LNAT prep
hey guys i have a question.
does anyone know if LNAT ninja questions and the law mind questions are worth doing? im not sure if theyre reflective of the actual LNAT's difficulty.
Ive been doing Arbitio tests with a high of 20 and a low of 15, which is slightly discouraging and I still need to complete 7 more, then i intend to do the official samples to see if the arbitio magic of going from a score of 18 to 27 works.
Any feedback or advice, or even words of encouragement would be greatly appreciated, im not too worried about the essay, i got 77% on an arbitio essay which i think is good, its the MQC im worried about
does anyone know if LNAT ninja questions and the law mind questions are worth doing? im not sure if theyre reflective of the actual LNAT's difficulty.
Ive been doing Arbitio tests with a high of 20 and a low of 15, which is slightly discouraging and I still need to complete 7 more, then i intend to do the official samples to see if the arbitio magic of going from a score of 18 to 27 works.
Any feedback or advice, or even words of encouragement would be greatly appreciated, im not too worried about the essay, i got 77% on an arbitio essay which i think is good, its the MQC im worried about
Original post by Lunnr006.302
hey guys i have a question.
does anyone know if LNAT ninja questions and the law mind questions are worth doing? im not sure if theyre reflective of the actual LNAT's difficulty.
Ive been doing Arbitio tests with a high of 20 and a low of 15, which is slightly discouraging and I still need to complete 7 more, then i intend to do the official samples to see if the arbitio magic of going from a score of 18 to 27 works.
Any feedback or advice, or even words of encouragement would be greatly appreciated, im not too worried about the essay, i got 77% on an arbitio essay which i think is good, its the MQC im worried about
does anyone know if LNAT ninja questions and the law mind questions are worth doing? im not sure if theyre reflective of the actual LNAT's difficulty.
Ive been doing Arbitio tests with a high of 20 and a low of 15, which is slightly discouraging and I still need to complete 7 more, then i intend to do the official samples to see if the arbitio magic of going from a score of 18 to 27 works.
Any feedback or advice, or even words of encouragement would be greatly appreciated, im not too worried about the essay, i got 77% on an arbitio essay which i think is good, its the MQC im worried about
yes, practice as many resources as possible.
would it be possible to read your arbitio practice essay that got 77 as I want to see how its structured? 77 is amazing!
Original post by hjjaisk
yes, practice as many resources as possible.
would it be possible to read your arbitio practice essay that got 77 as I want to see how its structured? 77 is amazing!
would it be possible to read your arbitio practice essay that got 77 as I want to see how its structured? 77 is amazing!
uh yeah ill copy and paste it into here:
Should people accused of a criminal offence retain anonymity?
People who have been accused of a criminal offence should be able to retain anonymity due to a presumption of innocence as well as a protection from stigmatization. Anonymity is the condition of remaining unknown to the public, which is a right that is not always granted in the courtroom. With that being said, anonymity for the accused should be retained until proven guilty.
Firstly, people who have been accused of a crime should be able to retain anonymity due to the judicial principle of assuming innocence until proven guilty. Providing anonymity to the accused helps protect this principle by preventing the public, as well as a jury, from assuming guilt before a verdict actually takes place. This innocence is therefore assumed until the end of the trial, which can help stop the accused from being publicized in order to avoid biased media coverage and public opinion, which would make it difficult for a jury to be impartial. Because of this assumed innocence, it is imperative that people who are accused of crimes should be able to remain to retain anonymity.
In addition to assuming innocence, it is important for the accused to retain anonymity in order to protect them from stigmatization. Accusations of a crime can carry significant social and reputational consequences, even if the accused is ultimately proven innocent, for example being accused of rape. Anonymity can shield these individuals from unfair stigmatization during the legal process, and in turn prevent harassment, threats or even violence to them or their family members and therefore can help protect the personal safety and privacy of the accused after their trial. Because of the importance of avoiding stigmatization, as well as the presumption of innocence, strong evidence suggests that the accused should be able to retain anonymity.
On the other hand, one can argue that people who have been accused of a crime should not be able to retain anonymity due to media freedom, which helps create transparency and accountability. Restricting the publication of the accused's identity can be seen as a limitation on press freedom. One could argue that they should be free to report on matters of public interest, including criminal cases, which would create transparency and accountability. Open and transparent criminal justice systems are crucial for maintaining public trust. Anonymity for the accused would undermine this by hiding important information about ongoing legal cases. However, allowing this freedom of the media would inevitably create biased opinions that could jeopardize a jury by allowing their verdict to be influenced by external pressures. Considering this fault, it remains clear that people who have been accused of a criminal offence should be able to retain anonymity.
To conclude, people accused of a criminal offence should be able to retain anonymity in order to preserve an assumption of innocence and avoid stigmatization. Whilst the criminal justice system should remain under the public eye to create transparency and accountability, it should not compromise the fundamental judicial principle of being innocent until proven guilty, as it would inevitably stigmatize the accused. Therefore, anonymity for the accused should be retained until proven guilty.
Original post by hjjaisk
yes, practice as many resources as possible.
would it be possible to read your arbitio practice essay that got 77 as I want to see how its structured? 77 is amazing!
would it be possible to read your arbitio practice essay that got 77 as I want to see how its structured? 77 is amazing!
I do plan on going through every available resource, i'm just not sure about how difficult some of the resources are compared to the real thing, i understand that arbitio is supposed to be much harder, but the other resources often vary in difficulty and i just dont want to create a false sense of security for myself
Original post by Lunnr006.302
hey guys i have a question.
does anyone know if LNAT ninja questions and the law mind questions are worth doing? im not sure if theyre reflective of the actual LNAT's difficulty.
Ive been doing Arbitio tests with a high of 20 and a low of 15, which is slightly discouraging and I still need to complete 7 more, then i intend to do the official samples to see if the arbitio magic of going from a score of 18 to 27 works.
Any feedback or advice, or even words of encouragement would be greatly appreciated, im not too worried about the essay, i got 77% on an arbitio essay which i think is good, its the MQC im worried about
does anyone know if LNAT ninja questions and the law mind questions are worth doing? im not sure if theyre reflective of the actual LNAT's difficulty.
Ive been doing Arbitio tests with a high of 20 and a low of 15, which is slightly discouraging and I still need to complete 7 more, then i intend to do the official samples to see if the arbitio magic of going from a score of 18 to 27 works.
Any feedback or advice, or even words of encouragement would be greatly appreciated, im not too worried about the essay, i got 77% on an arbitio essay which i think is good, its the MQC im worried about
┌───── •✧✧• ─────┐
Use my code
SUBSCRIBE_43155
to get 10% off Arbitio it really
helped me get a 33/40
last year!
Good luck to everyone
└───── •✧✧• ─────┘
Original post by Lunnr006.302
uh yeah ill copy and paste it into here:
Should people accused of a criminal offence retain anonymity?
People who have been accused of a criminal offence should be able to retain anonymity due to a presumption of innocence as well as a protection from stigmatization. Anonymity is the condition of remaining unknown to the public, which is a right that is not always granted in the courtroom. With that being said, anonymity for the accused should be retained until proven guilty.
Firstly, people who have been accused of a crime should be able to retain anonymity due to the judicial principle of assuming innocence until proven guilty. Providing anonymity to the accused helps protect this principle by preventing the public, as well as a jury, from assuming guilt before a verdict actually takes place. This innocence is therefore assumed until the end of the trial, which can help stop the accused from being publicized in order to avoid biased media coverage and public opinion, which would make it difficult for a jury to be impartial. Because of this assumed innocence, it is imperative that people who are accused of crimes should be able to remain to retain anonymity.
In addition to assuming innocence, it is important for the accused to retain anonymity in order to protect them from stigmatization. Accusations of a crime can carry significant social and reputational consequences, even if the accused is ultimately proven innocent, for example being accused of rape. Anonymity can shield these individuals from unfair stigmatization during the legal process, and in turn prevent harassment, threats or even violence to them or their family members and therefore can help protect the personal safety and privacy of the accused after their trial. Because of the importance of avoiding stigmatization, as well as the presumption of innocence, strong evidence suggests that the accused should be able to retain anonymity.
On the other hand, one can argue that people who have been accused of a crime should not be able to retain anonymity due to media freedom, which helps create transparency and accountability. Restricting the publication of the accused's identity can be seen as a limitation on press freedom. One could argue that they should be free to report on matters of public interest, including criminal cases, which would create transparency and accountability. Open and transparent criminal justice systems are crucial for maintaining public trust. Anonymity for the accused would undermine this by hiding important information about ongoing legal cases. However, allowing this freedom of the media would inevitably create biased opinions that could jeopardize a jury by allowing their verdict to be influenced by external pressures. Considering this fault, it remains clear that people who have been accused of a criminal offence should be able to retain anonymity.
To conclude, people accused of a criminal offence should be able to retain anonymity in order to preserve an assumption of innocence and avoid stigmatization. Whilst the criminal justice system should remain under the public eye to create transparency and accountability, it should not compromise the fundamental judicial principle of being innocent until proven guilty, as it would inevitably stigmatize the accused. Therefore, anonymity for the accused should be retained until proven guilty.
Should people accused of a criminal offence retain anonymity?
People who have been accused of a criminal offence should be able to retain anonymity due to a presumption of innocence as well as a protection from stigmatization. Anonymity is the condition of remaining unknown to the public, which is a right that is not always granted in the courtroom. With that being said, anonymity for the accused should be retained until proven guilty.
Firstly, people who have been accused of a crime should be able to retain anonymity due to the judicial principle of assuming innocence until proven guilty. Providing anonymity to the accused helps protect this principle by preventing the public, as well as a jury, from assuming guilt before a verdict actually takes place. This innocence is therefore assumed until the end of the trial, which can help stop the accused from being publicized in order to avoid biased media coverage and public opinion, which would make it difficult for a jury to be impartial. Because of this assumed innocence, it is imperative that people who are accused of crimes should be able to remain to retain anonymity.
In addition to assuming innocence, it is important for the accused to retain anonymity in order to protect them from stigmatization. Accusations of a crime can carry significant social and reputational consequences, even if the accused is ultimately proven innocent, for example being accused of rape. Anonymity can shield these individuals from unfair stigmatization during the legal process, and in turn prevent harassment, threats or even violence to them or their family members and therefore can help protect the personal safety and privacy of the accused after their trial. Because of the importance of avoiding stigmatization, as well as the presumption of innocence, strong evidence suggests that the accused should be able to retain anonymity.
On the other hand, one can argue that people who have been accused of a crime should not be able to retain anonymity due to media freedom, which helps create transparency and accountability. Restricting the publication of the accused's identity can be seen as a limitation on press freedom. One could argue that they should be free to report on matters of public interest, including criminal cases, which would create transparency and accountability. Open and transparent criminal justice systems are crucial for maintaining public trust. Anonymity for the accused would undermine this by hiding important information about ongoing legal cases. However, allowing this freedom of the media would inevitably create biased opinions that could jeopardize a jury by allowing their verdict to be influenced by external pressures. Considering this fault, it remains clear that people who have been accused of a criminal offence should be able to retain anonymity.
To conclude, people accused of a criminal offence should be able to retain anonymity in order to preserve an assumption of innocence and avoid stigmatization. Whilst the criminal justice system should remain under the public eye to create transparency and accountability, it should not compromise the fundamental judicial principle of being innocent until proven guilty, as it would inevitably stigmatize the accused. Therefore, anonymity for the accused should be retained until proven guilty.
┌───── •✧✧• ─────┐
Use my code
SUBSCRIBE_43155
to get 10% off Arbitio it really
helped me get a 33/40
last year!
Good luck to everyone
└───── •✧✧• ─────┘
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- LNAT prep
- LNAT Prep
- LNAT revision
- Free LNAT prep materials
- LNAT
- LNAT difficulty query
- Are LNAT universities better? Should I do the LNAT?
- LNAT
- Lnat 2023
- any Lnat practice tests worth doing?
- Law at uni
- Using LSAT (U.S. test for Law) materials for LNAT??
- Anyone already gave LNAT for 2024 entry?
- LNAT - only four answer options?
- Arbitio Discount Code :)
- When to start preparing for the LNAT?
- do i have a chance at law at bristol
- LNAT
- lnat resources
- LNAT essay
