"To what extent................"

[Outclass]

New poster here.

Was just doing a few trial exam papers and stumbled across a few "to what extent" questions. Have always kind of struggled with these type of questions and was just wondering if anyone had any tips on how they would tackle these type of questions.

Cheers

[hannah2013]

i would give a general statement about the extent to which you agree or disagree or your opinion on the extent to which the thing does whatever the question is talking about. Sorry that was a really bad explanation.
So  i would give a statement and then basically use strengths and weaknesses to back up your opinion. or you could give your opinion at the end as a type of conclusion.
For example 'to what extent does civil pretrial procedures contribute to a timely resolution of disputes'
Civil pre trial procedures contribute to the timely resolution of disputes (this is strengths)
However ..... (the weaknesses that may hinder)
then something like 'despite the factors that may hinder the timely resolution of disputes, civil pre trial procedures are effective in contributing to this element of an effective legal system.

Do you have any specific questions? i hope this helps a little bit

[Outclass]

Can i include something in first person? For example, 'I believe that Parliament is a more effective law-making body than the courts'. Or is that just in English where you can't say 'I'.

'Parliament is more effective than courts when it comes to law-making. Therefore, law-making should be left to Parliament only and courts should focus on resolving disputes, not making laws.' Discuss this statement, indicating the extent to which you agree or disagree. In your answer include a critical evaluation of the law-making processes of Parliament and courts. (10 Marks)

How would you structure your response on a question like this? Especially it being a 10 mark question.

[XpK]

I usually approach it like this:

--> Introductory statement with a contention as to where you sit on the fence
--> 3 or 4 'body paragraphs' where a majority of them highlight the strengths of whatever I am advocating. Each body paragraph pretty much follows a topic sentence / evidence / analysis structure
--> Generic conclusion

So essentially, I treat 8-10 mark Legal questions as a poorly articulated English essay

[XpK]

Can i include something in first person? For example, 'I believe that Parliament is a more effective law-making body than the courts'. Or is that just in English where you can't say 'I'.

Short answer, I don't. I'd just drop the "I believe that" part from what you've written above.

'Parliament is more effective than courts when it comes to law-making. Therefore, law-making should be left to Parliament only and courts should focus on resolving disputes, not making laws.' Discuss this statement, indicating the extent to which you agree or disagree. In your answer include a critical evaluation of the law-making processes of Parliament and courts. (10 Marks)

How would you structure your response on a question like this? Especially it being a 10 mark question.

Perhaps an intro like this:
In most situations, Parliament is more effective at creating laws when compared to Courts.

The points I would make for the body paragraphs are:

1) Parliament are elected representatives of the people. Mention how having them legislate upholds values of democracy, whilst also telling the reader how having the majority's views upheld in law is important. I'd also throw in the fact that Parliamentarians are responsible for their actions.

2) Parliament can delegate their law-making powers to subordinate bodies. This allows for specialisation of laws and saves time for Parliament itself. Then, because the question asks you to critically evaluate both Parliament and Courts, mention how the delegation of law-making powers do not uphold values of democracy or responsibility you mentioned in your first body paragraph.

3)   I usually leave this last body paragraph for the big however that plagues every 4+ mark answer. I'd mention how Courts have their own advantages in that they are not biased by political opinion and all that nonsense. You can talk about how if change needs to happen, then Parliament can take a considerably long time to respond. This time can be lengthened in times such as the Gillard administration whereby there wasn't a huge majority of seats held by the Government in the lower house, as well as having a hostile upper house. This point ties in nicely with the 'Change the law quickly' point made in 269 of the Justice & Outcomes book.


DISCLAIMER:
It is about 09:40pm right now and I had a 4:15am start this morning, I may have missed something or made an error. I do urge someone to correct me if they spot a mistake.

[Outclass]

Ahh, makes more sense now. Cheers for that!

[TheWackyCheese]

So essentially, I treat 8-10 mark Legal questions as a poorly articulated English essay

Pretty much that. To what extent questions are about your opinion so you'd start with an introductory sentence or two highlighting your contention, then your body would be made up of a discussion of correlating strengths and weaknesses and finally, a closing statement giving your overall opinion on the question based on the strengths and weaknesses used.

[mia-la-bella]

Can your opinion be neutral? I.e. "Although to a certain degree '___' has advantages, it also has several disadvanatges." Or is it better to take a clear stance?

[michak]

Can your opinion be neutral? I.e. "Although to a certain degree '___' has advantages, it also has several disadvanatges." Or is it better to take a clear stance?

Yeah you can be neutral in legal. As my teacher always says as long as you can show the relevant points you should be fine.

[mia-la-bella]

Yeah you can be neutral in legal. As my teacher always says as long as you can show the relevant points you should be fine.

Okay, thank you!

[mishamigo]

Another point to note, my teacher always hammered me to explicitly say 'to an extent' in my introductory statement. For example, a lot of my answers looked like this:

While parliament is a more effective law maker than courts to an extent, there are limitations within its system.

Basically just spelling out that you understand the question. Not sure if it's necessary, but it couldn't hurt!