How toppers approached this question
"Electoral bonds are a double-edged sword, providing anonymity to donors while raising concerns about transparency in political funding." To what extent have electoral bonds further legitimized opacity in electoral funding?
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
Stance then justify
The spine toppers built
Open
- Define the key term first
- Context-hook opening
Build
- Both sides before the verdict
- Multi-dimensional buckets
- Numbered enumeration
Close
- Verdict conclusion
- Forward-looking close
Moves they converged on
- Both sides before the verdict79% of answers
Weigh both sides before taking a stand.
- Example as evidence68% of answers
Tag a concrete example explicitly as evidence.
- Define the key term first63% of answers
Open by defining the central term.
- Stance then justify61% of answers
Take a stance, then justify it.
- Verdict conclusion61% of answers
End with a clear verdict.
Evidence toppers carried (per answer)
Current events ~2Institutions ~2Judgments ~2Concepts ~2Examples ~1Other anchors ~1Data points ~1Principles ~1
GS2 · Stance then justify: derived from 38 real past-paper answers: counts, not copied prose
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.