Hi,
On majority of my feedback I get told that I 'narrate' too much of my cases, is there any advice on how to stop that? Whenever I actively try not to narrate I am told that I don't go into enough detail or analysis of the case. I can't find a balance, any advice on what that balance is?
Thank you
Interesting conundrum!
I only mentioned details of the case in the first sentence introducing the case, or when I am explicitly and directly relating it to the analysis. So,
"The case of Bronson Blessington, involving the abduction, assault, and murder, of Janine Balding, is fraught with legal issues." Simply, I've described the case enough to identify the victim, and also the three main charges.
"The argument supporting that Blessington's sentence was not just recognises that his history of being sexually assaulted was not accepted as a mitigating factor in the sentencing procedure." So here, I've identified that he had a history of assault, but it's sitting right in the middle of an analysis about whether or not he was treated justly - perhaps in accordance with a question about sentencing and punishment procedures.
So I suppose the key might be to never give case details unless it is embedded within a sentence that is delivering strong analysis or an argument.
Home
Help
Search
Login
