Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 06:47:57 am

Author Topic: LAT UNSW TIPS  (Read 8100 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

michelleh

  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Respect: 0
LAT UNSW TIPS
« on: September 09, 2017, 07:53:02 pm »
0
Hi Everyone!

I was wondering, since the LAT is only a few weeks away, if there were any tips and tricks from past students that made it into UNSW Law, about prepping and structuring responses for the LAT?

Thank you!

bundahboy

  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Respect: +18
Re: LAT UNSW TIPS
« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2017, 08:02:41 pm »
+20
Hey there!

I'm actually in Year 12 atm, but I sat the LAT last year and did quite well. Essentially the two questions are looking for different things: the first question asks you to evaluate an argument, while the second question wants you to propose one. Slightly different approaches are thus necessary, but the following advice applies broadly:

Structure: Identify and use themes/issues

In both questions, I found it immensely useful to separate my analysis into a number of distinct themes. For example, in the sample paper, you might evaluate the first stimulus according to the themes of public safety, the broader economy, and the rights of individual business owners. As the question asks you to critically evaluate the arguments, you should spend a paragraph each evaluating how successfully the stimulus comments on each of these themes. It might help to make up a rough set of criteria in your mind about what would constitute a successful argument, e.g. "Does the author establish that more students would be injured if schoolies were to be banned?" or "Am I convinced that a ban on schoolies will negatively impact the local economy?".

You can use a similar approach in the second question. When arguing for or against the inclusion of history in the curriculum, you could use themes such as "students' employment prospects", "students' enjoyment of the subject", and "the potential impact of bias in the teaching of history". Spend a paragraph on each of these issues, detailing why your analysis of the issue means that the motion should or should not be adopted.

Anatomy of the argument

In both sections, it's important to be aware of what constitutes a good argument. Every argument should have three main components:

  • What the argument is (e.g. "Schoolies will provide a boost to the local economy")
  • Why the argument is true (e.g. "Schoolies provides a boost to the local economy because we're a small regional town that relies on tourist dollars to sustain itself")
  • Why the implications of the argument matter (e.g. "The economic gains that would result from Schoolies would result in higher wages and lesser unemployment in the town, resulting in greater social cohesion, reduced crime, and a general increase in quality of life.")
For Question 1, use this checklist to determine the persuasiveness of the stimulus material. If the author tells you what his argument is but doesn't back it up by explaining the mechanism behind it (the how), it's not a very effective point. Similarly, if the author spends a lot of time proving the validity of his point to you (e.g. through quotes, statistics and anecdotes) but doesn't mention the harms or benefits that arise from it (the why), he again becomes less persuasive.

For Question 2, simply use this checklist to make sure that every argument you're making is properly fleshed out. If you make sure to include all three parts for every claim you make, your case will be watertight.

Question 1: Evaluating persuasiveness

In addition to evaluating the content of the stimulus, it also pays to scrutinise its expression. Note key rhetorical techniques such as anaphora, asyndeton and anecdote, and comment on whether their use is effective or not. Also take into account the tone of the passage and its relationship to the author's likely target audience. Is it appropriate or not? Perhaps there is more than one target audience? If so, does the tone appeal to one but not the other? I recommend that analysis of the author's expression be integrated into the broader thematic structure of the response.

Question 2: Developing a stance

In Question 2, you have to use the materials given in the stimuli to inform your stance on the issue. However, the stance you propose does not necessarily have to be a straight "For" or "Against" the motion. Instead, it may well be better to adopt a more nuanced approach. For example, in the sample paper, your stance could be to recommend that history be made compulsory in Years 7-10, but not in Years 11-12. Alternatively, you could argue that history should be compulsory, but taught in a specific way so as to maximise student engagement. Whatever you choose, be clear and state it at the very start of your response as the thesis statement.

I know this is a bit convoluted but hope it helps. Feel free to let me know if you need any clarification/further tips.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2017, 08:11:36 pm by bundahboy »
2017 HSC: English Advanced // English Extension 1 // English Extension 2 // Mathematics Extension 1 // Mathematics Extension 2 // Physics // Chemistry // Economics

LAT 2016: 100th percentile // UMAT 2017: 99th percentile

michelleh

  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Respect: 0
Re: LAT UNSW TIPS
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2017, 05:42:20 pm »
+1
Omg thank you for the great advice!! Will defs put them into use! :)