解題
Arguments in support of the statement: pressure groups can focus intensely on a single issue, often building up detailed expertise and credibility that a broad political party, juggling many issues, may lack. Because they do not need to appeal to a broad electorate to win power, pressure groups can take clear, uncompromising positions on their issue rather than moderating their stance to attract wide support. Insider pressure groups, in particular, may have close, ongoing relationships with government departments and civil servants, giving them regular influence over policy detail that an opposition party lacks while out of power. Pressure groups can also act continuously between elections, applying pressure on a government of any party, whereas a political party's main opportunity to enact its programme comes only if and when it wins office. Arguments against the statement: pressure groups lack the formal, democratic legitimacy of an elected government and have no direct law-making power of their own — ultimately, they can only try to persuade those who do have that power, whereas a governing political party can implement its policies directly. Outsider pressure groups, without established access to decision-makers, can struggle to gain meaningful influence or sustained media coverage, and their impact can depend heavily on how much public and media attention their cause attracts at a given time. A pressure group's effectiveness is often closely tied to its resources and the size of its membership base, meaning smaller or less well-funded groups may achieve little regardless of the merits of their cause, while a major political party has organisational and financial resources built for wide-reaching, lasting political change through the electoral process. Overall judgement: a balanced answer should weigh these arguments and reach a substantiated conclusion, for example arguing that pressure groups can be highly effective at influencing specific policy details or raising public awareness of an issue, but that lasting, wide-ranging political change usually still depends on which political party is in government, since only an elected government has the formal authority to change the law. Answer: pressure groups offer focused expertise, freedom from the need for broad electoral support, and (for insider groups) direct access to decision-makers; but they lack formal law-making power and legitimacy, and their effectiveness depends heavily on access, resources and membership, so most balanced judgements conclude that political parties retain the greater capacity for lasting, wide-ranging change, even where pressure groups are highly effective on specific issues
評分準則
Level 1 (1–4 marks): basic, largely one-sided or list-like points with little development. Level 2 (5–8 marks): some developed points on both sides, with limited illustrative evidence and little linking judgement. Level 3 (9–12 marks): well-developed arguments on both sides with relevant illustrative evidence and some reasoned judgement. Level 4 (13–16 marks): excellent evaluation with a wide range of accurate, illustrative evidence on both sides, and a clear, well-substantiated overall judgement. A response that fails to provide balance (both sides) or lacks supporting evidence cannot exceed Level 3 (max 12/16). Total [16].