Not bad, but two problems. Your preliminary experiment is virtually useless. For a start (as you say) the wind speed may well 'overwhelm' the effect of temperature, but also you can't really call it an experiment on the effect of temperature when you don't actually measure the temperature! 'Hot' and 'cold' is hardly scientific!!!!

You don't really explain why you are using two different plants and on what basis you are going to compare them. What are you looking at? Surface area of leaves?

This is fine in general - clear, accurate and well written. The only criticism is the preliminary experiment, which is more like a trial run. In your experiment, you have decised to use a range which you have not tested! It would have been better if you had tested 10 cm up to 200cm and then selected a range from the results obtained.

Wow! This is quite a story. It is highly original, very sophisticated and very well put together. There’s great psychological depth and exploration in this and the way you bring in the different perspectives is very innovative. Well written overall but check for minor errors such as those below and typos throughout. Quite an achievement!


Notes:

1. Shamita, head of the department of Modern History at Oxford University in the 24th century[,]
2. back manuscripts [scripts]
3. heterosexuality was still considered unusual [do you mean homosexuality?]

4. Shamita turns on the overhead projector and slips a portion of manuscript onto it. [you are switching to the present tense here – be consistent – easier to use the past tense when telling a story]

5. since she is descried as sensible and reliable. [decribed]

I have made a sizeable number of changes here, including in the order, to make the Statement flow more logically. I have beefed up the concluding paragraph too.

The main problem is that you say nothing very specific about your interests in Religious Studies. It is not clear from what you write whether this is a third A Level - you mention only English and History. To this end, I have pruned many of your sentences in ordto make room for some specific statements about subject-areas that particularly interest you - I have indicated in the text where this must be inserted. You could either mention one or to other books you have read or highlight particular topics in your RS study/research/reading. The focus should be on ideas that have interested or even surprised you.

I hope this is helpful. Good luck with your application.

This is a good piece of work. It is thorough, shows depth and is, on the whole, well written. It could be a little snappier at times and there are some minor errors scattered throughout but overall a conscientious and convincing piece of work.

Notes:

1. A career as an American consulting forensic pathologist at the Broward county medical examiners’ office, a growing reputation as a scientific heavyweight and being a very high profile, untypical woman have failed to deter Doctor Kay Scarpetta’s taste for the ordinary things in life. [a long, difficult firs sentence – make your opening snappier]

2. I began to feel very conscientious’’ [is ‘conscientious’ quite the right word here?]

3. Times’’. But [no need for a full stop here]


4. Some people have argued that pathologists such as Doctor Kay Scarpetta are unable to communicate [ this paragraph opens in too similar a way to the previous one]

5. The Times [“The Times”]

No text - only a picture sent

This looks fine to me, although i don't actually know exactly what you were asked to do. It may be worth pointing out that 'proper' telescopes use prisms, not mirrors.

This is well written, and I particularly like your catalogue of work experiences - vital in all Dentistry applications. I have made a number of textual changes, without altering either the length or the order. it now reads even better.

Good luck with your application - deadline is 15th October.

This is quite a beautiful story. You tell it in a way that is moving and touching but not sickly sentimental, which is a hard thing to do. You capture the characters and their relationships and their tensions very well.  Fanatastic ending. Well done!

Apart from some minor errors here and there, this is a very good response. You engage with the question in some detail and offer a sophisticated analysis. Quotations are apt and well-integrated, and you draw on critical views of the play with some subtlety. Well-written with a good academic register.


Notes:

1. F.R Leavis’ comment’s [F.R Leavis comments that]
2. he has the same affect on other characters [effect – note effect is the noun/affect the verb]
3. a victim of Iago actions [Iago’s actions]
4. motif even [motive]
5. “Iago represts something that is in Othello”. [represents]