1 00:00:00,765 --> 00:00:03,715 A three-thousand-word law essay is not a 2 00:00:03,725 --> 00:00:06,140 longer list of everything you have read. 3 00:00:06,465 --> 00:00:08,555 It needs a question, a position you 4 00:00:08,565 --> 00:00:11,375 can defend, and reasons that develop across 5 00:00:11,385 --> 00:00:13,935 the sections. In this lesson, we will 6 00:00:13,945 --> 00:00:16,715 turn an original fictional policy question into 7 00:00:16,725 --> 00:00:19,435 an argument map. The word allocation is 8 00:00:19,445 --> 00:00:22,100 a planning example, not your university's template. 9 00:00:22,565 --> 00:00:26,055 Follow your brief, marking criteria, word-count rules 10 00:00:26,065 --> 00:00:27,160 and rules on assistance. 11 00:00:27,685 --> 00:00:29,295 Our purpose is to help you plan 12 00:00:29,305 --> 00:00:31,855 your own permitted work, not provide an 13 00:00:31,865 --> 00:00:33,220 answer to a live assessment. 14 00:00:34,245 --> 00:00:36,695 Our invented question asks whether a study 15 00:00:36,705 --> 00:00:39,255 centre should replace a first-come booking system 16 00:00:39,265 --> 00:00:40,900 with a needs-based system. 17 00:00:41,485 --> 00:00:43,140 Begin by unpacking the task. 18 00:00:44,125 --> 00:00:45,660 Replace, keep, or modify? 19 00:00:46,385 --> 00:00:48,480 What does needs-based mean here? 20 00:00:48,905 --> 00:00:50,815 Which criteria would let us compare the 21 00:00:50,825 --> 00:00:55,135 systems? Fairness, clarity and administrative burden are 22 00:00:55,145 --> 00:00:58,100 possible evaluative lenses in this fictional example. 23 00:00:58,525 --> 00:00:59,995 They are not findings about a real 24 00:01:00,005 --> 00:01:03,455 institution. Decide which lenses are relevant and 25 00:01:03,465 --> 00:01:06,215 explain why. A vague claim that one 26 00:01:06,225 --> 00:01:08,195 system is better will otherwise hide the 27 00:01:08,205 --> 00:01:10,100 standard you are using to judge it. 28 00:01:10,645 --> 00:01:13,655 A provisional position might be: a needs-based 29 00:01:13,665 --> 00:01:16,435 route could improve access, but only with 30 00:01:16,445 --> 00:01:18,680 published criteria and a review process. 31 00:01:19,215 --> 00:01:21,100 That is not yet a proven conclusion. 32 00:01:21,405 --> 00:01:22,600 It is a claim to test. 33 00:01:23,505 --> 00:01:25,280 Split it into supporting propositions. 34 00:01:26,225 --> 00:01:28,895 First, the existing system may disadvantage some 35 00:01:28,905 --> 00:01:31,995 users. Second, a new system must make 36 00:01:32,005 --> 00:01:35,895 decisions intelligible. Third, safeguards may address the 37 00:01:35,905 --> 00:01:37,660 risk of inconsistent judgments. 38 00:01:38,425 --> 00:01:41,195 Now identify what evidence each proposition would 39 00:01:41,205 --> 00:01:43,595 need. In a real law essay, your 40 00:01:43,605 --> 00:01:46,335 propositions must engage with relevant legal sources 41 00:01:46,345 --> 00:01:49,365 and scholarly arguments, not just plausible policy 42 00:01:49,375 --> 00:01:49,990 language. 43 00:01:50,915 --> 00:01:53,305 Build sections around questions your argument needs 44 00:01:53,315 --> 00:01:56,365 to resolve. One section establishes the current 45 00:01:56,375 --> 00:01:59,670 problem. Another evaluates the proposed alternative. 46 00:02:00,355 --> 00:02:02,845 A third tests the strongest objection and 47 00:02:02,855 --> 00:02:05,505 your response. This is different from one 48 00:02:05,515 --> 00:02:07,545 section per author, where the essay becomes 49 00:02:07,555 --> 00:02:08,930 a succession of summaries. 50 00:02:09,595 --> 00:02:12,625 Give each section a job sentence: this 51 00:02:12,635 --> 00:02:15,545 section matters because it establishes a particular 52 00:02:15,555 --> 00:02:16,950 step in my answer. 53 00:02:17,595 --> 00:02:19,770 If two sections do the same job, 54 00:02:19,975 --> 00:02:22,070 combine them or clarify the difference. 55 00:02:22,555 --> 00:02:24,485 If a section does no work for 56 00:02:24,495 --> 00:02:26,730 the question, it may not belong. 57 00:02:27,395 --> 00:02:30,885 For our fictional three-thousand-word plan, reserve about 58 00:02:30,895 --> 00:02:33,805 three hundred words for the introduction, eight 59 00:02:33,815 --> 00:02:36,325 hundred for the problem, one thousand for 60 00:02:36,335 --> 00:02:40,205 evaluating the alternative, six hundred for objections 61 00:02:40,215 --> 00:02:42,965 and safeguards, and three hundred for the 62 00:02:42,975 --> 00:02:46,225 conclusion. Those numbers add up, but that 63 00:02:46,235 --> 00:02:48,130 alone does not make the plan good. 64 00:02:48,675 --> 00:02:50,865 Change the allocation if the question demands 65 00:02:50,875 --> 00:02:53,745 something different. Check what your course counts 66 00:02:53,755 --> 00:02:56,425 towards the limit, including any rules for 67 00:02:56,435 --> 00:02:59,165 footnotes. The budget is a constraint to 68 00:02:59,175 --> 00:03:02,025 work within, not permission to compress analysis 69 00:03:02,035 --> 00:03:03,750 into unexplained assertions. 70 00:03:04,655 --> 00:03:07,390 Within each section, try a paragraph map: 71 00:03:07,975 --> 00:03:13,145 claim, source support, explanation, limitation, and connection 72 00:03:13,155 --> 00:03:14,390 back to the question. 73 00:03:14,795 --> 00:03:16,845 This is a diagnostic aid, not a 74 00:03:16,855 --> 00:03:20,565 rigid five-sentence formula. Suppose an article argues 75 00:03:20,575 --> 00:03:23,550 that transparent criteria improve consistency. 76 00:03:24,255 --> 00:03:26,605 Ask what its evidence supports and what 77 00:03:26,615 --> 00:03:27,790 it does not establish. 78 00:03:28,295 --> 00:03:30,865 Does it concern our proposed setting, or 79 00:03:30,875 --> 00:03:33,785 another context? Can it support a qualified 80 00:03:33,795 --> 00:03:35,850 claim rather than a universal one? 81 00:03:36,335 --> 00:03:38,345 Your explanation is the work that turns 82 00:03:38,355 --> 00:03:40,130 a source into part of an argument. 83 00:03:40,475 --> 00:03:42,265 A footnote cannot do that work on 84 00:03:42,275 --> 00:03:42,870 its own. 85 00:03:43,335 --> 00:03:46,310 Your outline has three headings: Author A, 86 00:03:46,575 --> 00:03:48,470 Author B, and Author C. 87 00:03:48,875 --> 00:03:50,650 Each summarises one article. 88 00:03:51,215 --> 00:03:52,925 How could you reorganise it so the 89 00:03:52,935 --> 00:03:54,965 reader sees an argument about the proposed 90 00:03:54,975 --> 00:03:58,205 booking system? Pause and give two headings 91 00:03:58,215 --> 00:04:01,005 based on problems or propositions, rather than 92 00:04:01,015 --> 00:04:01,490 people. 93 00:04:05,775 --> 00:04:08,745 Possible headings are: who the existing system 94 00:04:08,755 --> 00:04:12,065 disadvantages, and whether published criteria can make 95 00:04:12,075 --> 00:04:13,530 a new system consistent. 96 00:04:14,235 --> 00:04:16,590 Different authors can contribute to both sections. 97 00:04:17,115 --> 00:04:20,245 You now compare their support, disagreement and 98 00:04:20,255 --> 00:04:22,050 limits around the same question. 99 00:04:22,555 --> 00:04:24,705 These headings are examples, not the only 100 00:04:24,715 --> 00:04:28,145 correct plan. Test whether every section moves 101 00:04:28,155 --> 00:04:30,525 the answer forward and whether the strongest 102 00:04:30,535 --> 00:04:32,410 objection is treated fairly. 103 00:04:33,075 --> 00:04:36,265 After drafting, write a one-line description of 104 00:04:36,275 --> 00:04:38,390 what each paragraph actually does. 105 00:04:38,995 --> 00:04:41,425 Compare that reverse outline with your intended 106 00:04:41,435 --> 00:04:45,625 argument. Look for repetition, missing evidence, a 107 00:04:45,635 --> 00:04:48,265 buried objection or a conclusion that goes 108 00:04:48,275 --> 00:04:51,725 beyond the analysis. Revise those gaps before 109 00:04:51,735 --> 00:04:54,945 polishing wording. Keep the final research and 110 00:04:54,955 --> 00:04:57,805 writing yours, and follow the rules for 111 00:04:57,815 --> 00:04:59,345 any feedback tool you use. 112 00:04:59,355 --> 00:05:02,285 The planning exercise and further reading are 113 00:05:02,295 --> 00:05:03,690 in Durmah's learning library.