Question!
For our options, the general trend of the question seems to be one about specific issue (surrogacy/birth tech in family) and another more general theme/challenge based (resolving conflict in family).
Would it be safe to answer the general question with reference to only one issue?
For example, if the general question asks about legal and non legal measures in achieving just outcomes for family members, could I just talk about same sex couples (with discrimination, marriage and divorce forming my main paragraphs)?
Cheers for your time
Hey,
If nobody has said so yet, welcome to the forums! I hope you find it as helpful a place as I have
On with your question, I agree that options essays tend to resemble that sort of style. I will however warn you that this isn't always the case.
There have been years where
both questions asked for a specific issue, as well as a theme/challenge. Take 2015 for instance:
a) To what extent is law reform regarding alternate family relationships a reflection of changing values?
Here you have
two themes/challenges, being law reform and changing values. You then have the specific issue being alternate family relationships (yikes)
b) Assess the effectiveness of legal and non-legal responses in dealing with domestic violence
Again, we have a combination of the themes/challenges and a specific issue
Honestly though, the entire 2015 paper was a mess so I would be fairly confident that our year would be that specific issue / theme/challenge style questions. Just note that you need to be prepared to talk about specific issues and a theme/challenge in the same essay, because it is very much so possible.
Now for your question:
Would it be safe to answer the general question with reference to only one issue?
Personally, I wouldn't recommend this. To begin, what I assume you mean by "issues" are the contemporary issues in the syllabus. Now you could technically do this since the question doesn't specify which section of the syllabus you need to talk about. But that's the thing - the question isn't limiting you, so why limit yourself? If anything, limiting yourself to just the issue of 'same sex relationships' actually detracts from the completeness of your argument. To put things into perspective, here are the things that you could potentially talk about in this question:
Legal and non-legal measures in achieving just outcomes for family members-Adoption
-Divorce
-Legal consequences of separating
-Domestic violence
-Courts, methods, NGOs, media
-Same sex relationships
-Surrogacy and birth technologies
-Changing nature of parental responsibility
-Care and protection of children
So really, there are so many potential avenues for you to explore. With such a broad question, limiting yourself to JUST the 'same sex relationships' issue is only giving you a very, very small piece of the pie. Personally, I would only have a
paragraph dedicated to same sex couples at most, where I would briefly mention what you brought up (discrimination, marriage, divorce). Your other paragraphs should be on something completely different, such as domestic violence. That way you're engaging with all aspects of the question and in turn, you're maximising your marks. I'll also bring up the fact that the question asks for 'families'; This encompasses all types of families, so de facto, heterosexual, homosexual, single-parent, and most importantly, it encompasses the needs of the children as well.
Essentially, I don't think it would be safe to answer a general question with reference only to one issue. When you're presented with a general question, you need to engage with all aspects of it rather than limit yourself to a single issue. Only ever have a whole essay on a single issue when the question specifies for that issue only. I.e. Assess the effectiveness of the legal and non-legal measures in dealing with same sex relationships.
Hope that helps
Honestly though, it's a lot to take in and I might not be making sense at this time of night, so feel free to ask some questions or even challenge what I'm saying because I could easily be wrong.