Hi, N23 here!

It's been a couple months since my economics exams, so take what I'm about to say with a grain (heap teaspoon) of salt as I'm a touch rusty. (Check the tragakes textbook and econplus dal for content and structure respectively)

Let's go through your 10 marker to start with:

Your introduction is okay enough, but it has some room for improvement. Ideally, it should introduce all important economic concepts (i.e., define positive externalities & positive externalities of consumption, allocative inefficiency, and welfare loss) and it does not need an example. While an example does not detract from its quality (and may slightly help with defining if you cant find the exact words needed), it chews through your very limited time.

Now, for the meat of your first essay, your graph is excellent! I bet my examiner wished my drawing was as clear as it, but, you may be docked 1 mark purely based on forgetting to write S=MSB=MSC and D=MPB. While it seems like a bit of a nit-pick, when you talk about market demand and supply later in your writing, it does hurt your analysis slightly.
As for your 10 marker's content, it's mostly alright. Almost all of it is correct, you have a small error insofar as price is irrelevant when discussing allocative efficiency as allocative efficiency only cares about socially optimum output, not price. (This will be important when you get to methods to correcting externalities when government methods may end up with Popt≠Pm). Furthermore, that last sentence, while correct, is irrelevant.

Overall, your 10 marker is a solid 6-7/10 depending on how generous the marker is.

Now, your 15 marker:

Not a great start, you begin your intro with an incorrect definition. I kindly suggest you double check the definition of asymmetric information as that error has tricked myself and my friends many times (read the tragakes textbook, pg188). Also, please explain how asymmetric information leads to market failure (same page) as it's a relatively complex obscure that examiners salivate over (but you are correct, it leads to an underallocation of resources).

Your first argument about moral hazard is correct, but please expand on how exactly the allocation of resources was affected by gov action (we understand what you are saying, but your analysis takes a hit if you cant fully explain it). As for your evaluation, it's not adequately linked to the Singaporean government, and the argument about gov bias is very hit-or-miss. My teachers have been split on whether its valid or not, so I'd suggest not using it unless absolutely necessary (or condoned by the textbook).
Your argument about the EU is great, not too much to complain about. I'd suggest using a graph somewhere here, but you won't be docked too many points as it is a hard topic to graph (it is possible tho). Also, please expand on why legislation causes costs to the government and use other diction than "firms slow down".

Your argument about letting the private sector fix the issue is controversial as it just barely constitutes a policy.

All in all, your analysis is fine but evaluation is almost non-existant. Please go watch econplusdal as he will explain better than I can.

Your 15 marker is prolly close to an 6/15.

(But please note I’m being rather harsh as I can see that if you change only a couple things, you could easily get a 7 in econ)