How toppers approached this question
1. (b) In acts of corruption, the focus is often only on the demand side of the equation, on public officials who abuse their office for private gain. Frequently, the supply side is given less attention. Those who pay bribes are sometimes depicted as innocent parties and victims of extortionary practices of wily public servants. Do you agree that 'collusive corruption', in which there is a willing bribe-giver, is a formidable challenge for institutions fighting corruption?
How toppers built answers of this type: the structure spine and the moves they converged on. Aggregated across real past-paper answers for this paper and directive, not this one question, so no question-specific evidence is shown. No answer text is reproduced.
The topper method
The spine toppers built
Open
- Define the key term first
- Context-hook opening
- Roadmap statement
Build
- Both sides before the verdict
- Numbered enumeration
- Directive-mirroring headers
Close
- Verdict conclusion
- Forward-looking close
Moves they converged on
- Example as evidence80% of answers
Tag a concrete example explicitly as evidence.
- Verdict conclusion66% of answers
End with a clear verdict.
- Both sides before the verdict63% of answers
Weigh both sides before taking a stand.
- Stance then justify61% of answers
Take a stance, then justify it.
- Define the key term first58% of answers
Open by defining the central term.
Evidence toppers carried (per answer)
Case anatomy · Corruption
- Ethical issues96% of toppers
- Chosen option94% of toppers
- Justification89% of toppers
- Options70% of toppers
- Stakeholders64% of toppers
- Values in conflict62% of toppers
Write your own answer to this question
Mark my answer freeMethod is derived from real past-paper answers as anonymized aggregate signal. Construction moves and counts, never copied answer text.