LNAT Essay advice needed!!!!Watch
More law resources on TSR
The essay section of the LNAT is an opportunity for you to show universities that you can organise a coherently structured essay. You should use sophisticated and relevant terminology, and argue logically. Think about it - the same skillset applies to legal practice. On the same note, you should argue briefly against your contention. That will be something you set out as you plan the structure of the essay. Something like:
- Introduction, including your stance
- Main body of text supporting your stance
- Summation of a counter point, and why it does not hold up
PS: I want to stress that it's NOT knowledge based. Obviously you can't write nonsense, but the point is that your structure should be coherent and your points raised should be logical. As such, the LNAT site recommends writing practice essays on subjects you aren't familiar with, something I need to do myself.
There are normally two kinds of law questions: 1) the statement question, and 2) the problem question, each with different ways to answer them. The problem question is highly contextual and would not apply here.
An essay structure could typically look like this:
a) Intro -
i. Note the issues arising out the statement, and the importance and difficulties of the statement
ii. Define key words/phrases if needed
iii. State your thesis, and state the outline of your essay
iv. Additionally, you can also frame the boundaries of your argument/thesis
b) Content -
i. For/against arguments, with reference and taking into consideration the issues you raised in he statement
ii. Incorporate your knowledge of other content (e.g. theories, current affairs, laws etc.)
c) Conclusion -
i. Restate your thesis statement and note the difficulties once again
Should the law require people to vote in general elections?
The freedom to vote that we enjoy in this country is not shared by everyone, and it is a privilege which we sometimes take for granted. Precisely because in the UK we live in a democratic society we have a responsibility to participate in democracy and use our voice. Countries such as Switzerland have successfully introduced schemes which makes voting in general elections compulsory, with fines imposed on those who do not make the effort. The House of Commons should be representative of our views - how can it be, if a significant percentage of the electorate remain unheard? The argument that political apathy is caused by economic and social contentment seems to be disproved by the fact that the poorest in society are the least likely to take part in the democratic process. By a general lack of participation from certain groups in society, politicians lack the incentive to make changes on their behalf. One could go as far as to argue that the people who do not cast their ballot are impeding the proper functioning of our democracy.Nowadays there are few excuses for not voting in general elections. Postal ballots allow people to vote in advance if they anticipate that they will not be able to visit a polling station on election day itself. Furthermore, the internet age makes it increasingly easy for people to inform themselves about political parties’ ideologies - wether by reading articles, manifestos or by watching the adverts broadcast on the TV or Youtube. The excuses ‘I didn't have time to vote’, or ‘I don’t understand politics’ should no longer hold valid, and could be addressed by a legal incentive.Nonetheless, issues which are truly important to people, such as the Scottish Independence Referendum, receive a far higher turn out than general elections. This suggests that people are apathetic about politics - perhaps they feel that no party truly represents them, or that ‘all politicians are the same.’ Are these valid reasons for not voting? Even if people have no party in which they believe, their vote can still make a difference, for example trying to keep a certain party out of power. Despite this, will forcing people to vote really improve the quality of our democracy? Perhaps abstaining from voting is an equally powerful political statement as voting for a certain party. Campaigners such as the suffragettes fought for the right to vote - not it’s imposition on themselves. Just as freedom of speech is accompanied by the right to remain silent, perhaps the same doctrine should be applied to to the right to vote. Furthermore, it is true that general elections do not provide the only method of influencing politics. It has been shown that the younger generations frequently feel more strongly about single issues like the environment, than a complete political agenda. These may be better served by pressure groups, rather than political parties. Nonetheless, encouraging people to vote will doubtless strengthen political participation in general - increasing debate, and scrutiny of government policy. In conclusion, compulsory voting would increase political participation by fining those who do not cast a ballot in general elections. This should result in better governance, because the government would better represent society, and because parties would be held more accountable.