Examiners’ reports 2017

Examiners’ reports 2017

LA3005 Jurisprudence and legal theory – Zone B

Introduction
The Jurisprudence paper was divided into Parts A and B.
This is the first year Part A took on the form of the set case. This is a new
innovation and many students excelled in applying the theory to the case with many
good answers being produced.
Students knew in advance that the case this year – which will change next year –
was R v R from the House of Lords, see further below. Students also knew from
which three topics or areas the three specific questions would emanate.
There were strict instructions on the exam paper that students were not permitted to
answer particular questions from Part B if they had answered the related question in
Part A. The rubric was clear and examiners were glad to see that students followed
it.
Part B contained nine questions on a variety of topics as more fully detailed below.
Certain questions were much more popular than others. For example, Q5 on
Finnis’s theory and its relevance today was rarely answered, while Q10 on Austin
and coercion and Q12 on Marx’s theory were much more popular.
Overall, student performance was satisfactory to strong with some answers
showing excellence. There appeared to be adequate preparation and a good grasp
of the material on the whole. However, some students continue to reproduce stock
answers that have been memorised. Students should be wary of obtaining so called
‘model answers’ that are unfortunately neither ‘model’ nor original, strong answers.
We urge students not to regurgitate template answers. Some examiners noticed
this particularly for Part A. Examiners want to see innovative, original, reflective and
knowledgeable answers that show individual engagement with the materials
because we want to see you perform to the best of your ability, demonstrating skills
of critical analysis and reflection with evidence that you are engaging with the
questions actually asked and not telling us all you know about a theorist. We again
repeat advice from previous years: read the question carefully. Make sure you
understand what exactly it requires of you. Employ your knowledge of the material
to answer the specific question asked. Plan how you will answer before you start
writing the prose essay and use your critical abilities to show you have understood
and appreciated the question as well as the theories you need to evaluate.

1
Comments on specific questions

PART A (The set case)

Questions 1–3 are about the set case R v R (rape: marital exemption) [1992] 1
AC 599; [1991] 4 All ER 481.
Question 1
‘The House of Lords judgment in R v R (rape: marital exemption) (1992) is
best understood in terms of Dworkin’s theory of interpretivism rather than
Hart’s theory of adjudication.’
Discuss with specific reference to the case.
General remarks
This question expected students to explain and analyse Ronald Dworkin’s theory of
interpretivism and Hart’s theory of adjudication. In terms of structure, it may be
better to start with Hart’s theory of adjudication as Dworkin’s early work directly
critiqued it and positivism in general leading to the development of his own
independent theory.
Analysis of Dworkin’s critique of Hart’s rules, what judges do, how they use
discretion is required. An examination of what Dworkin says judges do in ‘hard
cases’ is needed. Further analysis of Dworkin’s theory of ‘fit’, ‘integrity’ and law as
an interpretive theory more generally, through the use of Hercules, the ideal judge,
and how law is like literature would be rewarded.
All theory must be intertwined with case law analysis. Thus student knowledge of
the facts of the case and the issues involved needed to be conveyed to examiners.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
The case R v R and some other case law referred to within its judgment. However,
a detailed analysis of this other case law was not required. Dworkin’s Taking rights
seriously (relevant chapters on ‘The model of rules’); and other Dworkin literature
such as Law’s empire; Hart’s Concept of law and all resources in the relevant
chapters of the module guide.
Common errors
A common error was the repetition of the facts and decision made in the set case
with insufficient analysis of both Dworkin’s theory of interpretivism and Hart’s theory
of adjudication – often the latter was lacking.
A good answer to this question would…
clearly and intelligently set out both Dworkin’s theory and Hart’s theory of
adjudication. Students would take a position in their introduction as to which they
thought was better at explaining how to understand the House of Lords judgment in
R v R. Then the answer would be coherently structured so as to follow this through
in the main part of the essay itself. Yet there would also be clear evidence of
arguments on both sides. All would be related to the set case and the social and
moral context of the facts of the case.
What does all of this tell us about: the issues of marriage and what is permissible
within it; the meaning of consenting to sexual intercourse and the mores of society
at a given historical time; how precedence in judicial decision making works,
according to Dworkin and Hart? Answers could explore how Dworkin’s theory could
potentially be seen as an improvement on positivism or argue that Hart’s theory is
better at explaining and justifying the decision made. They would include critiques
and other scholars’ work including MacCormick, Raz and Hart. They would relate

2
 Examiners’ reports 2017

the necessary element of realistic reasoning required by the judiciary with its
normative role.
Poor answers to this question…
presented much more material and analysis of one theorist and very little from the
other. This was mainly in favour of much more analysis of Dworkin and much less
evaluation of Hart who was often presented in a rather ‘straw man’ way. Are
students engaging with all relevant materials? There particularly seemed to be a
lack of engagement with secondary source material. Particularly poor answers
would repeat the facts and decision made in the set case and then give a short
summary of Dworkin’s theory, sometimes inaccurately explained, with little or no
interconnection between them and little or nothing on Hart.
Question 2
Critically evaluate the House of Lords judgment in R v R (rape: marital
exemption) (1992) by reference to Finnis’s natural law theory.
General remarks
This was probably the least popular of the three questions in Part A. However, it
was generally well done. Emphasis must rest on Finnis’s natural law theory. Having
said that, it is possible to draw on classical natural law, particularly the work of
Aquinas but relate this to Finnis’s work.
Students needed to interconnect the theory to the set case. They needed to clearly
outline Finnis’s seven basic values and explain what function they play in his theory.
Some discussion of the claims made about the status of the values – for example,
their self-evidence, incommensurability, etc. – would be welcome. This includes the
importance of the value of knowledge and how Finnis uses it to support self-
evidence. Students could question whether there is legality where a system begins
to target any of these basic values.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
The case R v R and some other case law referred to within its judgment. However,
a detailed analysis of this other case law was not required. Finnis’s Natural law and
natural rights and all the resources in Chapter 4 of the module guide.
Common errors
A common error was to list Finnis’s basic goods with an outline of the case and
sometimes not relate these. There was often a failure to miss the subtlety in Finnis’s
theory: see further below.
A good answer to this question would…
consider Finnis’s theory of civil disobedience, or disobedience on the basis of
conscience if the case had had the opposite outcome. Students could have argued
that his natural law theory does not assist: what difference does Finnis’s natural law
theory make to his legal theory? What Finnis says explicitly and directly about law
seems in many ways compatible with positivism. A good answer would explore the
space in between saying he is not a standard positivist and saying his theory can be
compatible with positivism. They would engage with the premise that law and
morality are connected. An explanation and analysis could be contained in the
answer as to how morality is grounded according to Finnis and then concentrate on
his claim that the focal meaning of law is one that promotes the common good.
They would clearly explain how these ideas relate to the themes in the case of
consenting to sex, the impact of marriage and respecting each other. Some
awareness of the way Finnis criticises Hart could also be shown. All of this has to
be explained, analysed and critiqued by clear application to the set case.

3
Poor answers to this question…
outlined Finnis’s theory, often inaccurately and then the case or vice versa but did
not relate the two.
Question 3
Critically evaluate the House of Lords judgment in R v R (rape: marital
exemption) (1992) from a radical feminist perspective.
General remarks
This question was generally answered well. Students demonstrated engagement
with the scholarly texts and aimed to relate them to the question. In their
introductions, it was open to students to set out how they approached the question
and to clearly set out the structure they used to answer this. So some students
focused almost exclusively on radical feminism, while others spent more time
explaining all the different orientations in legal feminism before focusing more
specifically and, for the majority of their answer, on radical feminism. With the case
concerning rape and marriage, there were many opportunities for students to
discuss issues argued by feminists to be of great importance, including the
institution of marriage, what exactly consent to intercourse means, the inequality of
men and women, women’s liberation and bodily integrity and respect.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
The case R v R and some other case law referred to within its judgment. However,
a detailed analysis of this other case law was not required. Any of the relevant
materials from Chapter 15 of the module guide and particularly the work of
Catharine MacKinnon.
Common errors
Unfortunately, there were quite a few students who seemed to provide ‘model
answers’ listing different types of feminisms and without adequate analysis linking
these to marriage and women’s position within it, consent and radical feminists’
scholarly work. Such answers are to be avoided. Lists of different types of feminism
are descriptive and fail to show the engagement, reflection and analysis required at
this level of study.
A good answer to this question would…
show an in depth knowledge of radical feminism and of MacKinnon’s work in
particular. They would relate this to the set case and the issues of consent, bodily
integrity, and autonomy, individual rights, and the meaning of marriage, and sex
within it. Many answers achieved high marks and students are to be commended
for their engagement with the materials, showing passion and interest in the subject
matter.
Poor answers to this question…
gave outlines to feminist legal theories and or boldly made assertions in a
journalistic fashion or stated the basic facts of the case with a paragraph about
women’s rights in somewhat general terms.

PART B
Question 4
‘Dworkin’s theory is based on two inadequate and misleading distinctions:
first, that between rules and principles; and second, that between principles
and policies.’
Discuss.

4
 Examiners’ reports 2017

General remarks
Students were not permitted to answer this question if they had answered Q1. They
were expected to set out the two distinctions clearly, ideally giving examples of
each pair. A clear exposition of Dworkin’s theory on rules and principles and
policies is required with good analysis and critique. Students should mention some
of the criticisms of these distinctions from the literature and the module guide
chapter, including Hart, Raz, and MacCormick.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
Dworkin’s Taking rights seriously (relevant chapters on ‘The model of rules’); and
other Dworkin literature such as Law’s empire; all resources in the relevant chapter
in the module guide.
Common errors
A general summary of Dworkin’s theory in general was provided with some
discussion of principles and policies and his views on rules and what judges do.
However, there would be a lack of analysis, critique and engagement, therefore
sounding descriptive.
A good answer to this question would…
set out a position from the outset in the introduction: do they agree or disagree with
the statement? For example, they could argue that at least some principles are not
part of the law but a shorthand way of referring to lots of rules and that policies are
often if not always relevant because they concern the rights of third parties.
Students would be rewarded for using their own examples and discussing the
practical implications of the distinction for adjudication.
Poor answers to this question…
provided basic summaries of Dworkin’s theory in general, often inaccurately
explained.
Question 5
‘Finnis’s theory is more relevant now than ever before – in times of crisis,
what we need is agreement on basic values that we do not allow the law to
endanger.’
Discuss.
General remarks
Students were not permitted to answer this question if they answered Q2. Not many
students answered this question. The question introduces the current crisis (if that
is what it is – and the students should take a position: constitutional and otherwise
in the UK and elsewhere, as a backdrop for the assessment of Finnis’s theory.
Some discussion of the claims made about the status of the values (their self-
evidence, incommensurability, etc.) was welcomed. This includes the importance of
the value of knowledge and how Finnis uses it to support self-evidence.
Answers should have engaged with an assessment of the commonly articulated
criticism that classical natural law is practically irrelevant or unrealistic. Given the
wording of the question, explicit discussion of Finnis is obviously required. However,
discussion of Aquinas and other theorists could also have been provided as long as
these were related to Finnis’s work in some way and did not detract from its
exposition.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
All relevant materials from the module guide, Chapter 4 in particular and related
materials.

5
Common errors
Common errors were to give descriptive summaries of the connection between law
and morality or a list of Finnis’s values.
A good answer to this question would…
discuss and demonstrate in-depth knowledge of Finnis’s theory and its relevance
today with good clear examples in a non-polemical way. Students would clearly
explain in an introduction how they would answer the question. Although the focus
is on Finnis, other theorists would enrich the answer too. They would relate Finnis’s
work to Aquinas’s. Some discussion of the broader context is called for by the
question: for instance, can there be legality where a system begins to target a
religion? Some discussion of Finnis’s theory of civil disobedience or disobedience
on the basis of conscience enriched answers.
Poor answers to this question…
provided insufficient knowledge of the basics of Finnis’s work or made mistakes in
attribution.
Question 6
‘Feminist legal theories offer good critiques of the liberal legal system but do
not offer a satisfactory alternative.’
Discuss.
General remarks
Students were not permitted to answer this question and Q3. Students needed to
demonstrate their knowledge of different feminist theories as well as the points they
may have in common in criticising the liberal legal system. Students needed to
evaluate these theories, not list them, to show if any of these theories provide an
alternative theory to the liberal legal system. There needed to be explanation
therefore of liberal feminism, of radical feminism, of the ethic of care or cultural
feminism, black critical race feminism and postmodern feminism. There are good
readings in the The Ashgate research companion to feminist legal theory referred to
in the Chapter 15 of the module guide. All of the points students make need to be
backed up by evidence with proper accreditation to the theorists or critics.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
Any of the relevant resources from Chapter 15 of the module guide; particular focus
on MacKinnon’s work from Toward a feminist theory of the state and similar; more
recent additions to the guide from The Ashgate research companion to feminist
legal theory.
Common errors
A common error was to demonstrate a somewhat mechanical description of
different feminist theories. It was also necessary to explain what the liberal legal
system means or is and some students did not sufficiently do this or missed this
altogether.
A good answer to this question would…
take a position in the introduction and argue it throughout, while also setting out
knowledge of all the arguments. For example, some students argued that the only
feminist legal theory to offer a strong alternative was radical feminism (N.B. you do
not have to present this view). Having set out all the relevant feminist critiques as
mentioned above, they then proceeded to argue that radical feminism and
MacKinnon’s work in particular presented a different way forward for law by
explaining its focus on how law ignores or fails to address the concerns of
oppression, dominance, power, patriarchy and the problems with the structure of

6
 Examiners’ reports 2017

law which sustain this dominance, etc. but that law could be used as a tool to
demolish the ‘master’s house’ (A. Lorde).
Poor answers to this question…
listed different feminist theories, sometimes inaccurately with incorrect attribution
and failed to focus on answering the question asked.
Student extract
Feminism advocates for the equality of women, in which there has to be no
discrimination at all in the law. Even though there are different waves thus
radical, liberal, cultural feminism, they all want the same things but they
advocate for it differently…
Despite there being Acts like Sex Discrimination Act, Equal Pay Act, women
are still prejudiced by the legal system. The legal system despite having all
these laws which purports [sic] to be universal and for all, in actual fact [they]
are not. The law does not seem to work fairly in private areas like…issues of
domestic violence…
Mary Wollstonecraft advocates for the personhood of women, she believes
that women should be able to make their own decision in order for them to
have the independence and value…
Comments on extract
A low First was awarded for this answer from both examiners.
From this extract, representing different parts of the essay, it can be seen that the
student explains some of the complex yet general points of feminist legal theory: for
example equality. The answer provided a detailed analysis of many relevant
scholars’ work – here we see mention of Wollstonecraft, a classic liberal position
presenting an immanent internal critique of the liberal legal system. It also uses as
an example some relevant legislation, in this instance the Equal Pay Act.
Question 7
‘While it has some explanatory virtues, Hart’s rule of recognition masks more
than it reveals, principally because it underestimates the existence and extent
of disagreement between officials of a legal system.’
Discuss.
General remarks
This question is looking for a focused answer on the rule of recognition. There can
be some explanation of the distinction between primary and secondary rules but
students should have focused on the rule of recognition in particular. The question
points to Hart’s and Dworkin’s debate on the significance of disagreement: is there
not disagreement between officials as to what constitutes the sources of law and
how to interpret them or rank them? Is that disagreement not more radical than a
mere difference between the core and the penumbra of the rule of recognition?
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
Chapters 5 but especially Chapter 6 of the module guide.
Common errors
There were quite a few answers which set out Hart’s general theory with a small
section on the rule of recognition.
A good answer to this question would…
explore possible weaknesses of the rule of recognition. Is Hart presenting it as both
a practice and a rule? How can this be? Is it incoherent? Students introduced
comparisons with, for example, Kelsen’s Grundnorm and analysis by secondary

7
theorists. More general reflection on the importance of disagreement between
officials for legal theory enriched answers.
Poor answers to this question…
set out Hart’s general theory with a small section on the rule of recognition, which
was inaccurate or failed to show coherence.
Question 8
Critically evaluate and compare Raz's exclusive legal positivism and his
conception of authority.
General remarks
Students could answer this in a variety of ways: Raz’s work as the intellectual heir
of Hart could have provided the context to a more focused answer with some
discussion of Hart’s theory of positivism. However, the thrust of any answer needed
to focus on the specific question; the relationship between Raz’s legal positivist
theory and his conception of authority. Many students answered this well and did so
focus. However, sometimes, Raz seemed to be interpreted as some kind of
authoritarian, which failed to show an understanding of his liberalism – see further
below.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
Chapter 8 of the module guide and all relevant materials.
Common errors
There was a tendency to present a rather clunky answer, which demonstrated a
lack of understanding of Raz’s liberalism and the importance of individual freedom
and agency in his theory.
A good answer to this question would…
show an understanding of Raz’s liberalism and the importance of individual freedom
and agency in his theory. Students would demonstrate a good understanding of the
normal justification thesis and the idea that an authority is legitimate only to the
extent that it allows its subjects to act on reasons that apply to them independently.
Poor answers to this question…
provided some outlines to Raz’s theory at a very descriptive level and did not
explain either or both of his exclusive legal positivism and conception of authority.
Question 9
‘Fuller’s theory is, at best, a series of recommendations for rulers who want
to maintain power. It is not, as he intended it, a critique of evil regimes.’
Discuss.
General remarks
This question focuses on the well-known criticism that Fuller’s eight desiderata are
means that can be used for evil as well as good ends. In any answer, examiners
had to see more than mere reproduction of the eight desiderata. Students needed
to address this criticism explicitly by reference to all the relevant materials in a
coherent well-structured manner. In general, this question was answered well.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
Chapter 4 of the module guide, especially 4.5, and Chapter 7 and all relevant
materials.
Common errors
Some students provided a broad overview of Fuller’s theory and some criticisms
with reference to the Nazi regime and the Hart–Fuller debate in a descriptive way.

8
 Examiners’ reports 2017

A good answer to this question would…

present a full exposition of Fuller’s theory, with Hart’s criticisms and examples used.
Analysis of Fuller’s response was also important, including how likely it is in practice
rather than only in theory that an evil regime would respect the eight principles of
legality. Answers would address the criticisms made of Fuller and critically evaluate
the issues. Some awareness of Fuller’s subtlety was welcomed: for example, by
referring to his allowance for considerable leeway in how well the system conforms
to the eight principles, and that it was only when there was manifest failure in one of
them that there was no legality.
Poor answers to this question…
listed the principles with little if any analysis or focus on the question.
Question 10
‘Coercion is at the heart of law, especially as experienced by the citizen.
Austin saw this better than anyone.’
Discuss.
General remarks
Many students answered this question. It is a straightforward question on the
importance of coercion for legal theory. Students needed to address this through
the work of Austin. However, it was good to see many answers moving from there
to raise broader issues and more recent literature, for example, that of Schauer. It
was expected that students addressed and focused on the command aspect of
Austin’s theory, in particular addressing the viability of Austin’s theory of contract
and also how Hart criticises it. A clear focus on law’s coercive power was required.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
Chapter 3 of the module guide, especially Austin’s own work and Hart’s criticisms in
The concept of law referred to in Chapter 5 of the guide.
Common errors
A common error was to demonstrate insufficient focus on the specific question,
which led to a general description and analysis of Austin’s theory, over-generalising
and sounding somewhat mechanical.
A good answer to this question would…
discuss the nature of Austin’s command and the imperative theory of law; exploring
the generation of legal obligation, ‘fear’ of the consequences for disobedience and
the issue of sanctions. Some answers linked Austin to Hobbes and drew on
Cotterrell’s sympathetic reading of Austin in light of Hart’s critique. Some analysed
Hart’s critique of Austin with his focus on Austin’s theory as connecting to ‘duty-
imposing rules’ but not dealing with law beyond criminal law. Some discussion of
the difference between fines and taxes was evident in some good answers. Good
answers were well written and clearly structured with a clear focus on the question.
That is, is coercion at the heart of the law and is this especially ‘as experienced by
the citizen’? Evident engagement and exposition of the theories and materials were
rewarded with some high marks being given for answers to this question. A more
general discussion of law’s coercive power – especially in terms of how Hart’s
theory arguably does not take it seriously enough would also be well received,
drawing on other materials and subtle reflective arguments.
Poor answers to this question…
outlined Austin’s theory in very general terms and/or as described by Hart and did
not engage with the aspect of the question requiring an analysis of coercion being
at the heart of law.

9
Student extract
Hart tries to note the difference between being obliged to follow, and being
under an obligation to follow. The first consists of some element of coercion
and the latter is a voluntary obligation to follow the law. Hart goes on to use
the gunman example, where a banker hands over all the cash in fear of
safety for his life. However, Hart makes a mistake here as the sovereign who
commands according to Austin has authority to do so whereas a gunman
does not. Furthermore, how do we even prove that a person voluntarily
follows the law.
Austin’s contradiction then can be explained if a different perspective is
taken. Where sanctions causes [sic] fear to citizens, they tend to follow the
law out of their fear, but this then eventually becomes a habit, and it turns into
habitual obedience towards the commands of the sovereign.
In my opinion, a habit is not something that is followed out of fear. I do not
start a habit…out of fear. But rather, it is a habit I have…I also think that there
are many other reasons why people follow the law, and we should not
stereotype fear as the sole reason. For example…
Comments on extract
A mark of mid- to high 70s was given by both examiners for this essay. As this short
extract from a clearly written and coherently structured answer shows, information
is conveyed of the student’s knowledge, s/he provides analysis, critique and a
position on issues relevant to and focused on the question asked.
Question 11
‘Liberal principles of equality and the uniqueness of each person need to be
taken more seriously by law.’
Discuss.
General remarks
Not many students answered this question. Some students who did provided
sufficiently argued and relevant answers to obtain a good mark. However, some
students completely misidentified the question.
As a general question, it was open to students to reflect and imaginatively use the
materials mainly relating to theories of justice, utilitarianism, and complex notions of
what it means to be equal but also somehow free as persons. A short blog on the
VLE considered some of these issues
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
Chapter 14, especially 14.5 of the module guide. However, given its generality, this
question could have drawn on any number of sources to answer the question
imaginatively.
Common errors
Some answers demonstrated a lack of depth in dealing with ‘equality’, ‘uniqueness’
and how law does or does not take any such uniqueness of persons as persons
seriously and were too general. Related issues of personal freedom, utilitarianism,
welfare, the individuality and separateness of persons and theories of justice were
briefly, if at all, discussed.
A good answer to this question would…
set out clearly in the introduction the approach that was being taken and why. The
material would cover what it means to talk about ‘equality’ – including equality of
resources, opportunity and outcome. Reference could be made to Rawls, to
Dworkin, to utilitarianism and to Raz’s theory of freedom. Some made reference to

10
 Examiners’ reports 2017

aspects of Dworkin’s equality of resources theory, Raz’s agency, feminism and

Marxism. This was all possible, so long as everything was related to the question
asked. However, no credit would be given for substantive duplication and lack of
application to this specific question of any materials already referred to in answering
other questions.
Poor answers to this question…
misidentified the question, with students setting out a mechanical answer to a
particular theorist unrelated to the question completely. This meant they were
simply writing an essay on a topic they wanted to see come up in the exam and as
they could not see it mentioned elsewhere in the paper, they decided to set out their
knowledge here.
Question 12
‘Marxist theory is an excellent critique of law in twenty-first century
capitalism.’
Discuss.
General remarks
This question introduces the current state of world politics, debates concerning
liberalism and liberal democracies, and the establishment ‘elites’; globalisation;
austerity following the recession of 2008 onwards, as a backdrop to Marxist theory
and its critique of law. Distinctions were expected to be made between Marx’s
theory and Marxist theories of law. Students could have given their own specific
examples from politics or laws, globally or nationally and many did so in an
engaging manner. On the whole, these answers were strong and many were
excellent. There was evidence of real engagement with the materials and with
ideas, reflection and passion.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
The work of Marx and Engels; all the relevant materials in Chapter 13 of the module
guide; Pashukanis, Althusser; E.P.Thompson.
Common errors
There were some general accounts of Marxist theory and Marx’s theory of history,
with little focus on the question.
A good answer to this question would…
convey accurate knowledge of Marx’s theory of law: what does it mean, what are
the components of it. They would analyse critiques of it and how it was developed
or used by other theories. They would then relate it to the present day and
capitalism today. Students would take a position: i.e. saying they agree or disagree
with the statement and then explaining why throughout, clearly setting out in the
introduction the position they will be taking, how they have interpreted the question
and why. Throughout the answer, there would be a clear and balanced exposition of
the arguments on all sides backed by evidence, with students setting out how they
agreed or disagreed with reference to all relevant materials. Reference would be
made to real life examples, clearly connected to the theory.
Poor answers to this question…
were overly political, baldly stating viewpoints without substantial evidence or
sources; often using the word ‘believe’ rather than ‘it is argued that’.

11