer - the unlimited marking was for Paper 1A, not Paper 2B, but I marked it because he is one of my favourite type of learners.
I look forward to his next effort. I hope he makes me look good!
Grade 9 Persuasive Writing
Are the Royal Family really worth the cost?
Many people believe that the Royal Family are a drain on the UK’s finances, but is this really the case? These people would try to convince you of its enormous cost, using illogical arguments and rhetoric, as well as figures that would seem overwhelmingly large at first, but are nothing when put into context. However, if you dig a little deeper, you will find out just how biased these people are, and how detrimental it would be if the Royal Family was abolished.
One clear example of this is the cost. Some royal-family-haters may try to sway you with the £76 million per year that it costs the taxpayer, while at the same time failing to account for the population of the UK – when divided by the approximately 67 million people, that only comes out at £1.13 per person per year – I’m sure that most people would be prepared to pay that much, especially when it is compared to the extortionate prices that the far wealthier corporate owners charge you for essential services and goods. Furthermore, the government actually receives much more money – about £200 million per year – from rent of royal land than they spend on the Royal Family – they actually profit from it. Where would this money come from otherwise? That’s right, it would come from the taxpayer. This is great for saving the taxpayer money, but this is a mere drop in the ocean compared to the £7 billion that tourists spend visiting royal-family-related attractions. So really, anyone deciding to abolish them should really think it through before stripping the UK of a major source of income and forcing taxes to increase.
Some people may think that this extra cost would be outweighed by the benefits to democracy if the Royal Family was abolished, but is this really the case? Of course, they may argue, because the monarch is an unelected, hereditary position that has significant influence over Parliament – they derive their power from the monarch, after all. However, the monarch is practically obliged to accept the formation of a government, and the only real power they have is to deny royal assent to a bill. This may be thought to be undemocratic, but consider this: the monarch can only veto a bill twice (meaning that they can only delay it if the government passes it multiple times), and the last time it was actually done was when Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill in 1708. Therefore, the Royal Family is actually no threat to democracy whatsoever.
Even when taking all of this into account, these people still obstinately believe that an anachronism should not be a source of national pride. In response, I ask you the following. Would you bulldoze Stonehenge because ‘it belongs in the past?’ Would you remove fossils from museums because ‘they belong in the past?’ Would you destroy priceless archives because the information inside them ‘belongs in the past?’ If not, then why would you abolish the Royal Family because ‘it belongs in the past?’ If you would do any of these, then you seriously need to consider your own sanity. If you don’t consider it to be a source of national pride, then consider the following. First of all, since Brexit, the UK has fewer and fewer international allies and trading partners – the most convenient were the EU, so imports will be much harder. If the Royal Family was abolished, then it would be quite likely that the Commonwealth would fall apart, leaving the UK almost totally isolated in a world that would leave us behind. Secondly, with globalisation and industry moving away from the UK, it is economically unimportant compared to bigger countries such as the USA, China and India; this means that the Royal Family and associated ceremonies are one of the only things that the UK does better than any other country. Therefore, how could anyone want to remove this?
Overall, you can probably see why the Royal Family should remain, but, if not, you should also consider their benefit to international diplomacy, the number of people whose lives have been improved by the charities they set up and continue to fund, and their benefit to the UK’s reputation. Besides, if they were abolished, it wouldn’t even be the United Kingdom anymore, would it?
My Marking
AO5
Content
Register is convincing and compelling for audience - yes
Assuredly matched to purpose - yes
Extensive and ambitious vocabulary with sustained crafting of linguistic devices - yes
Organisation
Varied and inventive use of structural features - mostly
Writing is compelling, incorporating a range of convincing and complex ideas - mostly
Fluently linked paragraphs with seamlessly integrated discourse markers – yes
So, I would give this 22 out of 24.
AO6
Sentence demarcation is consistently secure and consistently accurate - yes
Wide range of punctuation is used with a high level of accuracy – yes, colon and semi-colon
Uses a full range of appropriate sentence forms for effect - yes
Uses Standard English consistently and appropriately with secure control of complex grammatical structures – yes, apart from the subjunctive
High level of accuracy in spelling, including ambitious vocabulary - yes
Extensive and ambitious use of vocabulary – yes
I would give this 15 out of 16.
That is a total of 37 out of 40, a high grade 9.
Paid subscribers get a new top grade answer, with my comments and advice, every week. They also get access to the 50+ already published.
Substack lets you have access to them all, free for 7 days. Try before you buy.
How Would I Improve It to 40/40?
Many people believe that the Royal Family are a drain on the UK’s finances, but is this really the case? These people would try to convince you of its enormous cost, using illogical arguments and rhetoric, as well as figures that would seem overwhelmingly large at first, but are nothing when put into context. However, if you dig a little deeper, you will find out just how biased these people are, and how detrimental it would be if the Royal Family was abolished.
Some excellent persuasive techniques and your vocabulary is excellent. I prefer to start with an anecdote, as this is what top newspaper columnists do.
One clear example of this is the cost. Some royal-family-haters may try to sway you with the £76 million per year that it costs the taxpayer, while at the same time failing to account for the population of the UK – when divided by the approximately 67 million people, that only comes out at £1.13 per person per year – I’m sure that most people would be prepared to pay that much, especially when it is compared to the extortionate prices that the far wealthier corporate owners charge you for essential services and goods. Furthermore, the government actually receives much more money – about £200 million per year – from rent of royal land than they spend on the Royal Family – they actually profit from it. Where would this money come from otherwise? That’s right, it would come from the taxpayer. This is great for saving the taxpayer money, but this is a mere drop in the ocean compared to the £7 billion that tourists spend visiting royal-family-related attractions. So really, anyone deciding to abolish them should really think it through before stripping the UK of a major source of income and forcing taxes to increase.
Again, this is packed full of persuasive techniques. I especially like that you aren’t simply hoping that these will get you the marks, but that you are insisting on building a coherent argument.
Many teachers tell you to invent statistics – this generally backfires, as they tend to be implausible. Yours feel real.
Not enough students pay attention to the power of verbs to control our viewpoint. You do this very well – ‘stripping’ and ‘forcing’.
Some people may think that this extra cost would be outweighed by the benefits to democracy if the Royal Family was abolished, but is this really the case? Of course, they may argue, because the monarch is an unelected, hereditary position that has significant influence over Parliament – they derive their power from the monarch, after all. However, the monarch is practically obliged to accept the formation of a government, and the only real power they have is to deny royal assent to a bill. This may be thought to be undemocratic, but consider this: the monarch can only veto a bill twice (meaning that they can only delay it if the government passes it multiple times), and the last time it was actually done was when Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill in 1708. Therefore, the Royal Family is actually no threat to democracy whatsoever.
In a logical argument it is best to pick on the objections most people would make. I’m not sure that this would be top of their list.
The objections would be more about the Royal Family’s privilege and entitlement, the way that having a monarchy supports the idea of inherited wealth and power everywhere in society.
I point this out because you are carried here by your immense knowledge of your subject, but in order to win your argument you really need to attack your opposition’s strongest points. I don’t think this is one of them.
After the word ‘if’ ‘was’ becomes ‘were’ when we are talking about an imaginary situation, or an imagined future. You’ve got this wrong twice so far, and it is going to crop up at least once more in your piece. This will cost you an AO6 mark.
It is called the subjunctive tense if you want to look it up.
Even when taking all of this into account, these people still obstinately believe that an anachronism should not be a source of national pride. In response, I ask you the following. Would you bulldoze Stonehenge because ‘it belongs in the past?’ Would you remove fossils from museums because ‘they belong in the past?’ Would you destroy priceless archives because the information inside them ‘belongs in the past?’ If not, then why would you abolish the Royal Family because ‘it belongs in the past?’ If you would do any of these, then you seriously need to consider your own sanity.
The last line is a bit too insulting.
Contrast that to the brilliance of your pounding rhetorical questions and the brilliant percussion of your repetition.
You would expect rhetorical questions like these to be the bread and butter of every student’s persuasive writing, but I have been shocked to learn that this is a technique mainly used by students earning top marks.
It is so easy to do, and so powerful.
If you don’t consider it to be a source of national pride, then consider the following. First of all, since Brexit, the UK has fewer and fewer international allies and trading partners – the most convenient were the EU, so imports will be much harder. If the Royal Family was abolished, then it would be quite likely that the Commonwealth would fall apart, leaving the UK almost totally isolated in a world that would leave us behind. Secondly, with globalisation and industry moving away from the UK, it is economically unimportant compared to bigger countries such as the USA, China and India; this means that the Royal Family and associated ceremonies are one of the only things that the UK does better than any other country. Therefore, how could anyone want to remove this?
This all may be true, but you don’t really present these arguments in a powerful way. It needs to be much more emotive. For example:
Brexit has left us haemorrhaging money, our exports dwindling, and our profits dying. So we must turn desperately and urgently to other markets, like the Commonwealth. To whom do those countries turn? To our Royal Family. Abolish them, and you plunge us further into economic crisis.
Being emotive, without being insulting, is the easiest way to top grades.
Overall, you can probably see why the Royal Family should remain, but, if not, you should also consider their benefit to international diplomacy, the number of people whose lives have been improved by the charities they set up and continue to fund, and their benefit to the UK’s reputation. Besides, if they were abolished, it wouldn’t even be the United Kingdom anymore, would it?
The conclusion needs to have a more triumphant tone.
‘Probably’? No, this word is for weighing up options, not backing a strong opinion.
You want to end on your strongest points – the idea that the United Kingdom might fall apart, each country desperate for independence but hostage to the greater wealth and fortunes of the English, would be much more persuasive.
Or, restructure the essay so that it builds towards your existing strongest arguments, which I think are the financial ones.
Rewrite the insult so that it is emotive but a reasoned objection phrased In a powerful way. Then get them to do the same with a range of arguments against different ideas
Thank you for this post Dominic. It’s great to see an example of a grade 9 response to Q5 Paper 2. I learned the technique of “creating an enemy” from you, and I think the student is trying to do this with “You seriously need to consider your sanity…”. I find this technique hard myself, and encourage to encourage my students to use it, but like this example, it can sound insulting. How would you advise the student to use the technique without it sounding too insulting?