How to answer a Legal Studies question?

[werdna]

Hey guys, just wondering if anyone could give a run-down on how to answer a Legal question? I've got the list of question terms and their definitions - eg. critically evaluate, discuss, etc..

This is one of the most important aspects of the Legal exam (sort of), and it's not exactly my strong point.

Thanks!

[burbs]

It may help if you specify what type of question? There are a couple of different formats of questions that require different methods of being answered.

[ech_93]

Well, my teacher said to remember the word 'SEE'... write a Statement answering the question, add an Explanation and provide an Example.
Although, I guess this might not necessarily work for every question. It would probably work for shorter questions.

[werdna]

Here are some questions I found:

1. Explain one way in which the Commonwealth Constitution restricts the Commonwealth Parliament’s lawmaking
powers.

2. Using one case, explain the impact of the High Court’s interpretation of the Commonwealth Constitution on
the law-making powers of the State and Commonwealth Parliaments.

3. 'The doctrine of precedent allows for both consistency and flexibility'. Critically examine these two strengths of the doctrine of precedent.

4. 'The existence of tribunals ensures that people have effective access to mechanisms for the resolution of
disputes'. To what extent do you agree with the above statement? Justify your answer.

Thanks!

[eeps]

1. The Commonwealth Parliament can't make laws in the areas which has been allocated to the states. For example, the Commonwealth Constitution expressly prohibits the Commonwealth Parliament from passing laws that restrict free trade between the states (Section 92).

2. Refer to the Franklin Dam case, where the High Court decided that the Commonwealth Parliament was right; expanding its' law-making power.

I won't do the other two questions; I'll leave that to someone else.

[werdna]

Thanks EPL. Is there a specific way of structuring or wording the responses though?

ech_93 that's at really good technique to use!!

[ech_93]

3. Just look at the strengths and weaknesses of consistency and flexibility.
Consistency allows for similar cases to be treated the same way. However, it is limited as judges have methods they can use to avoid following presedent. Such as, distinguishing the facts.
Flexibility means that judges are not tied down by previous precedents because they can disapprove, distinguish, overrule (and one other method that i can't remember) precedent. But flexibility isn't necessarily a strength because similar cases can be treated differently which may reduce fairness. (and you would just stretch that answer out by adding in examples and adding more explanation)


I'm not sure if this is what you want. Do you want the answers or how to actually set out those specific questions?
:/

[werdna]

The latter - setting out and structuring answers. Thanks ech!

[ech_93]

Well, setting out depends on how many marks each question is worth.
My teacher always stressed the importance of introductions for legal. These shouldn't be long, just one or two sentences. Introductions should always be used for questions worth 6 marks or more.

For 1 and 2 i would just use that 'SEE' method. But, at the end of 2 put an emphasis on what exactly the impact was.

For 3 and 4 i would probably use an intro first (i guess they would be around 6 or 8 marks each!?). For 4 because it is asking to what extent you agree, i would add a one sentence conclusion specifically stating how much i agree.

Does that make sense?
I tried to answer that quick, so did i add in enough or do you want more explanation?
Other people might have a different approach too....

[eeps]

I tend to agree with what ech_93 said.

In any questions over about 2 marks in length, regardless of whether the question asks for it or not, provide an example to support what you're saying. Be it the name of an act or case with a description, a specific section of the constitution, so on so forth.

That's the advice I was given; which is similar to what has been said.

[flash36]

The lecturer at the lecture I went to encouraged us to put a small introductory statement at the start of our answers when the question was worth more than 2 marks.

Apart from that, just familiarise yourself with the terms "critically examine", "critically evaluate", "discuss", "extent to which you agree" etc etc and just make sure you address these terms in your answer.

For example, a common question in Legal Studies is "Explain how the High Court's interpretation of the Constitution has altered the division of powers between the states and the Commonwealth". The key words here are EXPLAIN and HOW. Nowhere in the question does it say discuss. A lot of people fall into the trap of spending most of their response discussing the irrelevant facts of the case instead of explaining how exactly the HC's interpretation actually altered the division of power. You must be careful of this.

[eeps]

What's the difference between "critically examine" and "critically evaluate" questions?

[flash36]

What's the difference between "critically examine" and "critically evaluate" questions?

Largely the same, however I think evaluate requires you to make a conclusion as to what you think, without using "I think" of course. Critically examine just asks you to weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of the particular concept, preferably with matching strengths and weaknesses.

[andy456]

What's the difference between "critically examine" and "critically evaluate" questions?

These ones are pretty similar

critically examine- id analyse the topic in question so probably give the advantages and disadvantages of it.
critically evaluate- goods/bads, why its good/bad, how it could be better (like when you evaluate anything really)

Edit: Beat by the flash

[flash36]

They don't call me flash for no reason mate! You probably answered the question better than me anyway.