Exam-style question
Try this first
Which evidence is most relevant when evaluating pressure-group influence? Use the relevant domain vocabulary: insider access, outsider campaigning, lobbying, consultation, congressional committees, litigation and campaign finance.
- A.a named campaign, consultation, court case, congressional hearing or lobbying route explained for both the UK and USA before reaching a judgement.
- B.An unsupported claim about which country is more democratic.
- C.A historical detail with no connection to the approved comparison.
- D.A personal preference presented as proof of institutional effectiveness.
Model answer
What a good answer should say
- The correct answer is a named campaign, consultation, court case, congressional hearing or lobbying route explained for both the UK and USA before reaching a judgement.
Explanation
Why this works
a named campaign, consultation, court case, congressional hearing or lobbying route explained for both the UK and USA before reaching a judgement. This is correct because AO3 evaluation must test viewpoints using a named campaign, consultation, court case, congressional hearing or lobbying route rather than unsupported opinion.
Apply insider access, outsider campaigning, lobbying, consultation, congressional committees, litigation and campaign finance precisely. UK pressure groups often target ministers, Parliament and consultation, whereas US groups also use Congress, federal courts and campaign finance routes.
A structural viewpoint emphasises formal rules; however, a rational or cultural viewpoint may explain how actors use those rules. Overall, judge the evidence from a named campaign, consultation, court case, congressional hearing or lobbying route and explain whether institutional access changes which lobbying method is effective for "Analyse and evaluate pressure-group typologies through detailed study of one insider and one outsider group.".
Common mistake
No common mistake is linked to this question yet.