1st or 3rd person in the LNAT Essay?

Onearmedbandit

I still don't know which I am supposed to use!! :confused:

I've looked around the sites and can't find any answers... does anybody know? Thanks.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

muncrun

Two schools of thought on the issue:

1. The third person is best since it conveys an impression of objectivity, and at the same time making your argument seem more authoritive.

2. The first person is good because it brings you closer to your reader, and better conveys your own thoughts making your points seem more original.

I personally tend to stick to the third person when writing essays for my course. My tutor told me what I just mentioned above, and seemed to think that either is acceptable. Beyond this, I can't help you, especially with regard to the LNAT in particular. Have you thought of emailing them?

Reply 2

Onearmedbandit

muncrun

Have you thought of emailing them?

I was gonna do this if I didn't get a definite answer here :smile:

I think I will email them though.

Reply 3

Onearmedbandit

I was gonna do this if I didn't get a definite answer here :smile:

I think I will email them though.

Okay it turns out I'm not supposed to e-mail them :confused:

Reply 4

Elles

i too would go for 3rd. presumably they're academic essays - i always do in tute essays & did in my uni entrance exam & science AEA.

i doubt you would be penalised for being 'too formal' but sounding too casual & unprofessional might not go down well.

Reply 5

Fluffy

I would go for 3rd person. That's certainly how academic prose is usually constructed.

Reply 6

Onearmedbandit

But the thing is .... I don't think it is academic! We're so strongly advised that the purpose of the essay is for us to write a convincing argument and to display intelligent thought and everything... it says "no detailed knowledge is expected or required" so... I don't know.

It's different to the A-levels.

Reply 7

Onearmedbandit

Wobbles

Yes, but surely its simply safer to write in the 3rd person. It's not going to harm your argument in any way!

When you're writing such an opinionated essay it can start to sound silly using phrases like "it can be argued that..." and "some would say that..." etc, especially as it's all about what you think.

3rd person

First person for me.

Onearmedbandit

When you're writing such an opinionated essay it can start to sound silly using phrases like "it can be argued that..." and "some would say that..." etc, especially as it's all about what you think.

I made a statement of my intent in the first-person, and graduated subsequently to the third-person for the purpose of argument. Third-person phraseology and the etiquette of debate will only come across as contrived or over-wrought if your linguistic and argumentative faculties are not up to the task; in which case, chances are that you're applying for the wrong degree. It is not only more challenging to deconstruct arguments from an independent and objective standpoint (being as it is, an entirely unnatural modus operandum), but also more commensurate with "lawyerlly" traits, which (unsurprisingly) the top UK Law Schools are searching for. Obviously, suitability would also hinge upon one's choice of question; however, in choosing a question, it is important not to shy away from complex or nuanced issues in favour of a subjective assertion of belief on dubious premises: I settled immediately on the "travel/tourism" question, as its statement was ripe for critical judgement which could quite easily be reinforced with practical examples. There is no definitive answer; but make sure that, whatever the question you eventually plump for, it elicits a response which does justice to your potential.

Reply 11

Lauren18

I did the women question which asked 'what is your response' - so I had to use the 1st person at least in parts.

Reply 12

Dreama

If the Question asked for *your* response/thoughts/agreement then writing in the 3rd person may portray you as a little odd...

Reply 13

Lauren18

Profesh, may I ask why you always post in such decorated, OTT, annoying, big-headed, false, pretentious language?

Lucid87

Lauren18

Profesh, may I ask why you always post in such decorated, OTT, annoying, big-headed, false, pretentious language?

May I ask why you feel inclined to make such arbitrary and prejudicial insinuations? I find your (and others') intolerance egregious; not to mention, amusing, in the context of those who would feign be lawyers at some point in their lives.

Reply 16

Onearmedbandit

Profesh

Well, it's slightly less annoying than pEoPlE wHo FeEl InClInEd 2 TyPe LyK dIs :wink:

Reply 17

Profesh

Onearmedbandit

Well, it's slightly less annoying than pEoPlE wHo FeEl InClInEd 2 TyPe LyK dIs :wink:

Precisely; it's simply a natural inclination for me. Blame my teachers for nurturing it over the years. And blame my 100% in the Shakespeare exam for giving me cause to remain in practice :wink:

Reply 18

NDGAARONDI

Onearmedbandit

Well, it's slightly less annoying than pEoPlE wHo FeEl InClInEd 2 TyPe LyK dIs :wink:

How about these (below)?

It is characteristic of all committee discussions and decisions that every member has a vivid recollection of them, and that every member's recollection of them differs violently from every other member's recollection; consequently we accept the convention that the official decisions are those and only those which have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials; from which it emerges with elegant inevitability, that any decision which has been officially reached would have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials, and any decisions which is not recorded in the minutes by the officials has not been officially reached, even if one or more members believe they can recollect it; so in this particular case, if the decision would have been officially reached, it would have been recorded in the minutes by the officials and it isn't so it wasn't.

Well, it's clear that the committee has agreed that your new policy is a really excellent plan but in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the committee was that while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice, that, in principle, it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, and the principle of the principle arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval, in principle.

Have a nice day :tongue: