Here's what a star student thought of this essay
Quality of writing
The Quality of Written Communication is very good. There is a range of sentence structures showing a confident writer and there are very few spelling errors, none of which compromise the reasoning of the answer.
Level of analysis
Where this essay falls down is that the candidate has neglected to quote from text. There are moments where paraphrasal techniques are used, but only one genuine word-for-word quote is used. Essays of the analytical, evaluative kind must be constantly referring to the source text they're analysing. It shows that there is a knowledge of how to use the text to back up the points a candidate has made, before integrating further explanation as standard in the PEE (Point, Evidence & Explanation) formula. Though is is perfectly within candidates' rights to digress from this prescribed formula in analytical essay writing, it is still an imperative that they quote from the source text. All the points the candidate makes are extremely effective - commenting on how the pigs manipulated their own so they could be positioned in a seat of authority and the manipulated further the rules of their reign so to benefit them more; this analysis was effective as it is an example of how the candidate indirectly (though not ambiguously) refers to the question, showing they have an adeptness with writing and an ability to rephrase the statement question (though using the exact phrasing the question has used can make the link to the question more explicit - it's nothing you can be penalised for). The recognition of the Russian Revolution is something that candidates can simply be told about by their teachers, but this candidate demonstrates a fresh understanding that stands out from lesser ability candidates by mentioning the names (Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky) and how the Revolution came to be, whilst also mentioning which characters are presented as these real life figures within Orwell's novel. One minor inconsistency in this answer is when the candidate correctly identifies "All animals are equal" as the most important rule of Animalism, but then goes on to say: "until the pigs made the ultimate betrayal by walking upon two legs". This is also right, but there should be explanation as to why walking on two legs was considered by all animals on the farm as "the ultimate betrayal". The candidate should've noted that this was the only rules most other animals could understand, as the limit of their intelligence was that they could count, and it was only this rule that they had first objected (because of the birds being an unusual classification).
Response to question
The Response to the question is very focused; focused on the specific steer of the question and the candidate displays an adeptness of understanding and contextual appreciation within George Orwell's novel. The candidate succeeds in their answer because of it's strength and persistent focus - referring back the the question regularly and including a whole paragraph of contextual analysis, showing evidence of external research. This external research is exactly the kind of work ethic that examiners want to see in all candidate hoping to achieve top marks, because it shows that they are capable to use the incentive to conduct independent research, meaning they can write their answers with enthusiasm, flair and most of all, insightful comprehension.