Edexcel A-Level Politics | Component 3A: USA | 2027 Predicted Paper | Mark Scheme Question 3(b)
Evaluate the view that informal powers are more important than formal powers in determining the effectiveness of US presidents.
You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.
(30 marks)
"Evaluate" requires students to examine both sides of the argument, analyse the evidence and develop a reasoned judgement. This is a 30-mark essay, with 10 marks each for AO1 (knowledge and understanding), AO2 (analysis) and AO3 (evaluation). Students should aim to spend approximately 45 minutes answering it, using an introduction, developed arguments and counterarguments, and a substantiated conclusion.
The central issue is not simply whether presidents possess formal or informal powers. Students must examine how those powers affect presidents' ability to achieve their political objectives, particularly when facing congressional opposition, judicial constraints or changing political circumstances.
Edexcel requires relevant examples involving presidents since 1992. An important distinction is that the specification places executive orders under informal powers, even though any legally effective executive order must rest on existing constitutional or statutory authority.
Levels-based mark scheme
These levels are adapted from Pearson's official Section C assessment criteria. They assess the quality of the whole response rather than awarding separate marks for individual arguments.
Level | Marks | Indicative characteristics |
Level 5 | 25–30 | Thorough and precisely selected knowledge. Sustained analysis of the relationship between formal and informal powers, with perceptive, consistently substantiated evaluation and a fully justified conclusion. |
Level 4 | 19–24 | Accurate and relevant knowledge, coherent analysis and generally effective evaluation. Both arguments are developed, although comparative judgements may not be consistently sustained. |
Level 3 | 13–18 | Mostly accurate knowledge and reasonably focused analysis. Some relevant evaluation, but arguments may be uneven or insufficiently connected. |
Level 2 | 7–12 | Some accurate knowledge but limited analysis. Evaluation is occasional or largely descriptive, with weakly substantiated judgements. |
Level 1 | 1–6 | Superficial knowledge, limited reasoning and little meaningful evaluation. |
0 | 0 | No rewardable material. |
Important marking restriction: Pearson specifies that a response which does not examine both the stated view and its alternative in a balanced way cannot progress beyond Level 2. A student must therefore examine the significance of formal powers as well as informal powers, even if most of their argument concentrates on one category.
Indicative content
This is an indicative mark scheme for the predicted question, not an official Pearson mark scheme. Students may use different examples and arguments, provided they remain within the specification and support their reasoning accurately.
Arguments supporting the view
1. Persuasion and negotiation can determine whether presidents achieve their legislative objectives
The President can recommend legislation and veto bills, but cannot independently pass ordinary federal legislation. Consequently, persuading members of Congress to support presidential proposals can be essential, particularly when Congress is divided or controlled by the opposing party.
Want to read more?
Subscribe to revision-notes.com to keep reading this exclusive post.