(Original post by vixky!)
I'm don't really think so to be honest. I kind of gave reasons WHY they were important, then tried my best to link it somehow to the question.
Reckon that was my worst question.
Ah well, seems like it was the worst for most of us, I don't really understand how it works but if everyone performed poorly on it will the boundaries be lower?
This is from Jan 2004 when the same question came up:
"c) To what extent have pressure groups become more important in recent years? (30)
Level 3 responses (21-30 marks) should explain two arguments on each side of the debate with examples.
This most certainly acted as the differentiator with only a handful of scripts getting towards Level 3 marks. The main problem was that most candidates had clearly worked on specimen answers to previous questions such as 'Do pressure groups help of hinder democracy?' or 'Why are some pressure groups more powerful than others?'. It was not uncommon to read as the opening sentence 'some pressure groups are more powerful than others because Weak scripts offered no examples at all. Consequently the majority of scripts fell into basic Level 2 marks, mainly because they failed to address the question asked. More relevant answers said that pressure groups were important because membership of parties was falling: 'people join pressure groups rather than parties' or the slightly more perceptive 'as party membership falls people turn to pressure groups as they are more representative'.
Level 3 scripts developed this point along the lines that 'many young people are disillusioned with political parties because of corruption and sleaze and so turn to pressure groups as a way of being involved with politics eg Greenpeace'. Or, 'young people are looking for more ways of participating and they see pressure groups as a way of doinq so'. "
I didn't explain 2 points on either side well
Just many points on 1 side an 1 poorly explained on the other.