werdna's LS question and answer thread.

[werdna]

Hey guys, this is the thread I'm going to put all my questions and answers for Legal Studies in, so I can get some advice from you on how I've answered questions and how I should answer them and so on.

[werdna]

Does anyone know if we need to know about the 'effectiveness of the parliamentry system' in the Justice & Outcomes textbook? Key Concepts doesn't have a section on this.

[eeps]

I think the 'effectiveness of the parliamentry system' means the strengths and weaknesses of parliament as a law-making body (i.e. critically evaluate). I think you need to know it. Also in relation to your other PM, my teacher said that students should still do practice exams from the previous study design (i.e. 07', 08', 09'); as the changes are not that big. It's really minor changes/tweaks. The exams from the previous study design are still relevant.

[Darren]

isn't there a question thread?

[werdna]

isn't there a question thread?

Yes, but this one is for my questions, similar to what the Methods/Chem/Spec people have done on here. I also won't be asking questions as much, I'd be asking for advice on my answers and how to structure them instead as Legal isn't a hard subject like the maths/sciences above.

[werdna]

Could someone please mark these responses? I'm not 100% sure on how to structure responses, but here goes. In Legal, do you have to define the key terms like you do in BM? (Even when the question isn't a 'define..' one?)

Explain how conflicting opinions about a proposed change in the law can restrict the law-making process.
Conflicting opinions about a proposed change in the law can restrict the leglislative process. This is due to the fact that government must always adhere to the principles of a constitutional monarch, and hence responding to people's needs and representing the views of the majority of the people becomes second nature to government. A significant disparity between the will of the people and the will of the government, in terms of the law-making process, can cause the government of the day to be reluctant to change or initiate law without a clear majority view.

The ALP has a majority in the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly in Victoria. To what extent does this lead to effective law-making? Discuss.
The ALP has a majority in the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly. Whilst the ALP must adhere to the principles of responsible and representative government during its term, and therefore reflect the views and values of the wider community irrespective of much political influence, this is only an effective legislative process to a certain extent; to the extent that bills should always be scrutinised and debated heavily before they become law. Members in both houses will inadvertently have the tendency to vote according to the decrees of their party or coalition and will therefore only merely act as a 'rubber stamp'. In addition to this, the ALP may misuse its political power during the process, and as a result, there is not as much scrutinisation, debate and discussion of bills in the majority government as there would be in a minority government. In this way, the Victorian Parliament may not be able to fulfil the needs of the general community, because both houses are bound and entrapped by their own ideologies and aims.

It's more of an issue of structuring responses, as the actual content in Legal is easy to understand. Thanks guys!

[eeps]

Both responses are very good. I won't give them a score or anything, since it may depend on the allocated marks for each question. You could possibly give an example for the first question? For example, the proposed change in the law relating to euthanasia; to make it legal - it's a heavily-debated issue, which raises many divided opinions. Hence, the government may be reluctant/cautious to pass laws that may lose potential voters. Your second answer is pretty good as well. You've full answered the question for both of them. Why not aim for 50? Going off what I've seen, you seem quite capable of achieving 50 for Legal Studies.

[werdna]

Thanks EPL, you legend. These are just normal questions in the chapter, so there aren't any allocated marks. Thanks for letting me know about adding examples as well. A 50.... I don't think I should aim for it, because I'd be underestimating the difficulty in getting it... but it'd be an awesome if I did get it hahha.

[ech_93]

Both of your answers are really good!
I would just suggest to add examples where possible. If you couldn't find any examples for these, then fair enough.
In my textbook from last year it says, (in relation to the first question) 'The suggestions that the use of marijuana should be decriminalised and that heroin should be made available to addicts are controversial and a great deal of public debate is required before the law can be changed.' - though that example isn't really ideal as there are no years or acts or case names to prove it as an example...

I don't know if you have seen in my post in another thread i outlined how to structure short-answer questions. I said "My teacher said to remember the word 'SEE'... write a Statement answering the question, add an Explanation and provide an Example."

The first sentence for both your questions is kind of just repeating the question TOO much, imo. For the second one i would start off by saying "When the ALP has a majority in the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly parliament's ability to make laws are restricted."

edit- beaten by EPL

[werdna]

Thanks ech! Yeah, I did notice that about the first sentences. Will take this on board next time.

[chrisjb]

Could someone please mark these responses? I'm not 100% sure on how to structure responses, but here goes. In Legal, do you have to define the key terms like you do in BM? (Even when the question isn't a 'define..' one?)

Explain how conflicting opinions about a proposed change in the law can restrict the law-making process.
Conflicting opinions about a proposed change in the law can restrict the leglislative process. This is due to the fact that government must always adhere to the principles of a constitutional monarch, and hence responding to people's needs and representing the views of the majority of the people becomes second nature to government. A significant disparity between the will of the people and the will of the government, in terms of the law-making process, can cause the government of the day to be reluctant to change or initiate law without a clear majority view.

The ALP has a majority in the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly in Victoria. To what extent does this lead to effective law-making? Discuss.
The ALP has a majority in the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly. Whilst the ALP must adhere to the principles of responsible and representative government during its term, and therefore reflect the views and values of the wider community irrespective of much political influence, this is only an effective legislative process to a certain extent; to the extent that bills should always be scrutinised and debated heavily before they become law. Members in both houses will inadvertently have the tendency to vote according to the decrees of their party or coalition and will therefore only merely act as a 'rubber stamp'. In addition to this, the ALP may misuse its political power during the process, and as a result, there is not as much scrutinisation, debate and discussion of bills in the majority government as there would be in a minority government. In this way, the Victorian Parliament may not be able to fulfil the needs of the general community, because both houses are bound and entrapped by their own ideologies and aims.

It's more of an issue of structuring responses, as the actual content in Legal is easy to understand. Thanks guys!

what you wrote was good, but in question two you needa cut down the bolded bit. That topic sentence type thing isn't needed and there's a bit of an emphasis on getting to the point quickly in legal studies (due to time constraints), I was always told to get into the nitty gritty of the question as fast as possible.

edit: why does ech_93 always beat me to answer legal questions

[ech_93]

edit: why does ech_93 always beat me to answer legal questions

haha, sorry chrisjb... I'll let you have the next one! 

[werdna]

Thanks for that chrisjb!

In Legal, do you have to define the key terms like you do in BM? (Even when the question isn't a 'define..' one?)

[eeps]

In Legal, do you have to define the key terms like you do in BM? (Even when the question isn't a 'define..' one?)

I don't think so. For example, if the question asked "Critically evaluate two strengths and weaknesses of parliament as a law-making body" - I don't think you would define parliament (i.e. structure, role and so on). Though it's not the greatest example, I hope my point makes some sense. If the question doesn't ask you to "define" terms within the question, then I wouldn't; you'd be wasting time if you did. That's just me. Ask your teacher? That's the safest bet.

[werdna]

I can't seem to find any relevant examples or 'real-life evidence' for the following in AOS1:

- representative and responsible government
- separation of powers
- roles of the houses and Crown

If you have any useful examples to use in questions referring to the above, could you please help? Thanks guys!