I have my Public law exam on Monday and was just wondering if anyone has any tips on how to structure a discuss question ie. do you use first person pronouns, do you critique scholars views and compare them etc. Any hacks for how to impress the examiner?
Would anyone recommend a for/against structure? So for example:
Wayde argued that Factortame was revolutionary regarding parliamentary sovereignty because........ This seems to be an unreasonable assertion because......
This has been supported by Craig who argued that Factortame was actually evolutionary, he said........
this seems far more reasonable because...
therefore, factortame was actually evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary
OR would it be more effective if you simply said
And then mentioned your own view in the conclusion?
Also, it would really help if I could get hold of any example answers, does anyone know where I could access these, that would be a great help!
Thank you so much for your time!
Don't say we didn't warn you...