There are a number of issues that need addressing here. Your 'predicitve' graph does not exactly show the effect of different levels of carbon dioxide on photosynthesis - it actually shows the interaction of the effects of light intensity and CO2 conc. It would be better to do a graph showing CO2 conc. on the x axis. In your scientific reasoning section, you say "Carbon dioxide combines with water and is photosynthesised into oxygen and sugar. " At A2 level, you should know that this is incorrect - CO2 does NOT combine with water, it enters the Calvin cycle and contributes to the production of carbohydrates in the light independent stage of photosynthesis. You explain this later, I know, but that does not excuse this incorrect statement. When you deal with the Calvin cycle, you say "This reaction takes place in the stroma (matrix) of the chloroplast, where the energy stored in the ATP and NADPH is used to reduce carbon dioxide to organic carbon." yet organic carbon is never formed in photosynthesis. I find the mention of a preiliminary experiment a bit strange. No detailed procedure is given, neither are any actual results. What you describe is not really a preliminary experiment to the one you're doing here, anyway - it is just a different experimentwhich is related to the one you're doing here merely because it is on the same topic! In the account of variables, note that litmus paper does NOT keep the pH constant. Actuaqlly it does not even monitor the pH, as it can only tell if the pH is acidic or alkaline, not what the actual pH value is. If you are intending to monitor the pH value, universal indicator paper would have to be used, and your method must mention its use. In your apparatus list, you say "Litmus paper – to measure the pH of the solution to keep the CO2 concentration constant" but it actually does neither of these two things. You use the term 'rubisco' but do not say what this means. In 'control' you say "Water will only be used for the control of this experiment instead of NAHCO3. However, there is still some CO2 dissolved in the water. This must be taken account of when taking each reading and should be deducted from the total volume of O2 at that concentration. " To deduct it, you must know its actual value, but how are you going to determine that?

This is good in many ways. You focus on the question and provide some effective and detailed analysis of individual poems. What seems to be lacking, however, is a paragraph that pulls all the separate threads to together. Perhaps this could be the real function of your conclusion. What broadly, is he amused and frustrated about?

1. Sometimes Gladness ["Sometimes Gladness"- book title]

2. with the apparent Australian culture. [what apparent - slightly awkward expression]

3. spendature [expenditure]

4. Dawe conveys his outrage and his frustration concerning violence, child abuse and abused women. “ …battered women (laced with children’s blood).” A strong sense of frustration for the treatment of the underprivileged is apparent when Dawe refers to “rent hikes, a food voucher for the many hidden hungry an door key to signify the homeless.” Dawe expresses his frustration at the government’s spendature when he uses an extreme contrast in the gloomy negativity of society to the materialistic, well off government image.“ a colour-shot of a billion dollar Parliament House.” Dawe uses sarcasm to reveal his frustration and anger towards a society conditioned to lies. “ Bureau of Statistics showing things are getting better all the time.” Dawe emphasizes [vary the way you open your sentences]

5. I think your conclusion could be stronger.

Grade C/B.

This is a very good account, though a little wordy in places. At the end of your first paragraph on "Biological Knowledge", you say "Eventually, as the end products of the enzyme reaction increase in concentration, the reaction is temporarily inhibited by feedback inhibition." This needs explanation, if you include it. In controlled factors, you say "· The pH of the solution also needs to be maintained up to its optimum temperature(I THINK YOU MEAN pH) (pH of 5.5)" However, this implies that you will use a buffer at pH 5.5 yet you never mention use of any buffer or any consideration of pH in your method. This is quite a major fault. Your explanation of the results is extemely long and rather repetitive. You don't need line AND bar graphs, and the bar graph is innappropriate, as you are investigating a continuous variable. Your evaluation is by far the weakest section.An evaluation should be based on an assessment of the actual accuracy and reliability of the results you got. You seem to be just listing everything that could possibly have 'gone wrong', even when there is clear evidence that it probably didn't! You are supposed to be evaluating the design of the experimental method, not your performance. For example, you say "I may have been inaccurate when noting down the reading from the measuring cylinder" WHY??? Were the divisions on the measuring cylinder itself to blame (e.g. if only calibrated every 2cm2, you can only be accurate to 2cm3)? If so, say so, if not, the comment is irrelevant. There are other examples of this. I would recommend that you re-write the evaluation, but the rest is good apart from the few points mentioned above.