Can anyone offer feedback on my practice LNAT essay?

Hi,
I have been practicing LNAT essays and I am really struggling with them. The example essays are all...

This isn't too bad actually, and certainly a lot better than many I've read on TSR recently. Is it a first attempt? I've spent some time annotating this for you with in-line comments - it's attached as a series of images. Have a look at it, and get back to me if you need anything explaining or clarifying.

Well done for a good attempt.

I also think it’s a good attempt- well done. I have just one more thing to add. One of your main arguments (I hope I understood it correctly, apologies if not) is that it shouldn’t be introduced because government compulsion is incompatible with democracy, free will and liberty. It would perhaps make your essay stronger to address when the uk govt already compulses us to do things (like pay taxes, send our children to school, fill out the census etc). From your line of reasoning this compulsion wouldn’t be justified, even with the positive benefits. However, many people think compulsory schooling and some sort of a welfare state is essential, and that on the contrary, education etc facilitates more freedom later on. I think drawing out the nuances about what is meant exactly by “liberty” or “compulsion” and the extent of compulsion would help get you to that higher level. (My professors at LMH said they liked nuances about key terms) Good luck with the rest of your application

Yeah that’s the argument I was trying to make but you’re right I didn’t consider that whoops. Yeah I think the only way to counter that would be to detail the extent of compulsion, I’ll take more care to define certain terms in future!
Thanks for taking the time to read my essay, getting feedback is so helpful

Hi,
I have been practicing LNAT essays and I am really struggling with them. The example essays are all so good and I don’t think I’d be able to write one of such a standard under the time constraints.
I was hoping to apply to OX law and I think they put a lot of emphasis on the essay too eek.
I would really appreciate any feedback you may be able to offer!
Thank You

“Should compulsory voting be introduced in the UK? Why or why not?”


Complusory voting is used in countries such as Australia as a means of increasing voter turnout. However, this essay will argue that such a practice should not be adopted in the United Kingdom as it is incompatible with liberty, and does not account for the varying circumstances of citizens who may be unable or choose not to vote.

Firstly, forcing citizens to spend their time engaging in politics if they do not want to do so is a vast intrusion on individual liberty. Participation in politics is a personal choice: the government should not have the right to compell supposedly free citizens to partake in activities which they do not want to, even if engaging in such activities would prove beneficial to society. Volunteering with a charity or taking part in community events just like voting, activities for which more citizen participation would have postive impacts on wider society. Yet government complusion to spend personal time doing charity work seems overly controlling. Whilst a supporter of complusory voting may, in retaliation, argue that charity work is a far more time consuming commitment, that would be to assume that every person is able to access a voting station or has an address from which they may vote postally: thirty minutes of annual volunteering may be equally time consuming for someone who lives thirty minutes from a voting centre - yet still enforcing an annual thirty minutes of volunteering seems like a government overstep. Granted, in many circumstances other positive activities many be more of a commitment than casting a vote, but the principle that government complusion which forces citizens to partake in society-improving activities if they do not want to do so, for whatever reason, is a gross impediment on liberty and free will remains the same, regardless of the imposition that partcipation in such an activity may be.

Secondly, making voting complusory raises a myriad of issues such as when one should be excused. Throughout the United Kingdom, citizens live in a vast range of circumstances that mean some may find it harder than others to vote. The elderly may struggle to reach a voting centre or even a postbox for their postal vote, the requirement for an address surely makes it an unfair obstacle for the homeless. There would need to be a range of expemptions, and an all encompassing list of such would be complex to come up with. Not voting is not nessecarily a malicious act, and so surely acting as if those who don't vote are simply not fulfilling an important duty to society is harsh and uninclusive. Why further exclude the elderly from society by making their choice not to vote for practical reasons out with their control one which requires a government approved exemption? Complusory voting does not account for individual situations or the personal reasons for which one may be unable, or may choose not to vote. What is to say an the procedure to be granted an expemtion would be any more accessible than voting?

Many supporters of complusory voting may argue that it would bring many benefits for democracy, and that these benefits outweigh concerns for liberty or exemptions. Afterall, surely increased democratic participation is undoubtedly a positive democracy? This is flawed for two reasons. The first rebuttal is perhaps an idealistic one, but it remains important nevertheless. In any democracy, liberty is vital. Government complusion is incompatible with the ideals of democracy, even if the the thing the government is compelling citizens to do is positive. Arguing that free will should be sacraficed in the name of democracy is a contradiction. Secondly, forcing people to vote would not nessecarily increase participation in a positive way. Many who are not informed about politics will delibertately spoil their vote, or vote for a party they know little about. Surely an increase in uninformed particpation is a negative thing? Votes by people who did so because they care and know who they are voting for should not be potentially overshadowed by the random, or uneducated votes of those who are only doing so because they are forced.

In conclusion, it is clear that complusory voting would not be beneficial to democracy due to the uninclusive and authoritiarian implications which lie with it. Not voting is a personal choice, and the government has no right to override that.

thats a great essay!! I am struggling with essays too . Let me know how you' re practicing.

thats a great essay!! I am struggling with essays too . Let me know how you' re practicing.

thank you so much that’s very kind!!
the essay section is so daunting, it’s terrifying me!
I’m just so worried it will be a topic that I’m unable to think of any strong arguments for, or that I run out of time, or spell everything wrong…
But I have practiced two essays to far and obviously asked for feedback on here to improve.
I plan on doing another tomorrow, and am going to make essay plans for some common debate topics.
What are you doing to practice?

Same here!! Currently I am just attempting essays, but I think they don't really match up to the standard. For example, here is an essay I wrote on abortion. Please give me your feedback and you can be brutally honest


Abortion refers to the termination of a human pregnancy and is one of the most controversial topics of our time, with pro-life or pro- choice debates happening all around the globe. In my opinion abortion should be permitted in most cases, and this essay will further elaborate on this view.

There are many circumstances where abortion should be allowed without a second thought. Victims of sexual assault and rape should be allowed to abort. Additionally, if the parents do not have a stable financial position and cannot take good care of a baby, they should be allowed to abort. Having a child is a lifelong commitment, and giving birth to a child under unstable circumstances is not appropriate. Another situation where abortion should be allowed is when a lifelong disease is detected in the baby. It can be a common sentiment to abort the baby so as to not deteriorate the quality of its life.

However, the most controversial thing in this passage will be stated next. Abortion should be allowed in cases of accidental pregnancy too, where there is no other reason that can be considered, such as the ones stated above. As mentioned above, having a child is one of the most significant decisions of an individual, and it should never be forced upon someone. Most of the pro-life supporters will find this outrageous. According to them, life is a precious gift, and it should not be taken away. But I see this from a different point of view. As per me, the life of a full grown individual is more important than the life of a foetus0. Having a baby when you are not in the right mental, physical or financial state to have one can deter ones quality of life. This can also lead to rash decisions once the baby is born, and can ultimately spoil its potential life too. Thus the right to live a life with dignity is actually preserved through abortion.

Another argument against abortion is that if it is legalised, children will start indulging in unsafe sex without a worrying about the consequences. I think that to tackle this, safe sex practices should be taught and conversed about in school. Sex is treated as a taboo concept in the society, which eventually leads to curious minds going to unreliable and sometimes dangerous sources to learn more about sex. Talking to adolescents about sex will open their minds, and will guide them in the right direction.

I also want to talk about a recent decision taken by the courts in Texas to criminalise abortion after six weeks of getting pregnant, which I find completely fatuous. Many women do not find out about their pregnancy this early. Women with irregular menstrual cycles especially, might not have a single clue about their pregnancy until 6 weeks. In such a situation they are robbed of their right to live a life the way they want to.

Criminalising abortion is a result of the oppressive patriarchal system where the right of a foetus is giving more significance than the right of a woman. A woman goes through many physical and mental changes during a pregnancy and even after, and so the decision to have a child should lie in her hands only. The topic is abortion should be permitted in a few circumstances. Instead I advocate for abortion being criminalised in a few circumstances only. One such instance can be when parents find out the sex of the baby and try to abort it if it is a female. That is simply cruel and should definitely be punished.

Same here!! Currently I am just attempting essays, but I think they don't really match up to the standard. For example, here is an essay I wrote on abortion. Please give me your feedback and you can be brutally honest


Abortion refers to the termination of a human pregnancy and is one of the most controversial topics of our time, with pro-life or pro- choice debates happening all around the globe. In my opinion abortion should be permitted in most cases, and this essay will further elaborate on this view.

There are many circumstances where abortion should be allowed without a second thought. Victims of sexual assault and rape should be allowed to abort. Additionally, if the parents do not have a stable financial position and cannot take good care of a baby, they should be allowed to abort. Having a child is a lifelong commitment, and giving birth to a child under unstable circumstances is not appropriate. Another situation where abortion should be allowed is when a lifelong disease is detected in the baby. It can be a common sentiment to abort the baby so as to not deteriorate the quality of its life.

However, the most controversial thing in this passage will be stated next. Abortion should be allowed in cases of accidental pregnancy too, where there is no other reason that can be considered, such as the ones stated above. As mentioned above, having a child is one of the most significant decisions of an individual, and it should never be forced upon someone. Most of the pro-life supporters will find this outrageous. According to them, life is a precious gift, and it should not be taken away. But I see this from a different point of view. As per me, the life of a full grown individual is more important than the life of a foetus0. Having a baby when you are not in the right mental, physical or financial state to have one can deter ones quality of life. This can also lead to rash decisions once the baby is born, and can ultimately spoil its potential life too. Thus the right to live a life with dignity is actually preserved through abortion.

Another argument against abortion is that if it is legalised, children will start indulging in unsafe sex without a worrying about the consequences. I think that to tackle this, safe sex practices should be taught and conversed about in school. Sex is treated as a taboo concept in the society, which eventually leads to curious minds going to unreliable and sometimes dangerous sources to learn more about sex. Talking to adolescents about sex will open their minds, and will guide them in the right direction.

I also want to talk about a recent decision taken by the courts in Texas to criminalise abortion after six weeks of getting pregnant, which I find completely fatuous. Many women do not find out about their pregnancy this early. Women with irregular menstrual cycles especially, might not have a single clue about their pregnancy until 6 weeks. In such a situation they are robbed of their right to live a life the way they want to.

Criminalising abortion is a result of the oppressive patriarchal system where the right of a foetus is giving more significance than the right of a woman. A woman goes through many physical and mental changes during a pregnancy and even after, and so the decision to have a child should lie in her hands only. The topic is abortion should be permitted in a few circumstances. Instead I advocate for abortion being criminalised in a few circumstances only. One such instance can be when parents find out the sex of the baby and try to abort it if it is a female. That is simply cruel and should definitely be punished.

A few things:

In your introduction, outline the specific reasons as to why you believe abortion should not be permitted in most circumstances. Don't just say that "this essay will further elaborate on this view" as this is vague and a frankly a waste of words.

Your writing style needs improvement. The essay is littered with spelling mistakes and grammatical inaccuracies. You also need to eliminate phrases like "without a second thought". Remember, as a prospective university student, you are aiming to write academically. On a related note, don't use words incorrectly. It is better to write simply, as this will often be easier to understand. For example, "deter" should not have been used in the way that it is. A replacement like 'hamper' would be much better. You could also make an effort to write more cohesively.

Don't make statements without evidencing or explaining them. Throwaway claims such as "that is simply cruel and should be punished" do not add to your argument unless you say why such an act warrants punishment.

Try to play with the words of the question, without making your response indignant. Consider who is authorised to permit abortion, for instance. This will add nuance to your argument.

Finally, use examples! This is particularly pertinent for such an open-ended question. Whilst you are better at exemplifying your claims nearer the end, you should ensure that you apply hypothetical (or actual) examples throughout your essay.

Well done on your rebuttal of counter-arguments. You have clearly considered some caveats and challenged their validity.

I hope this feedback helps. I am also a prospective student applying for 2022 entry (who has not yet sat his LNAT), so take all of this with a pinch of salt. I'm sure that somebody else will correct me if anything that I have said is misleading.

Hi,
This is a really good essay given the time constraints, good job
I am no expert on essay writing (that’s why I’m here lol), but I will try my best to give you some feedback - just take it with a pinch of salt.

Firstly, I really like your use of counter arguments. It’s something I find particularly tricky so I admire the way you rebuted them. “Thus the right to live a life with dignity is actually preserved through abortion” - I think this is a really strong way to round of your paragraph on counter arguments! Similarly, I like the way you provide an alternative to preventing unsafe sex, other than making abortions illegal. I think both of your counter arguments were especially well argued.

I also like how you used a recent example of current events in Texas - it shows a good knowledge of what is going on in the world!

As for improving, I think you need to concentrate on language.
Firstly make sure you keep it formal - it can be easy to veer off into something more chatty, but it’s important you retain the same tone throughout. Some examples include “I also want to talk about..” This isn’t formal language and could be better phrased as “furthermore”, “in addition”, “it’s also important to look at..” or something along those lines. have a look at some connecting phrases on google, they always help me! Using linking words would help make your signposting slightly less clunky.
Maybe instead of “in my opinion” you could say “this essay will argue” or “I will argue”. Or when you say “might not have a single clue” would maybe sound more formal said as “might be utterly unaware” Again these are just my thoughts and I may well be talking rubbish (probs am!) But just try to keep a formal tone, in short!
Secondly, make sure you use words in the right context. Think about the point you are trying to make and which word would best illustrate it, and don’t use any words which you are uncertain about the meaning of. You are trying to build an argument, not flaunt your vocabulary so don’t be afraid to keep it simple. For example, “deteriorate it’s quality of life” would be better said as “negatively impact” or “lower” it’s quality of life maybe? Same goes for “deter” ones quality of life, it doesn’t quite fit.

Also don’t bring new points into the conclusion - such as your one about abortion not being permitted in instances where parents want a child of a particular gender. This would be better placed in a paragraph in the main body of your essay, where you can fully elaborate on why you think these sorts of abortions are wrong.
Remember to structure your paragraphs in PEEL format - Point, Evidence, Explain, Link to question. If you don’t have hard evidence or statistics - which you likely won’t - use something hypothetical (you did this well) or just elaborate on how your point answers the question. Basically, the conclusion shouldn’t bring in new points, and should really either summarise what you have said, or put your argument into a wider context to make it ultra impactful - eg the future of women’s reproductive rights.

Another thing I really liked was the fact that you defined what an abortion was in your introduction and talked of the global impact of the issue.

I also really like the sentence where you talk of a woman being “robbed of the right” to live the life she wants - the alliteration makes it sound fluent. Overall, I think you close off your paragraphs in an impactful way which is great. .
Again I think you brought up a lot of very interesting and strong points and argued them well, which is the most important thing - just more care over language would make it even better!
Well done for your essay! As I said I’m terrible at giving out feedback, but I hope something i said is helpful in some way
Also sorry if there are loads of mistakes in this - it probably seems really hypocritical to give feedback on your essay in a response riddled with mistakes, but I’m tired so I apologise!
Ellie

Hi, this thread has been so useful so far!

I was wondering if anybody could review my essay. I chose to tackle an issue I knew very little about within the time constraints. Thank you!


Should the government spend more on space exploration?

Increasing public spending on space exploration requires governments to assess where their priorities lie. A move towards a growth in spending on space exploration signifies a government focused on the future and innovation. However, it also demonstrates a government with a clear lack of contempt towards their populace. A government focused on colonising faraway planets instead of devoting resources to the prominent issues of today is an indication of askew priorities.

The principal rule of economics is that there are unlimited wants and finite resources. This notion is especially pertinent to the question as choosing to spend more on space exploration will likely result in the choice to spend less on other social activities. While it may be argued that a growth in space exploration creates a burgeoning industry which can increase employment and therefore economic growth, it will likely force the government to reduce public spending in another area. As there is a lack of funding in sectors such as healthcare, education and housing, it is simply unjustifiable to suggest that space exploration should take precedence over these issues. Government funding would be better equipped at tackling the structural issues undermining our society right now. Ensuring children have enough books at school or food on the table at home can empower and uplift the next generation in a way that space exploration cannot. Exploring space is incredibly expensive and cumbersome with long lag times yet choosing to utilise government revenue on the issues permeating our society is comparably more direct and useful. Hence, it cannot be argued that the government should spend more on research and rockets.

Moreover, the assessment of whether the government should spend more on space exploration cannot be completed without considering the aims and intentions of space exploration. Space exploration allows scientists and governments to observe planets throughout the galaxy and study the various different climates within them. It is an all-encompassing area in which ideas like Richard Branson's selling of flights to Mars and Neil Armstrong occupy the same arena. Despite this, it is necessary to question what space exploration achieves in modern-day society. In the 1960s, the Space Age was a demonstration of Soviet and American strength as they fought for their reputations. Yet, space exploration can now feasibly be perceived as a 'vanity project'. It may constitute a depiction of a country's might and prowess however exploring distant planets has no bearing on the lives of the general population. It is observable that the field of astronomy is one which attracts many of the finest minds and allows them to pursue their scientific passions. That said, it is difficult to see how that acts as a justification for spending more on space exploration. At its core, space exploration does not offer the same contribution to society as other endeavours such as research into medicine and psychology. Space exploration may model the arrival of asteroids but asides from that, it fails to convince that it is a meaningful practice. Increasing funding on a meaningless 'vanity project' only serves to polarise the public further by demonstrating how out of touch politicans are. Constituents would feel underrepresented and unimportant as their needs come secondary to the aspiration to prove how innovative and dynamic the space sector is.

It could even be suggested that the government should spend less on space exploration. Space exploration pollutes the planet in a time where the effects of climate change are becoming increasingly clearer. Thus, it is counterintuitive for the government to advocate for their population to adhere to green policies while simultaneously spending money on projecting an excessive oil-burning engine into the sky. Moreover, some forms of space exploration imply that wealthy people may choose to purchase a ticket to another planet where they will one day be able to live. There is a sense of irony in the fact that those who pollute society the most will one day embark on a rocket to escape the climate disaster they have contributed to. While there are several different subcategories of space exploration, the most problematic category is the one which paints planets as a holiday destination - a flight which will generate more pollution that any ones which have preceded them. Additionally, space exploration encourages some scientists and engineers to focus on the aforementioned issues rather than committing themselves to benefitting society in a measurable way. As a result, it is difficult to remain a proponent of further spending on space exploration.

In conclusion, space exploration can be an exciting area of focus yet it is important to recognise the consequences of space exploration. It is difficult to advocate for greater spending on space exploration once these consequences are considered. Is the pursuit of a better international reputation and increased pollution worth more than opportunities of various subsections of societies? It is incredibly difficult to argue it i