I've managed to learn one already after a few hours so doing at least two in a day is possible.
Perhaps work on a 5-7 min plan for each paragraph that you can memorise rather than to memorise the essay itself. Along with that, deliver your essay as a speech and deliver it with conviction, as if you really have a passion for what you've written - standing, pacing around, body language, looking at audience. Repeat a few times and naturally you won't need to look back at essay, save for a few trigger words - make note of these in plan.
Also don't forget to account for time in the exam where may not remember things (cumulative 5 mins)
I managed to do this for my morality paper this morning (which is 1000 words split into 7 paragraphs, 4.5 pages written, 45 mins written for reference).
It's cause justice has only not appeared once... I can remember an examiner coming into our SF and saying the reason it keeps repeating is because people keep doing so badly on it :/
I've managed to learn one already after a few hours so doing at least two in a day is possible.
Perhaps work on a 5-7 min plan for each paragraph that you can memorise rather than to memorise the essay itself. Along with that, deliver your essay as a speech and deliver it with conviction, as if you really have a passion for what you've written - standing, pacing around, body language, looking at audience. Repeat a few times and naturally you won't need to look back at essay, save for a few trigger words - make note of these in plan.
Also don't forget to account for time in the exam where may not remember things (cumulative 5 mins)
I managed to do this for my morality paper this morning (which is 1000 words split into 7 paragraphs, 4.5 pages written, 45 mins written for reference).
I've managed to learn one already after a few hours so doing at least two in a day is possible.
Perhaps work on a 5-7 min plan for each paragraph that you can memorise rather than to memorise the essay itself. Along with that, deliver your essay as a speech and deliver it with conviction, as if you really have a passion for what you've written - standing, pacing around, body language, looking at audience. Repeat a few times and naturally you won't need to look back at essay, save for a few trigger words - make note of these in plan.
Also don't forget to account for time in the exam where may not remember things (cumulative 5 mins)
I managed to do this for my morality paper this morning (which is 1000 words split into 7 paragraphs, 4.5 pages written, 45 mins written for reference).
Close attention to mark scheme and reports to know what's required vs superfluous to be concise. Also by using multiple essays found online together to form the basis of my essay.
I know fault is unlikely to come up, but is morality or balancing interests most likely?
Well fault, justice and judicial whatever it is were up last year... They aren't going to repeat all three at least one will be changed! They both could come up or just one? Who knows!
Could you check this plan/essay that I've done for morality please? Think i've got everything but a second pair of eyes would be great!
From what I see it looks great, nice and thorough. One thing you might want to do is include reference to legal moralism vs libertarianism with respect to your examples of judicial decisions.
The last part in conclusion seems out of place and may be construed as offensive although it might be because this is just the plan so not fully developed.
A big thing it looks like your missing is a continued response as to whether should/should not coincide; your giving facts but there's no assertion it seems. Use your examples to show why they should.
Overall, I'd say you're looking at sound PCA for it since everything is well supported but the should/should not (missing from what I can see) needs work.
That some people may see the act as immoral while others won't. Some people may not see it as immoral as it doesn't involve them therefore they are not bothered about it being done. For example Hart would say it's fine to do as individuals are free to do what they like in private, while Devlin would say that it was right for the law to intervene etc.