Too Descriptive? Critical Analysis in a Law Essay

Your feedback says 'too descriptive'. That does not necessarily mean you need longer words or more cases. It may mean the reader can see what your sources say, but cannot see your answer to the question or the reasons for it.

Start by separating three jobs. Description tells the reader what a source says. Analysis explains how it bears on the question. Evaluation gives reasons for accepting, limiting or challenging a position. You may need all three; description becomes a problem when it never leads anywhere.

Let us use an original fictional policy exercise, not a claim about UK law. The question asks whether a university society should replace a fixed booking deadline with discretionary extensions. A descriptive paragraph lists the current deadline and says different members have different views. It has information, but no clear position.

A reasoned position might be: limited extensions could address exceptional circumstances, but only with published criteria and recorded reasons. That answers the question and gives us something to test. It does not pretend every extension is fair or every deadline is unfair.

Now connect the evidence. What would support the need for flexibility? What evidence would show inconsistent decisions? In an actual law essay, identify the legal authority, scholarship or other material appropriate to your question. Read it. Explain what proposition it supports and where its limits begin.

Then give the strongest objection a fair hearing. Perhaps discretion makes decisions less predictable. Do not dismiss that with 'however, fairness matters'. Explain the trade-off. Could clear criteria reduce uncertainty? Would they solve the problem entirely? If the evidence is insufficient, say what remains unresolved.

Return to your answer. You may now narrow it: limited discretion is defensible only if transparent criteria and reasons are feasible. The objection has changed the position. That visible change is more useful than adding a critical-sounding quotation.

Try this self-check. If you remove every case name from your paragraph, can you still identify the claim, the reasons, the strongest objection and your response? If not, a list of authorities may be hiding the argument. Then put the checked references back; traceability still matters.

Use this on a small section of your own permitted work, following your assessment rules. It is a thinking exercise, not a universal marking formula. Your tutor's criteria decide the task. The free second-year guide offers the wider transition plan, whether you are in second year or simply building this skill.