Having read the work of A2 politics students on the 1st amendment I have the following advice:

Overall, there was a good appreciation of the question. just about everyone seemed to understand the theoretical concept of the factors effecting pluralism. The problem (as ever) came in the detail.

There were several students who failed to appreciate that the question was not asking whether the 1st amendment blocked the rights of pressure groups but whether is protected the sufficiently. Some people either did not understand this point or failed to explain it properly.

There was a lack of discussion on the topic of plurality. Does pressure group plurality mean between counter-veiling groups (a word I don't think anyone used)? Does it mean between a select number of pressure groups with large economic resources? Is the existence of lobbyists in Washington strangling the opportunity of smaller groups or do they still have a say? Is success a measure of plurality? Is membership? 

Students were not using recent examples of pressure group regulation or court cases. More on Buckley please! (if you don't know what I am talking about go and look it up)

Students need to appreciate the 'gap' between what the constitution might say and the political reality where groups are sidelined to outsider status as they do not have sufficient resources.

Finally, students need to stop contradicting themselves. This is a complex topic do not allow yourself to provide simple answers. You cannot say in one sentence 'pressure group pluralism is protected by the constitution' to a next sentence which states 'There is no pluralism in the USA'. More subtly is needed.