General Structure

Tips;
- Sufficient planning;
- Make sure you create a skelton plan of the essay to ensure you save time
during the writing process by being able to directly refer to it.
- Selecting:
- Given a choice of 3 essays, based on 3 different topics.
- Pick the topic most comfortable with Pick the one you can create the most
interesting points for (this may not be the easiest one)
- If there is a question that is emotionally significant then only pick it if you can
emotionally detach yourself from it as you may not be able to separate feeling
from debate,
- Read questions carefully; look at all aspects. Look at key words, hinge terms,
special vocab
- Planning:
- Should spend 5-10 minutes to plan, make sure not to overdo it though
- Experiment with different methods (bullet points, mind map, skeleton,
pros/cons)
- Consider the balance of arguments and consider real world examples.
- Writing:
- Each idea should have a justification and be supported to build a convincing
argument
- Assure each sentence builds upon the last and ALL ideas are solidified.
- The conclusion is an opportunity to emphasise the overall sentiment of your
essay which readers can take away. Should summarise what has been
discussed and decide on which side has more weight to it.
- DON'T INTRODUCE NEW IDEAS IN CONCLUSION)

Introduction;
- Present a brief outline of what you're going to discuss, define key terms of the
question to clarify any unsaid arguments
- Can also highlight key themes you want to discuss.

Main body:
- Note down your main ‘clashes’ and
- Focus on quality rather than quantity; more points doesn’t make a better essay
- Can structure it as ‘circumstance’, ‘pros/cons’, ‘policy’ or just general arguments.
- If you do circumstance you can put pros and cons underneath it.
- Having already picked a side, ensure to undermine the opposing argument to
strengthen your argument.

Conclusion:
- Synthesis of main arguments
- Don't introduce new points
- Use the points made to solidify your stance
- Basically restate your thesis.

Common mistakes:
- Ignoring other side of argument;
- Almost like point+rebuttal structure
- Discuss topic only or answering only part of the question;
- You have to acknowledge all parts of the question and constantly link back
- Long intro;
- Don't ramble on in the intro or make it unfocused.
- Background info can be useful but it is not necessary.
- Instead emphasis should be placed on responding to the question
- Don't rephrase rather than explain, they know the question
- Not including conclusion;
- An essay that lacks conclusion is seen as incomplete and that organisation
skills are lacking. The conclusion should be a distinct paragraph which is well
though out.
- Sitting on the fence;
- This is a persuasive essay which means you need to persuade the reader of
YOUR side
- Must be decisive when answering the question and explain how you reached
this judgement
- Essays that don't come to a clear conclusion are marked lower
Tab 6
Memorization Mnemonic: DTO-ACRE
Define key terms. Thesis stance. Outline args. Arg1 (theory + hypo). Counter + Rebut. End strong.
Time: 5 plan, 30 write, 5 edit.

Introduction Starters (4-5 sentences)

● "This essay examines [topic/question], where [define 1st key term simply, e.g., 'free speech
means...']."
● "[Define 2nd term if needed, e.g., 'hate speech refers to...']."
● "I argue that [clear thesis/stance, e.g., 'free speech should face limits']."
● "This rests on [arg1 theory briefly, e.g., 'utilitarianism'] and [arg2, e.g., 'incentives']."
● "Ultimately, [scope link, e.g., 'balancing liberty with harm prevention']."

Body 1 Starters: Argument 1 (6-8 sentences)

● "[Topic sentence]: First, [theory, e.g., 'utilitarianism'] shows [arg links to question, e.g., 'limits
maximize welfare']."
● "[Explain theory simply, e.g., 'This weighs total good vs. harm for most people']."
● "For instance, [hypothetical example, e.g., 'banning incitement prevents riots harming
thousands']."
● "Thus, [link back, e.g., 'outweighing speakers' minor loss']."
● "[Strengthen]: Without this, [consequence, e.g., 'society suffers net harm']."

Body 2 Starters: Argument 2 (6-8 sentences)

● "[Topic sentence]: Furthermore, [new theory, e.g., 'incentive theory'] supports [arg, e.g.,
'penalties deter abuse']."
● "[Explain]: People respond to [rewards/punishments detail]."
● "Consider [hypo, e.g., 'like fines cut speeding, speech fines reduce harm']."
● "Here, [apply specifically, e.g., 'offenders self-regulate without total bans']."
● "[Link]: This reinforces [thesis tie]."

Body 3 Starters: Counter & Rebuttal (6-8 sentences)

● "Opponents claim [counter view + their theory, e.g., 'deontology demands absolute rights']."
● "This has merit because [concede 1 strength fairly, e.g., 'it protects minorities']."
● "However, [rebut with your theory, e.g., 'consequentialism prioritizes outcomes']."
● "[Rebut example]: [Hypo showing flaw, e.g., 'unchecked speech risks chaos per Hobbes']."
● "[Pivot]: Therefore, [reaffirm thesis, e.g., 'limits better serve society']."

Conclusion Starters (3-4 sentences)

● "In conclusion, [restate evolved thesis, e.g., 'via utility and incentives, limits protect best']."
● "This implies [broader impact, e.g., 'stronger debate with safeguards']."
● "Policymakers should [punchy call/action, e.g., 'prioritize welfare over anarchy']."
Quick Tips to Nail It
● Always use 1-2 theories per para from prior lists (e.g., utilitarianism, social contract).
● Hypotheticals: Everyday "like [speeding fines/pollution taxes]"—no facts needed.
● Word count: Aim 600; vary sentences, active voice, transition "thus/furthermore/however."
Vocab and principles
Part 1: Core Legal & Jurisprudential Vocabulary

Use these to frame issues, show awareness of legal principles, and discuss justice.

Fundamental Concepts:

● Rule of Law: The principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to
law.
○ Example: "The proposed measure, while pragmatic, raises serious concerns
regarding its compatibility with the rule of law."
● Justice: Distinguish between procedural justice (fairness in processes) and substantive
justice(fairness of outcomes).
● Rights & Liberties: Inalienable rights, civil liberties, positive rights (rights to something, e.g.,
education), negative rights (rights from interference, e.g., free speech).
● Equality vs. Equity: Equality (treating everyone the same) vs. Equity (giving more to those
with less to achieve fairness). Useful for discrimination topics.
● Jurisprudence: The theory or philosophy of law.
● Utilitarianism: An ethical theory that argues the best action is the one that maximizes overall
"happiness" or welfare. (Often contrasted with deontological ethics—duty-based, e.g., Kant—
or rights-based approaches).
● Social Contract: The implicit agreement among members of a society to cooperate for mutual
benefit, often surrendering some freedoms for state protection.

Analytical & Argumentative Terms:

● Presumption: A belief that is taken as true unless disproved. (e.g., "the presumption of
innocence").
● Prima facie: At first sight; accepted as correct until proved otherwise. (e.g., "There is a prima
facie case for regulating this industry.").
● Balancing Exercise: The process of weighing competing interests/rights (a very common
judicial and legislative task).
● Arbitrary / Capricious: Unpredictable and based on personal whim, rather than reason or
principle. (A major critique of bad law).
● Proportionality: A key legal test: Is a state's interference with a right proportionate to its aim?
(Suitable, necessary, not excessive).
● Legal Certainty: The idea that laws should be clear and predictable so people can order their
affairs.
● Discrimination: Use precisely: Direct discrimination (overt), indirect discrimination (a neutral
rule that disproportionately affects a group), positive discrimination (affirmative action).
● Accountability / Transparency: Crucial for discussions on governance, policing, corporations.
● Sovereignty / Autonomy: Self-rule. Can refer to states or individual bodily autonomy.
● Culpability / Liability: Blameworthiness or legal responsibility.

Part 2: General High-Level Academic Vocabulary

These words elevate your critical thinking, structure, and tone.

For Introducing Arguments & Nuance:

● Posit / Postulate: To suggest or assume a theory or idea as a basis for reasoning.

 ● Contend / Assert / Maintain: Stronger alternatives to "say" or "argue".
● Qualify / Caveat: To add a condition or limitation to an argument. (e.g., "This argument must
be qualified by the recognition that...").
● Nuanced / Dichotomy: Show you see nuance (subtle differences) and avoid false
dichotomies(oversimplified either/or choices).
● Paradigm / Framework: A model or way of thinking about an issue.

For Analysis & Evaluation:

● Specious / Fallacious: Sounds plausible but is actually wrong or misleading.

● Tenable / Untenable: Capable of being defended or maintained. (e.g., "This position becomes
untenable when one considers...").
● Exacerbate / Mitigate: To make worse / to make less severe.
● Corollary / Concomitant: A direct consequence / something that naturally accompanies
something else.
● Myopic / Reductive: Short-sighted / oversimplifying.
● Empirical / Anecdotal: Based on observation or evidence / based on personal stories (weaker
evidence).

For Structure & Flow:

● To that end, Consequently, Accordingly: To introduce a logical conclusion or action.

● Notwithstanding, Albeit: Despite / although. (Excellent for concessive points).
● Conversely, Correlatively: On the other hand / in a related way.
● Therefore, Thus, Hence: For conclusions (use sparingly, ensure logic is tight).
● In essence, Fundamentally: To get to the core point.

For Discussing Implications & Outcomes:

● Precedent / Ramifications: An earlier event/decision serving as an example / consequences.

● Perverse Incentive: An incentive that has the opposite effect of what was intended.
● Chilling Effect: The discouragement of a legitimate activity by the threat of legal sanction.
● Erode / Undermine / Bolster / Entrench: To gradually weaken / to strengthen or make solid.

How to Use This Vocabulary for a High Score:

1. Precision Over Ornamentation: Never use a word you don't fully understand. The examiners
value clarity above all. Use the precise term that fits the idea.
2. Weave, Don't List: Integrate terms naturally into your argument. For example:
○ Weak: "There are legal principles like the rule of law and justice. There is also a
dichotomy..."
○ Strong: "A utilitarian approach, while potentially maximizing welfare, must be qualified
by the corollary need to protect fundamental liberties; otherwise, it risks eroding the
rule of law."
3. Structure is King: Vocabulary enhances a well-structured essay. Use the terms to signpost
your logic (e.g., "The prima facie case for censorship is public safety. Conversely, the
corollary chilling effect on free speech may undermine democratic accountability.").
4. Show Critical Balance: Use vocabulary to present both sides effectively before reaching a
reasoned conclusion. Words like qualify, caveat, albeit, notwithstanding are crucial here.
5. Practice in Context: When doing practice essays, consciously plan to use 3-4 key terms from
this list appropriately. Review to see if they strengthened your argument.
Theories
I. Legal & Philosophical Theories (The "Why" of Justice)

● Retributivism (Kant): Justice requires that offenders suffer in proportion to their wrong.
Punishment is a moral end in itself ("just deserts").
● Utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill): The justice system should maximise overall societal happiness
(utility).
● Rawlsian Justice (John Rawls): Social institutions must be just, derived from an original
position behind a "veil of ignorance."
● Restorative Justice: Crime is a violation of people and relationships. Justice should focus on
repairing harm, involving victims, offenders, and the community..
● Legal Moralism (Lord Devlin): The law can enforce societal morality..
● The Social Contract (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau): Citizens give up certain freedoms to the
state in exchange for security.

II. Criminological & Sociological Theories (The "Why" of Crime)

● Strain Theory (Robert Merton): Crime results from a disconnect between societal goals (e.g.,
wealth) and the legitimate means to achieve them.
● Social Learning Theory (Albert Bandura): Behaviour is learned through observation, imitation,
and reinforcement.
● Labelling Theory (Howard Becker): Applying a deviant label (e.g., "criminal") can lead to
further deviance as the person internalises the identity..
● Broken Windows Theory (Wilson & Kelling): Visible signs of disorder and minor crime fuel
more serious crime.
● Routine Activities Theory (Cohen & Felson): Crime requires a motivated offender, a suitable
target, and the absence of a capable guardian.
● Anomie (Durkheim): A state of normlessness in society leads to deviance.

III. Psychological & Behavioural Theories

● Rational Choice Theory: Offenders weigh the potential benefits against the risks and costs of
crime. Use: The foundation of deterrence theory. To argue that increasing severity/certainty of
punishment should work (but you can then critique its assumptions).
● Dual-Process Theory (e.g., Kahneman's System 1/System 2): Decision-making involves fast,
intuitive thinking and slow, rational thinking. Use: To critique deterrence by arguing many
crimes (impulsive, addictive) occur in "System 1," where threats of future punishment are
ineffective.
● Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model (Andrews & Bonta): The core, empirically-validated
model for offender rehabilitation. Effective treatment must target criminogenic needs, be
tailored to the offender, and use cognitive-behavioural methods. Use: The primary theoretical
weapon for rehabilitation. It's what "evidence-based rehabilitation" looks like.
● Moral Development Theory (Kohlberg): Individuals progress through stages of moral
reasoning. Use: To argue that punishment appeals to lower stages (obedience/punishment),
while rehabilitation aims to develop higher-stage moral reasoning (social contract, universal
principles).
● Trauma-Informed Theory: Recognises that many offenders have histories of trauma, which
drives behaviour. Use: To argue that punishment re-traumatises, while rehabilitation must
address underlying trauma to be effective.

IV. Economic & Political Theories

● Cost-Benefit Analysis / Public Choice Theory: Analyses policy in terms of economic efficiency
and the incentives of actors (politicians, judges, prison corporations). Use: To argue
rehabilitation is more cost-effective, or to argue that punitive policies persist due to political
incentives ("tough on crime" rhetoric).
● The Economics of Crime (Gary Becker): A formal application of rational choice theory to
crime, modelling how individuals respond to incentives. Use: To frame the deterrence debate
in quantitative terms, discussing elasticities of crime to punishment severity vs. certainty.
● Foucault's Disciplinary Power (from Discipline and Punish): The shift from violent punishment
to carceral systems aimed at controlling and "normalising" individuals. Use: To offer a critical,
postmodern perspective that rehabilitation can be a form of coercive state control, not pure
benevolence.
● Marxist/Conflict Theory: The law and justice system reflect and reinforce the power of the
ruling class. Punishment controls the poor and marginalised. Use: To argue punitive systems
perpetuate social inequality and that true rehabilitation requires addressing structural
injustice.
Questions
 ● “Should social media platforms be held legally responsible for harmful
content posted by their users?”
● “Is trial by jury still an effective and fair way of delivering justice in modern
societies?”
● “Do the benefits of mass surveillance in preventing serious crime outweigh
the threats it poses to individual privacy?”
● “Should freedom of expression protect speech that many consider hateful or
offensive?”
● “Is it ever justifiable for a democratic government to restrict civil liberties
significantly in the name of national security?”
● “Should admission to university be based primarily on academic merit, or
should governments require institutions to give preference to disadvantaged
applicants?”
● “Does a strong welfare state encourage dependency, or is it a necessary
condition for genuine equality of opportunity?”
● “Should possession of personal data by large technology companies be
regulated as strictly as other forms of property and power, such as land or
money?”
● “Is climate policy that significantly slows economic growth acceptable if it is
likely to prevent serious environmental damage to future generations?”
● “Should the criminal justice system place greater emphasis on rehabilitation
than on punishment and deterrence?”

Free Speech & Censorship

● In what circumstances should governments censor online hate speech, and
why?
● "Free speech must remain absolute, even if it offends." How do you respond?
● Does censorship during national emergencies undermine democratic values
more than it protects them?

Criminal Justice & Law Reform

● Should the death penalty be abolished worldwide, regardless of crime

severity?
● "Trial by jury prioritizes fairness over efficiency in modern courts." Do you
agree?
● Do mandatory minimum sentences perpetuate inequality rather than deter
crime?

Politics & Democracy

● Is compulsory voting essential for a functioning democracy?

● "Democracy collapses without educated voters." Discuss.
● Does political correctness stifle genuine democratic debate?

Ethics & Morality

 ● Under what conditions is euthanasia justifiable for the suffering?
● "Moral relativism destroys shared human rights." Evaluate this claim.
● Should genetic editing of embryos be permitted to prevent inherited diseases?

Society & Technology

● Will AI displace far more jobs than it generates in the coming decades?
● Should facial recognition technology be prohibited in all public policing?
● "Social media has permanently fractured societal cohesion." Do you agree?

Environment & Climate

● Should nations halt economic expansion to prioritize climate mitigation?

● Is geoengineering a morally acceptable response to global warming?
● Do wealthy countries hold the greatest accountability for climate damage?

Education

● Should higher education be tuition-free for everyone qualified?

● "University admissions must favor merit over diversity quotas." How do you
respond?
● Are safe spaces on campuses detrimental to intellectual growth?

Economics & Inequality

● Is universal basic income a sustainable fix for economic disparity?

● Should steep wealth taxes be imposed to bridge inequality gaps?
● "Four-day workweeks enhance output and well-being." Evaluate.

Privacy & Security

● Does privacy always outweigh the need for national security measures?
● Should widespread surveillance be authorized to prevent terrorism?
● Is a "right to be forgotten" realistic in the digital era?

Healthcare & Medicine

● Should universal healthcare be provided free at the point of use?

● "Patients should always override doctors' recommendations." Discuss.
● Are animal tests indispensable for medical breakthroughs?

Arts & Culture

● Should taxpayers fund arts and cultural programs?

● Do culture wars now endanger true artistic expression?
● Is cultural appropriation inherently immoral?

International Relations

● Should national borders be eliminated for free global movement?

● Are economic sanctions a moral alternative to military conflict?
● Do countries owe more to their citizens than to worldwide poverty relief?
Essays
Censorship (Plan)
‘There is a time and place for censorship of the internet’ Discuss with particular reference to
the right of freedom of expression.

Intro
- Censorship
- Right of freedom of expression
- Thesis; Although censorship is necessary to protect the general wellbeing of society
in the circumstance that it is being harmed, it ultimately infringes on the right of
freedom of expression thus creating an ignorant and polarised global community.
Main body:
- Political censorship
- Creates an echo chamber where some diverse opinions are ignored and
people can be easily influenced
- Example: Social media algorithms shadowbanning during israel-
palestine
- Stops violent communication and potentially deescalates political polarisation
- Global Ignorance
- Facilitates a society that is ignorant of current day affairs and thus halts
globalisation
- Liberalism
- Prevents empathy for especially younger generations\
- Loss of culture
- Eg. Nepal where social media was firstly censored and then overall
removed; cause protests
- Protection from harmful visual/Written work from being disseminated
- Lack of proper enforcement due to the mass amount of data being
published/posted means that many people are being exposed to visually
disturbing/graphic imagery. This could be said as a reason for the necessity
for censorship
- Circulating videos of assination of Charlie Kirk
- However, it is impossible to create a standardised protocol for what is ‘too’
graphic and thus can be exploited by biased platforms to push certain
narratives whilst removing others
- Deepseek AI being accused on censorship of antichinese data
Conclusion:
- Synthesis of ideas
- Censorship through various circumstances may be deemed useful however is overall
a tool to promote unawareness and thus can lead to global polarisation and
disconnect.

Took: 10 minutes.
Provided ‘better’ essay structure:
Intro
● Define internet censorship very briefly: state or platform restrictions on online content
(removal, blocking, down-ranking).
● Define freedom of expression as a qualified right, central to personal autonomy and
democratic debate.
● Thesis: Very narrowly targeted censorship of the internet can be justified to prevent
serious harm, but broader or opaque censorship undermines the core values of
freedom of expression and risks producing a more ignorant and polarised society

Paragraph 1 – When censorship is justified

● Topic sentence: Some limited censorship is compatible with freedom of expression
because it protects others’ rights.
● Point: Use harm principle – speech that directly and seriously harms others can be
restricted.
● Example: Removal of child sexual abuse images, doxxing, clear incitement to
violence, coordinated attack planning.
● Link to question: In these cases, censorship protects the conditions in which
everyone else can meaningfully exercise their own freedom of expression.

Paragraph 2 – Political censorship and democracy

● Topic sentence: Political censorship of online speech is much harder to justify and
directly conflicts with the democratic purpose of free expression.
● Point: Suppressing criticism of government, protests or policy online prevents citizens
from accessing information needed for informed political choice.
● Example: States or platforms taking down posts critical of government under vague
“security” or “disinformation” rules.
● Link: This skews public debate, turning the internet from an open forum into a
controlled narrative and so undermines freedom of expression.

Paragraph 3 – Algorithms, echo chambers and hidden censorship

● Topic sentence: Even without explicit bans, algorithmic control can amount to subtle
censorship.
● Point: Opaque recommendation systems and “shadow-banning” can make lawful but
controversial views effectively invisible.
● Example: Platforms quietly down-ranking content on certain conflicts or protests
while promoting others.
● Link: Users cannot judge the range of views available, so their ability to use
expression to inform themselves and engage critically is weakened.

Paragraph 4 – Over-broad censorship, culture and understanding

● Topic sentence: Over-broad censorship damages cultural expression and global
understanding, especially for younger generations.
● Point: Blocking whole platforms or broad categories of content cuts off minority
cultures, activism and artistic work.
 ● Example: Governments temporarily blocking major social media during unrest,
preventing sharing of local experiences and cultural material.
● Link: This narrows the range of identities and perspectives people can encounter,
undermining the self-development aspect of freedom of expression.

Conclusion
● One sentence: Reaffirm that tightly targeted, transparent censorship aimed at
preventing serious harm can be consistent with freedom of expression.
● One sentence: But political, algorithmic and over-broad censorship threaten the very
reasons expression is protected, leading to ignorance, mistrust and polarisation.
● Final sentence: Therefore, the “time and place” for internet censorship is narrow and
exceptional; beyond that, it becomes a serious threat to the right of freedom of
expression rather than its safeguard.

Tips:
- Include the impact of if censorship continued being legal/made illegal.
- In intro highlight the tension/conflict
- Bring arguments advanced to a final judgment
- Can offer solutions if you highlight an issue eg. government censorship leads to
infringement on the right for freedom of expression- make stronger surveillance
strategies.
Liberalisation marriage
‘The general trend towards the liberalisation of marriage undermines its religious basis’
Discuss this comment with reference to the idea of abolishing marriage as a legal concept:

Intro:
- Define: Liberalisation of marriage
- The reform and development of societal norms towards the concept of
marriage, generally leading to greater individual freedom, quality and
flexibility.
- What Marriage means as a legal concept
- Marriage is essentially a legal contract between two unions that provides
shared rights and responsibilities and both financial and social obligations.
- Thesis: Whilst the general trend towards the liberalisation of marriage undermines its
religious basis, it is under the pretense of an evolvingly modern world where legal
concepts are inherently redefined or abolished to separate itself from religion.

Main body:
- Natural law vs positivism
- Demonstration of this debate; whether marriage is a concept inherited via
divine rules or made via procedure
- The concept of marriage is rooted in a covenant promise to god=natural law
- However the actual visible effect of marriage is rooted in legal procedure
- Eg. Shared bank accounts, housing, legal responsibilities for each
other
- The liberalisation of marriage should follow the positivist side as the granted
benefits of marriage are not derived from a religious basis but a procedural
one.
- Separation of state and church:
- Marriage was based on the christian belief of the promise to eternally be
bound to another person. It is meant to symbolise the spiritual connection
between two parties being united in front of god at a church.
- With the rise of secularism and the idea of globalisation encouraging
multiculturalism, the concept of marriage should not follow traditional rules
simply based on one religion’s beliefs/practices. The liberalisation of
marriage is entirely separate from these practices and thus does not
undermine.
- In this case marriage being fundamentally a christian practice isn’t legitimate
anymore as the intention is no longer bilateral to the belief of god but rather to
an expression of love.
- Homosexuality and right protections;
- A current day debate is whether the legalisation of homosexual marriages are
considered legitimate as they do not follow the traditional picture of sacred
unity.
- Although this form of liberalisation does, in the eyes of practicing christians,
undermine what it means to be married, it is not inherently bad.
- To discredit growing populations from the same liberties and opportunities as
a once previously majority group is unethical and unfair under the pretence
that ‘everyone is equal under the law’.
 - If a person of a different sexuality were to seek these liberties, the
religious basis of marriage may be used to undermine their right, thus
is not a proper structure in a world where equality, specifically equal
outcome, is encouraged.
- Brings to the idea of reform;
- Marriage rooted and being performed under a religious basis brings out
subjective arguments of sexuality, gender, and limits the legal benefits of
marriage to traditional couples. Conjoining the idea of marriage and legal
procedure gives rise to the incapability for certain populations to escape
prejudice and disadvantages.
- Thus, a reformation of how these legal benefits are classified is necessary.
Marriage should not fall as a legal procedure but rather a ceremonial one,
where the legal benefits are sought out in a different circumstance, entirely
separate from religion.

Conclusion:
- Ultimately, the question of whether the liberalisation of marriage undermines the
religious basis is without doubt proven to be true however, the asserted disapproval
for it is unjustified and thus reform is necessary to ensure separation of religion and
legal principles.
(Un)Developed climate change
‘Developed countries have a greater obligation to combat climate change than developing
countries’ Discuss the extent to which you agree with this statement.

Intro:
- Development: Sustained positive changes, progress and improvement in a
state/society's economic, social, political and environmental well-being.
- Climate change: a change in global or regional weather patterns attributed to the
increased production of greenhouse gases.
- Thesis: To a certain extent climate change should be considered a shared global
challenge requiring consistent interconnectedness and equally distributed
responsibility. However, to a more significant extent it is necessary for developed
countries to have a greater role in combating climate change for an efficient and fair
process.

Main body:
- Core exploit periphery
- TS: A lot of global emissions come from developed countries exploiting land
and cheap labour in developing countries.
- If developed countries were to delegate equal responsibility whilst continuing
to exploit or refusing reparations, then they may further harm the well-being of
developing countries.
- Eg. China and the US in the DRC lead to more artisanal miners, which means
more disturbance to the environment. If DRC were to have to pay for the
climate challenges due to the US/China then the ongoing humanitarian crisis
and inequality would be further exacerbated as it would mostly affect already
vulnerable communities.
- Taking a liberalistic perspective, interconnectedness should be emphasised
yes, however this should be for the benefit of all of society, rather than for a
selected few.
- Additionally, this added obligation may lead to a lower level of exploitation as
the financial incentive is lessened and thus deters these core states from
continuing corruption in developing states.
- Prioritisation of other goals
- TS: Developing countries tend to suffer from short term directly impact issues
such as Famine or Poverty. Giving necessary resources towards climate
change hinders the capability of addressing these issues.
- Eg. In Sudan there is a current man-made famine, genocide in Darfur and
civil war between the rapid support forces and the sudanese armed forces.
With over 100,000 deaths, 40 million people facing food insecurity and
millions of displaced people, it would be immoral to deviate funds from one of
if not the most financially weak states. Having the lowest GPD/capita of 251-
350$USD annually and being ranked 193rd on HDI should mean that these
states are unburdened by the obligation of aiding in combating climate
change.
- Ensuring the protection of these people’s first generation of human rights
should be a priority in the short term. Although this responsibility will be
delegated to more developed countries, it is for the sake of the short and long
term well-being of society and thus is necessary.
 - Developing states tend to focus on projects which could impact climate change
- However, in an effort to catalyse development in these periphery states,
projects that are potentially harmful are proposed.
- States may purposefully fund and propose these harmful projects at a greater
rate if responsibility of combatting these effects was delegated to more
developed countries.
- Eg. Ethiopia's GERD project which is set to increase water insecurity in Egypt
and Sudan for the sake of more energy consumption. Argued that this was
their right as the specific part of the river was under their sovereign control
and thus the project was agreed upon Legitimately.
- Although this does prove that developing countries hold responsibility as they
directly contribute to climate change, their contributions are for the betterment
of their population whilst developed countries’ contributions are more so for
capital gain and mass wealth meaning they have a higher obligation to
distribute these resources as they are not helping overall society.
- Additionally, whilst these resources are considered shared through different
states, such as the Nile river in the above example or the amazon rainforest,
it is developed countries which have the technological opportunities to exploit
them and to reiterate my previous point, utilise these shared resources for
non altruistic purposes.
Conclusion:
- Therefore, whilst the issue remains contested, there is a higher defence that to a
significant extent developed countries are at a higher level obligated to combat
climate change in contrast to developing countries.
- Whilst there is a shared responsibility for global health and developing states do
contribute to the problem at hand, it is necessary to delegate responsibility in order to
protect the wellbeing of society when first generation human rights are being
infringed on.
AI and Jobs
Will AI displace far more jobs than it generates in the coming decades?
Intro:
- AI: The simulation of human intelligence by machines capable of learning,
- Job displacement: The loss or restructuring of employment caused by automation
and technological substitution.
- Thesis: Although AI will inevitably automate many existing roles, particularly those
relying on routine cognitive and manual tasks, to a significant extent it is likely to
restructure rather than permanently eliminate human employment. Whether AI
displaces more jobs than it creates depends not solely on technology itself but on
how societies adapt through policy, education, and economic reform.

Main body:
- Automation replacing repetitive and routine tasks
- AI will displace numerous jobs that involve repetitive or predictable tasks
particularly in sectors heavily reliant on data processing and mechanized
labour.
- Automations primacy strength lies in efficiency- machines perform repetitive
work faster, cheaper and without fatigue or boredom.
- For example, self-driving technology threatens transport roles (truck drivers,
delivery drivers) while AI driven customer service and data entry platforms
reduce demands for administrative work.
- Economic evolution driven by efficiency inevitably sidelines human labour to
prioritise more output and thus more capitol gain.
- However, history demonstrates labour markets adaptability. Whilst
automation displaces specific roles, it often generates entirely new sectors
previously unimaginable (eg. IT, data science, cybersecurity)
- Thus, job loss although inevitable may be transitional rather than
absolute.
- AI enables new labour markets
- AI will also generate new forms of employment, especially in technology
development, data management and human-AI collaboration.
- The emergence of AI engineers, ethicists, prompt designers and machine-
learning trainers exemplifies how innovation spawns demand for new skill
sets.
- The complementarity theory argues that technology augments human abilities
rather than replacing them completely- AI amplifies creativity, decision-
making and productivity when applied collaboratively.
- For example, in healthcare AI can assist doctors in diagnosis but cannot
replace empathy or nuanced judgment, similar patterns occur in law,
education, and design.
- Moreover, AI’s introduction lowers costs and boosts productivity, creating
wealth that can fuel other sectors, indirectly generating kobs through the
multiplier effect,
- However, these new opportunities may demand high skills, leaving low skilled
workers behind and widening inequality- raising the question of who benefits
from technological progress.
- Socioeconomic inequality and structural unemployment
 - The primary risk of AI displacement lies not in total job loss, but in
accelerating inequality and structural unemployment.
- Workers in manufacturing, logistics, or clerical work are most vulnerable,
while highly educated professionals benefit from complementary AI roles.
- The result may be a dual economy- a small AI-empowered elite and a large
pool of underemployed workers lacking re-skilling opportunities.
- Philosophically, from a Rawlsian perspective, just institutions must prevent
technological advancement from violating the ‘difference principle’ by
worsening conditions for the least advantaged.
- However, effective investment in education and social policy can mitigate
these inequalities, making AI an engine of inclusion rather than exclusion
- Policy, adaptability and human agency
- Whether AI displaces more jobs than it creates depends primarily on
governmental and institutional choices, not the technology itself.
- Policy design dictates whether job loss translates into structural
unemployment or re-employment in new fields.
- Scandinavian countries emphasise lifelong education and active labour-
market policies, ensuring adaptability amidst automation.
- From a humanist or constructivist perspective, technology’s impact reflects
how societies choose to integrate it. AI does not autonomously dictate job
loss but responds to social priorities.
- Governments that view innovation and inclusion as compatible will shift the
debate from ‘replacement’ to ‘redistribution’.

Conclusion:
- AI will undoubtedly reshape the world of work, displacing many existing roles whilst
creating others. However, framing it as a binary- replacement versus creation-
oversimplifies a complex adaptive process. The ultimate balance will hinge on human
decision-making: how education systems, labour laws, and business adapt.
Moral relativism
"Moral relativism destroys shared human rights." Evaluate this claim.

Introduction:
- Moral relativism: The belief that moral values are not universal but depend on
cultural, societal, or individual contexts — what is "right" in one culture may be
"wrong" in another.
- Shared human rights: Universal moral and legal principles that guarantee every
human being certain freedoms and protections, regardless of culture, nationality, or
belief.
- Thesis (clear stance): Moral relativism fundamentally undermines the concept of
shared human rights, because if all moral standards are culturally contingent, no
society can be held to a universal moral baseline.
- While relativism appears tolerant, it paradoxically legitimises oppression and erodes
accountability
Main body:
- The logical incompatibility between relativism and universality
- Topic Sentence: Moral relativism and universal human rights cannot logically
coexist because universality demands fixed principles while relativism denies
them.
- Human rights derive philosophically from moral universalism — the belief that
all humans possess inherent dignity and value. The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) embodies this claim.
- Relativism, by contrast, rejects any claim to universally valid morals. If
morality depends entirely on local belief systems, then practices such as
gender inequality or torture cannot be objectively condemned.
- Example: The defence of female genital mutilation (FGM) as a “cultural
tradition” demonstrates how relativism can justify the violation of fundamental
human rights.
- Legal implication: International human rights law collapses without shared
standards. If no norms are absolute, state sovereignty reigns unchecked and
the International Criminal Court’s legitimacy dissolves.
- Counter-argument and rebuttal:
- Some scholars argue relativism promotes tolerance and cultural
diversity, preventing moral imperialism by Western nations.
- Yet this argument is flawed: tolerance itself presupposes a universal
moral value — the belief that all people deserve respect. Without
shared values, even tolerance loses its grounding.
- Therefore, moral relativism is self-defeating: by claiming all values are
relative, it erases the very foundation that allows any value — even
tolerance — to command respect.
- Relativism enables abuse of power and cultural exceptionalism
- Topic Sentence: In practice, moral relativism empowers authoritarian regimes
to justify human rights abuses under the guise of “cultural difference.”
- Governments often invoke relativism to avoid scrutiny or sanctions, claiming
that democracy or equality are “Western ideals.”
- Example: China’s rejection of certain UN human rights resolutions as
“interference in domestic affairs” exemplifies cultural relativism weaponised
for political control.
- Philosophical angle: From a natural law perspective (Aquinas, Locke), moral
truth exists independent of human culture, forming the basis for legitimate
law. Without this, law becomes a tool of mere power (positivism without
morality)
 - Counter-argument and rebuttal:
- Some contend that relativism fosters humility by recognising plural
moral systems and avoiding ethnocentric arrogance.
- However, acknowledging diversity does not require moral relativism.
One can respect cultural variation while still recognising non-
negotiable moral limits — such as the sanctity of life, bodily integrity,
and freedom.
- In other words, pluralism within limits sustains cooperation; relativism
without limits collapses into moral nihilism.

- Universal principles as the guarantor of equality and stability

- Topic Sentence: A consistent universalist framework sustains not only moral
coherence but also social and legal stability across nations.
- The universality of rights underpins equality — if rights are relative, some
groups (e.g. women, minorities, LGBT individuals) may be deemed “less
human” by local norms.
- Example: The global anti-slavery movement and the Nuremberg Trials both
rested on the principle that some acts are universally wrong, regardless of
national law — a rejection of relativism.
- From a Kantian perspective, moral law must be universalizable: if we permit
relativity, we undermine the moral duty to treat all humans as ends, not
means.
- Furthermore, international cooperation on issues such as climate justice or
refugee protection depends on shared moral norms; relativism breeds
inconsistency, rendering institutions like the UN or ICC impotent
- Counter-argument and rebuttal:
- Critics suggest that universalism is rooted in Western liberal values
and imposes them globally.
- Yet the UDHR was drafted with input from diverse cultures —
Chinese, Islamic, Latin American, and Indian representatives —
making it a genuinely plural document.
- Therefore, “universality” does not mean “Western” but human,
founded on common rationality and empathy transcending cultural
origin.

Conclusion:
- To a decisive extent, moral relativism destroys shared human rights, both in principle
and practice. By denying any universal moral truth, it dissolves the very foundation
upon which human dignity, equality, and justice rest.
- While cultural diversity deserves respect, relativism offers no safeguard against
oppression—it merely shifts moral authority from conscience to custom, and from
justice to power.
- Human progress, therefore, demands not relativism, but a reassertion of universal
moral conviction—one that unites, rather than divides, humanity under shared ethical
responsibility.
Economic expansion vs climate
mitigation
Should nations halt economic expansion to prioritize climate mitigation?
Introduction:
- Economic expansion: The sustained increase of a nation’s production, income, and
material living standards.
- Climate mitigation: Measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
limiting long-term planetary damage.
- Thesis: Nations should not halt economic expansion to prioritize climate mitigation.
Doing so would cause catastrophic social collapse, deepen inequality, and be
politically infeasible. However, nations must restructure economic expansion toward
sustainable, low-carbon growth. The problem is not growth itself but the model of
growth. Effective climate policy depends on reform, not recession.

Main body:
- The false opposition between growth and climate action
- Topic Sentence: Halting economic development assumes an artificial conflict
between prosperity and sustainability when, in reality, both can progress
together.
- Economic activity funds environmental innovation — renewable energy
industries, carbon capture, and green infrastructure all rely on strong
economies.
- Example: The EU Green Deal and China’s green tech push show that
economic expansion can reduce emissions by investing in sustainable
technology.
- From a law and economics view, regulation—not de-growth—internalizes
environmental costs through carbon pricing and clean energy incentives
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- The degrowth movement insists capitalism and sustainability are
incompatible.
- Yet this ignores technological decoupling, where growth and
emissions no longer correlate. GDP expansion can coexist with falling
carbon intensity.
- Moral implication: destroying growth also destroys state capacity to
fund mitigation, an outcome that worsens long-term sustainability.

- Ethical and legal obligation to ensure development

- Topic Sentence: Halting growth neglects the moral and legal obligation to
advance human welfare and intergenerational justice.
- The Brundtland Report (1987) defines sustainable development as meeting
present needs without compromising future generations’.
- Developing nations need growth to eradicate poverty and build resilience
against climate disasters.
- Example: Sub-Saharan Africa contributes under 5% of global emissions but
faces the harshest climate impacts; halting their expansion would perpetuate
colonial-era injustice.
- Under UNFCCC principles, responsibility must be “common but differentiated.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- Some claim humanity must sacrifice growth or face extinction —
“there are no jobs on a dead planet.”
 - But abrupt economic halts would trigger humanitarian breakdown,
food insecurity, and political instability that themselves impede climate
progress.
- Sustainable growth enables investment in adaptation and clean
energy, empowering poorer states to act against emissions rather
than remain victims of them.

- Political realism and global interdependence

- Topic Sentence: Halting expansion is politically untenable in a globalized
economy and may sabotage collective climate action.
- Climate change is a collective-action problem; if one state freezes growth
while competitors expand, the result is economic isolation, not environmental
progress.
- Example: The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under Trump
showed how national interest routinely overrides idealist climate goals; halting
growth would simply drive defection, not cooperation.
- Governments draw legitimacy from prosperity — a government that
voluntarily induces economic stagnation risks populist backlash, reducing
support for climate agendas entirely.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- Some propose unilateral leadership — that moral nations should act
first to inspire others.
- Yet empty virtue signaling achieves little: symbolic gestures collapse if
citizens suffer materially. Policy effectiveness depends on feasible
international coordination, not moral exhibitionism.

- Redefining growth as sustainable prosperity

- Topic Sentence: The question is not whether to halt growth but how to
redefine it in moral and legal terms.
- GDP should not be the sole measure of success; nations must incorporate
environmental and social well-being into legal formulations of “development.”
- Example: Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness and New Zealand’s Wellbeing
Budget show measurable frameworks balancing ecology and prosperity.
- Embedding the right to a healthy environment — now recognized in over 150
constitutions — reorients policy toward responsible growth.
- Philosophically, a Kantian duty-based approach implies that humanity has a
categorical obligation to act sustainably without annihilating opportunity.
- Technological, legislative, and behavioural innovation can make growth
regenerative rather than extractive.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- Critics see redefinition as vague moral rhetoric.
- But history shows legal paradigms can shift radically: slavery abolition
and human rights once seemed economically ruinous, yet redefined
ethics reshaped law and prosperity simultaneously.
Conclusion:
- Nations should not halt economic expansion to prioritize climate mitigation.
- Economic paralysis would destroy the very foundations needed for effective
environmental progress.
- Instead, they must redefine and redirect growth — embedding sustainability within
law, market design, and social ethos.
- A just and lasting world economy must grow, but grow differently — within the limits
of moral and planetary survival.
University- merit vs diversity
“University admissions must favor merit over diversity quotas." How do you
respond?

Introduction:
- Merit-based admissions: Selection driven by academic achievement, potential, and
individual talent, typically measured by test scores, grades, or interviews.
- Diversity quotas: Policies that reserve or prioritize admissions for underrepresented
groups — based on race, gender, socio-economic status, or background — to foster
inclusion.
- Thesis: University admissions should prioritize merit but not in isolation from social
context. A narrow interpretation of “merit” entrenches privilege and undermines
fairness. Quotas, if rigid, can be counterproductive, but calibrated inclusion promotes
both justice and excellence.

1. The moral and legal basis of meritocracy

Topic Sentence: Merit-based selection upholds fairness and efficiency, ensuring universities
reward ability and maintain intellectual standards.
● Merit reflects an individual’s effort and aptitude, aligning with the liberal legal principle
of equality before the law — that all should be judged by the same criteria.
● Example: Standardized testing and academic records provide an objective measure
of performance, avoiding arbitrary preference.
● From a Kantian perspective, fairness demands treating applicants as rational
individuals evaluated by their actions, not immutable characteristics such as race or
gender.
● In the long term, prioritizing merit sustains institutional legitimacy and public trust in
educational fairness.
Counterargument & Rebuttal:
● Critics argue pure meritocracy ignores structural inequities — systemic barriers
prevent equal opportunity to demonstrate “merit.”
● This objection is valid in diagnosing inequality but flawed in its proposed remedy:
diversity quotas. Quotas risk replacing one unfairness (privilege) with another
(reverse discrimination).
● Instead, rectify inequality earlier — through educational access reform — so that
university admissions reflect real competition on equal ground.

2. The case for diversity and its contribution to justice and learning
Topic Sentence: Diversity, when fairly integrated, enhances education, equity, and legal
legitimacy — not by rejecting merit, but by enriching it.
● Diverse cohorts encourage intellectual plurality and social empathy — central to the
democratic purpose of higher education.
● John Rawls’s theory of justice supports compensating inequality of opportunity;
admissions should aim for fairness of starting points, not identical outcomes.
● Example: Affirmative action in U.S. universities (e.g. Bakke v. Regents of California,
1978) acknowledged diversity as a compelling state interest, vital for social cohesion.
 ● Empirical angle: Class and racial diversity improve collective performance and
reduce bias within professions such as law and medicine.
Counterargument & Rebuttal:
● Opponents claim diversity policies lower academic standards and breed tokenism.
● Yet, numerous studies show that holistic review systems (evaluating potential and
adversity overcome) select candidates equally capable of success. Merit is
multidimensional — resilience and creativity are as valuable as test scores.
● Therefore, diversity does not dilute merit; it reveals it more completely.

3. The dangers and limits of strict diversity quotas

Topic Sentence: Rigid quota systems, though well-intentioned, risk violating meritocratic
justice and constitutional equality principles.
● Quotas can reduce individuals to demographic symbols, ignoring nuanced
differences within groups and creating perceptions of “preference over competence.”
● Example: The Indian reservation system in higher education initially rectified caste
discrimination but became politically entrenched, sparking controversy over merit
dilution and dependency.
● In Western contexts, strict quotas can breach constitutional commitments to equal
protection (as in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 2023).
● Legally, the principle of proportionality should apply — policies must be tailored,
necessary, and minimally restrictive.
Counterargument & Rebuttal:
● Some argue that only quotas, not broad inclusion targets, can ensure meaningful
representation.
● Yet quotas can infantilize beneficiaries, implying incapacity without preference and
fuelling social division. Broader access programs — financial aid, mentorship,
outreach — achieve inclusion without legal or moral distortion of fairness.

4. Toward a reconciled model: contextual meritocracy

Topic Sentence: The solution lies in contextual meritocracy — assessing achievement
relative to the opportunities available, blending merit with justice.
● Contextual evaluation recognizes that scoring 90% at an under-resourced school
often reflects greater merit than 95% at an elite one.
● Universities can enforce fairness through socioeconomic weighting and holistic
review, ensuring diverse yet capable intakes.
● This aligns with Aristotle’s distributive justice — treating equals equally and unequals
unequally when circumstances differ.
● Such a model balances legal equality and moral fairness, avoiding rigid quotas while
acknowledging deep social asymmetry.
Counterargument & Rebuttal:
● Critics say contextual merit blurs boundaries and risks subjective bias.
 ● Yet transparent criteria and independent oversight mitigate arbitrariness far better
than crude quotas or unadjusted test-based systems.

Conclusion:
University admissions must favour merit, but merit cannot exist in a vacuum divorced from
social reality. While diversity quotas often overshoot fairness and invite legal conflict, a merit
system blind to inequality is equally unjust. The responsible path is not halting meritocracy
but refining it — through contextual evaluation, outreach, and structural reform. The wider
implication is clear: true justice in education reflects not uniform opportunity but equitable
recognition of potential. In aligning merit with fairness, universities uphold both intellectual
rigour and moral legitimacy — the twin pillars of any democratic system.
National borders
Should national borders be eliminated for free global movement?
Introduction:
- National borders: Geopolitical boundaries defining the sovereignty, jurisdiction, and
legal identity of nation-states.
- Free global movement: The unrestricted right of individuals to cross and reside
anywhere in the world without visas, quotas, or state controls.
- Thesis: National borders should not be eliminated for free global movement. While
global mobility embodies moral ideals of equality and freedom, unrestricted
movement would destabilize political order, deepen global inequality, and weaken
legal governance. Instead, borders should remain but evolve toward greater fairness
and mobility under shared humanitarian principles. The issue is not borders
themselves, but injustice within them.

Main Body:
- Economic and social consequences of border elimination
- Topic Sentence: Free global migration, though morally appealing, would likely
deepen — not reduce — global inequality.
- Population surges into wealthier states would overwhelm housing,
employment, and infrastructure. Labour markets would polarize, driving down
wages and degrading conditions.
- Example: During the 2015 European refugee crisis, uncontrolled migration
strained welfare systems and intensified political polarization — despite
attempts at humanitarian coordination.
Conversely, poorer nations would experience severe brain drain, losing
skilled workers crucial to their development.
- From a utilitarian perspective, policies must maximize welfare; total openness
harms both migrants (through exploitation) and host communities.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- Some economists argue mobility spurs innovation and economic
growth. While partially true, this depends on regulatory integration.
Without effective governance, wealth concentrates where migration
flows fastest.
- Thus, fairer trade, education, and regional development, not
borderlessness, are sustainable routes to equality.
- Topic Sentence: Eliminating borders would dismantle the legal foundation of state
sovereignty — the core principle underpinning international law and social order.
- A state’s duty is to its citizens, who consent to governance under the social
contract (Locke, Rousseau). Without defined memberships, duties and
accountability erode.
- Borders allow states to enforce taxation, healthcare, and law uniformly —
essential to rule of law and economic stability.
- Example: The European Union’s Schengen Area shows even limited free
movement requires complex legal harmonization, security coordination, and
economic convergence.
- Global border abolition would necessitate a world government — an ideal
vision, but politically and legally impracticable under current diversity of
systems and values.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- Critics claim globalization already weakens sovereignty, so fully open
movement is the logical next step.
 - Yet globalization without regulation breeds corporate exploitation and
inequality. Sovereign regulation is precisely what mitigates those
excesses.
- Hence, dismantling borders discards the only mechanism capable of
managing global fairness — democratic state authority.
- Topic Sentence: Advocates for open borders argue that limiting movement is morally
arbitrary — a birth-based privilege incompatible with universal human equality.
- Philosopher Joseph Carens compares citizenship to feudal privilege: where
one’s birth determines opportunity.
- Wealthier nations protect prosperity behind borders that were historically
enriched by global extraction and colonialism. From a moral standpoint, this
perpetuates inequality.
- Example: Refugees fleeing persecution (e.g., from Syria or Sudan) often face
lethal barriers despite rights under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
- Removing borders could realize cosmopolitan ethics, seeing all humans as
moral equals rather than citizens of convenience.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- Yet, moral cosmopolitanism assumes every state can equally absorb
migration pressures — an unrealistic expectation given political,
cultural, and resource disparities.
- Justice requires sustainability: a flood of uncontrolled migration could
collapse public services, fuel xenophobia, and empower extremist
politics.
- Thus, equality must operate within ordered governance, not against it.
Universal moral worth does not entail identical political access.
Conclusion:
- National borders should not be eliminated for free global movement.
- Total openness ignores political reality, weakens sovereignty, and magnifies
inequality. Yet isolationism is equally indefensible.
- The true goal is a world of just borders — permeable to fairness but firm against
disorder. Such reform honors both moral universality and practical governance.
- Global justice does not require tearing down walls but rebuilding them with windows
— ensuring that movement, opportunity, and dignity are accessible to all under the
rule of law.
Universal healthcare
“Should universal healthcare be provided free at the point of use?”

Introduction:
- Universal healthcare: A system in which all citizens have access to essential medical
services, regardless of income or status.
- Free at the point of use: Individuals do not pay directly when receiving treatment;
services are funded collectively, usually through taxation.
- Thesis: Universal healthcare should be free at the point of use. Health is a
fundamental human right, and access must not depend on wealth. While critics argue
that such models strain public finances or reduce efficiency, these concerns are
outweighed by the moral, legal, and economic imperatives of equality, social stability,
and human dignity. Free healthcare is justice institutionalized.

Main Body:
- Topic Sentence: Healthcare is not a privilege but a moral and legal right owed to
every individual by virtue of their humanity.
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 25) recognizes the right to
adequate medical care as essential for human dignity.
- Under the social contract theory (Locke, Rousseau), citizens surrender some
freedom to the state in exchange for protection — including protection of life
and health.
- Justice (Rawls) requires that inequalities be arranged to benefit the least
advantaged. A health system dependent on income violates this principle.
- Example: The UK’s NHS model epitomizes the moral universality of
healthcare — care based on need, not ability to pay
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- Libertarians claim healthcare is a personal responsibility, not a state
duty; individuals have no right to others’ resources.
- Yet, health is a precondition for exercising any freedom or
responsibility. Without it, liberty is meaningless. Society already
accepts collective funding for public goods like policing and defense;
moral consistency demands healthcare be treated similarly.
- Topic Sentence: Far from being a financial drain, universal healthcare strengthens
economies and societies.
- Healthy populations are more productive, innovative, and stable — human
capital drives economic growth.
- Preventive care is cost-effective: early treatment of illnesses reduces long-
term expenditure on emergencies and chronic disease.
- Example: OECD data shows nations with universal care (like Sweden, Japan,
and the UK) spend less per capita overall and achieve better health outcomes
than systems dominated by private insurance (like the U.S.).
- Moral economics: collective investment spreads risk; illness should not cause
bankruptcy.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- Critics argue free care leads to overuse (“moral hazard”) and long
waiting times.
 - These are management issues, not moral flaws. Improved funding
models, digital systems, and tiered prioritization can mitigate
inefficiency without introducing paywalls.
- Private-sector collaboration can enhance delivery while preserving
universality.
- Topic Sentence: Charging users even minimally reinforces inequality and entrenches
structural injustice.
- Socioeconomic disparities correlate strongly with health outcomes; lower-
income individuals are likelier to forgo care if fees exist.
- Example: U.S. studies show millions delay treatment due to costs, unlike in
nations with free access.
- From a deontological perspective, it is morally wrong to deny care based on
ability to pay — no life is worth less than another.
- Legally, states have a positive obligation under international human rights law
to ensure non-discriminatory access to healthcare.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- Detractors may argue that free systems exploit taxpayers, violating
fairness to those who use less care.
- However, fairness lies in reciprocity — healthcare is a universal need.
The healthy today may become ill tomorrow. Taxation distributes risk
across the collective, modelling social solidarity.

Conclusion:
- Universal healthcare should be provided free at the point of use — not as a luxury,
but as a right grounded in equality, virtue, and necessity.
- A society that prices healing privileges wealth over life. Counterarguments of cost or
overuse underestimate both moral obligation and the proven efficiency of collective
systems.
- Access to healthcare defines the moral maturity of a state. A just society does not
ask “Can you pay?” but “Are you in need?” — for justice measured in human lives
must always answer with compassion.
Educated voters
"Democracy collapses without educated voters." Discuss.
Introduction:
- Democracy: A political system where sovereignty resides with the people, and
legitimacy derives from informed consent expressed through voting, participation,
and accountability.
- Educated voters: Citizens with sufficient knowledge, critical thinking, and awareness
to assess policy, law, and governance rationally.
- Thesis: Democracy indeed cannot survive without educated voters. Education
safeguards rational public choice, prevents manipulation, and grounds legitimate
governance. While some argue that universal suffrage is valid regardless of voter
knowledge, democracy based on ignorance becomes a façade easily exploited by
populism and authoritarianism. Hence, civic education is not optional — it is
democracy’s lifeblood.

Main Body:
- Topic Sentence: Democracy depends on reasoned participation, not mere numerical
majority; without informed understanding, consent becomes meaningless.
- John Stuart Mill argued that democracy’s virtue lies in the deliberative
capacities of citizens — voting without understanding is as arbitrary as lottery
rule.
- The social contract (Locke, Rousseau) presumes rational consent;
uninformed consent cannot confer legitimacy.
- Education equips citizens to evaluate policy, verify information, and hold
power to account — conditions essential for democratic function.
- Example: Finland’s civic education programs link political literacy directly to
high voter engagement and trust in institutions.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- Critics claim the franchise should remain unconditional because
restricting participation undermines equality.
- Yet education need not be a prerequisite for rights; the solution is
universal education, not exclusion. Democracies fail not from
educated suffrage, but from neglecting to educate all. Universal
suffrage without civic competence leads to manipulation, not
empowerment.
- Topic Sentence:
An uneducated electorate renders democracy vulnerable to demagogues who exploit
ignorance through emotional or false appeals.
- Populism thrives on misinformation and simplistic solutions.
- Example: Social media misinformation in the 2016 U.S. presidential election
and the Brexit campaign demonstrated how disinformation can distort
democratic outcomes.
- From a law and ethics perspective, uninformed electorates make rational
lawmaking unstable and reactive; a misled “majority will” may legitimize rights
violations.
- Education inoculates citizens against manipulation, fostering critical
evaluation rather than emotional polarization.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
 - Some argue misinformation results from media ecosystems, not voter
ignorance.
- Yet, media manipulation succeeds primarily when voters lack
analytical literacy to distinguish truth from propaganda. An educated
electorate can break propaganda’s cycle by demanding evidence and
accountability.
- Topic Sentence:
Education transforms passive subjects into active citizens capable of enforcing
democratic accountability and preserving equality before the law.
- Democratic systems rest on checks and balances, but these function only
when voters understand them.
- Example: In nations with weaker civic education (e.g., parts of Eastern
Europe), corruption persists because citizens often accept patronage or vote
along identity lines rather than policy evaluation.
- Education broadens empathy and moral reasoning, fostering social inclusion
essential to democracy’s substance, not just its structure.
- Legally, international rights frameworks — e.g., Article 26 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights — treat education as foundational to human
freedom and democratic participation.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- Some claim education can produce elitism, alienating less-educated
citizens.
- Yet genuine civic education is not elitist but emancipatory; it equips all
citizens equally to participate meaningfully, thereby reducing, not
reinforcing, inequality.

Conclusion:
- Democracy, by its nature, presupposes an educated citizenry.
- Without informed judgment, elections become rituals, freedom becomes rhetoric, and
governance slides toward demagoguery or technocratic control. Education ensures
citizens can reason, deliberate, and scrutinize power — sustaining democracy’s
legitimacy.
- Counterarguments for unconditional participation ignore that rights without capacity
breed manipulation, not equality.
- Democracy’s endurance depends not merely on institutions or constitutions, but on
minds equipped to defend them. An ignorant electorate is not a democratic people —
it is democracy’s undoing.
Rehabilitation
“Should the criminal justice system place greater emphasis on rehabilitation than on
punishment and deterrence?”

Introduction:
- Rehabilitation: The process of reforming offenders to reintegrate them into society as
law-abiding citizens.
- Punishment: The infliction of retribution or suffering proportionate to the offence.
- Deterrence: Preventing crime by instilling fear of consequences, either in the offender
(specific deterrence) or the public (general deterrence).
- Thesis: Yes. The criminal justice system should prioritize rehabilitation over
punishment and deterrence. A justice system grounded in retribution perpetuates
harm and fails to reduce long-term crime. Rehabilitation, supported by both moral
theory and empirical evidence, better fulfils the law’s ultimate purpose — protecting
society through reformation, not vengeance.
Main body:
- Truth and Reconciliation program; Rwanda
- Truth and Reconciliation programs provide the necessary tools to overcome
emotional damage for victims in severe cases, rooted in the idea of
rehabilitation for criminals in order to ensure honesty and closure.
- Following the Tutsi genocide, leaving millions in death after a 100 day period
of mass killings, Rwanda decided rather than creating a system of mass
imprisonment, they would rather gather clear narratives and rehabilitate those
who were active members of the genocide.
- From Galtung's theory of peace and conflict he highlights that ideologies are
as important as the contradictions in order to manifest criminal behaviour.
Imprisonment does not address these core ideologies and attitudes and thus
may not create long term deterrence to violence.
- Counterargument & rebuttal:
- Some critics of this program argue that mass offenders being given
invincibility does not provide justice for the people they had previously
killed/assaulted/harmed.
- However, Rwanda was careful in ensuring there was a separate
criminal tribunal system for those who intentionally organised and
exacerbated the conflict, convicting a total of 62 people.
- Empirically, deterrence rarely succeeds as expected because crime often stems from
desperation, impulse, or social inequality — not rational calculation.
- Studies show harsher sentences do not correlate strongly with lower crime
rates; certainty of detection matters more than severity of punishment.
- Example: The U.S., with mandatory sentencing and capital punishment,
maintains higher crime rates than nations prioritizing rehabilitation.
- Criminological rationale: Structural factors — poverty, trauma, addiction —
overpower deterrent fears. Punishment without correction merely recycles
offenders.
- From a law-and-economics view, deterrence fails when the perceived
likelihood of getting caught is minimal.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- Some argue visible punishment deters potential offenders.
- Yet general deterrence’s effectiveness depends on rational
awareness, which many offenders (especially youth or addicts) lack.
 Evidence-based policing and preventive education offer better
deterrence than strict sentencing.
- Rehabilitation is not leniency; it is the most cost effective long-term crime prevention
strategy — benefiting victims, society, and the offender alike.
- Reintegration through education, vocational training, and mental-health
treatment reduces recidivism and prison costs.
- Economically, rehabilitation reduces the burden on taxpayers: each
reoffending prisoner costs the state millions over a lifetime, while reformed
citizens contribute productively.
- With states such as the US seeing a trend of overimprisonment to the point of
overfilled prisons, rehabilitation provides a greater economic alternative.
- From a Rawlsian justice perspective, social systems must correct
disadvantages and provide second chances to those failed by social
inequality.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- Opponents argue rehabilitation risks injustice toward victims,
appearing to diminish their suffering.
- But effective rehabilitation affirms victims’ dignity by preventing future
harm and fostering offender accountability through restorative justice.
Rehabilitation complements victims’ rights by aiming at non-repetition,
not absolution.

Conclusion:
- Criminal justice should primarily emphasize rehabilitation, using punishment and
deterrence as supporting mechanisms, not foundations.
- Deterrence without understanding breeds recurring harm, and punishment without
reform satisfies anger, not progress.
- Rehabilitation fulfills the law’s moral purpose: protecting the community by rebuilding
the individual.
- The measure of justice is not how harshly it punishes, but how deeply it heals. A
system that educates, restores, and reintegrates offenders secures both justice and
humanity — the twin pillars of civilized law.
Universal basic income
Is universal basic income a sustainable fix for economic disparity?

Introduction:

- Universal Basic Income (UBI): A regular, unconditional cash payment to all

individuals, regardless of employment or wealth, sufficient to meet basic needs.
- Economic disparity: Persistent inequalities in income, wealth, opportunity, and power
driven by market structures, inheritance, and policy.
- Thesis: No, UBI is not a sustainable fix for economic disparity. While it alleviates
poverty and provides security, it fails to address structural causes like asset
concentration, low wages, and power imbalances. UBI risks becoming a subsidy for
inequality rather than its cure.

Main body:
- Topic Sentence: A truly adequate UBI is prohibitively expensive, risking public debt
or regressive trade-offs that undermine its egalitarian promise.
- Full UBI at poverty-line levels could cost 10–30% of GDP in developed
nations, demanding massive tax hikes or welfare cuts.
- Example: Andrew Yang’s U.S. proposal (2020) relied on VAT, but modelling
showed it wouldn’t fully fund adequacy without hitting low earners indirectly.
- From a law-and-economics view, UBI distorts incentives: it may reduce
pressure for productivity reforms while inflating housing costs in unequal
markets.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- Proponents argue automation and wealth taxes make it viable.
- Automation’s job displacement is overstated, and wealth taxes face
legal evasion challenges (e.g., capital flight). Pilots succeed at small
scales but falter nationally; sustainability demands politically
unrealistic revenue.
- Topic Sentence: UBI ignores root causes — concentrated wealth, market power, and
unequal opportunities — making it an incomplete and potentially counterproductive
fix.
- Inequality stems from inheritance, corporate monopolies, and regressive tax
systems; flat payments don’t redistribute assets or bargaining power.
- Example: In high-disparity nations like the U.S., UBI wouldn’t touch the top
1%’s 40% wealth share, merely topping up low wages.
- Utilitarian critique: It maximizes short-term utility but entrenches a dual
economy — secure poor vs. dominant rich.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- Some hail UBI as transformative, citing Kenyan entrepreneurship
boosts.
- Local pilots address poverty, not systemic wealth gaps; without
land/wealth reform, UBI becomes a bandage on capitalism’s
inequalities, subsidizing exploitation rather than ending it. Universal
basic services (health, housing) target structures more effectively.
- Topic Sentence: Advocates claim UBI replaces bureaucratic welfare mazes with a
single, efficient payment — sustainably lifting people out of poverty without
disincentivizing work.
- It eliminates "benefit cliffs" where earning more means losing aid, trapping
recipients in low-income cycles.
- Evidence from Stockton, CA pilot: recipients worked more hours and sought
better jobs, proving no laziness epidemic.
 - Philosophically, it upholds dignity — cash over condescending means-testing,
aligning with human rights to security.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- This ignores UBI's fiscal naivety and failure to target disparity's roots.
- Simplification sounds efficient, but full universality demands enormous
costs (e.g., UK's £200B+ annually), forcing cuts to targeted services
like housing or childcare that address inequality directly.
- Poverty traps persist structurally: UBI doesn't fix wage suppression or
asset gaps; it becomes a taxpayer subsidy for underpaying employers
(e.g., Walmart workers on UBI).
- Legally, it risks regressive financing — flat taxes hit the poor hardest
— while Stockton's small-scale success doesn't scale nationally
without political implosion.
- Rebuttal conclusion: UBI streamlines symptoms but bloats budgets
without curing wealth concentration. Means-tested enhancements +
wage laws outperform blunt universality for equity.
Conclusion:
- UBI is not a sustainable fix for economic disparity; it mitigates hardship but ignores
structural engines of inequality.
- Pilots prove its value for security, yet fiscal, incentive, and distributional flaws render
it insufficient alone.
- Disparity isn’t technical but political. UBI succeeds as democratic humility, fails as
evasion of deeper justice.
Social media responsible
“Should social media platforms be held legally responsible for harmful content posted by
their users?”

Intro:
- Legally responsible: To be able to bring a social media platform to trial under the
guise that they directly caused harm via the harmful content a user posted.
- Harmful Content: This will be in the form of videos, photos, comments and public
messages that impact another users psychological or physical health.
- Thesis: No, social media platforms should not be held legally responsible for harmful
content posted by their users due to the lack of causality, enforcability and direct as
well as intentional harm. Rather, there should be discussion of strengthening
regulations, proper protection protocols and a higher sense of awareness of the
dangers of social media.

Main Body:
- Issue with causality; they provide the platform for these crimes to happen but we
cannot ensure that just because the platform is there the person wouldnt commit the
crime
- In reported cases of death threats you cannot argue that the person themself
wouldnt do it if the platform wasnt available, so it would be difficult to establish
the guilty act within the platform.
- Issue of enforceability; social media platforms act as one collective being and
operate under a head company such as Instagram and Whatsapp operating under
Meta. A flaw in this preposition is that it doesnt take into account who would be
legally responsible. Would meta even though each social media platform is uniquely
different, would the entirety of Instagram be legally responsible when there are a
mass number of employees with little to no interaction with the said harmful content.
- Counter; Allow for harmful content to disseminate at a much faster and higher rate
than other platforms, directly aiding in the psychological harm and enabling said
behaviour
- HOWEVER, this is not an issue of legal accountability. This rather links to the
idea of enforcing stricter regulations for what can and cannot be posted. Legal
responsibility is thus not for the harmful content but for negligence of not
properly protecting certain communities.

Conclusion:
- Overall, it is definitively clear that the argument for social media platforms being held
legally responsible for the posting of harmful content by users is a flawed one which
neglects fundamental issues derived from legal protocol such as proving casualty,
being able to delegate legal punishment as well as proving that they are enabling
behaiour.
- Thus, social media platforms shouldnt be held legally accountable for the harmful
content users will post.
Score 24-26/30

Revised plan:
Intro:
 - Context: In an era where online platforms shape public discourse and private harm,
the question of platform accountability raises profound tensions between free
speech, technological neutrality and digital responsibility.
- Define;
- Legal responsibility: A platforms potential liability, civil or crdiminal, for the
foreseeable harms caused by content uploaded by its users.
- Harmful content: Language, images or media that cause psychological,
reputational or physical harm.
- Thesis: While platforms should not bear direct legal liability for users’ content due to
causation and practicality issues, they should face derivative responsibility for
negligent moderation or algorithmic application that foreseeably contributes to harm.

Main Body:
- Traditional legal principles require a direct causal link between the defendants action
and the claimant’s harm. Platforms, as passive intermediaries, rarely meet this
threshold.
- Analysis: One main defense for social media platforms is that the harm
caused by user content is often too indirect to satisfy legal proximity tests
under tort law. Additionally, it could also be contended that the harm caused
by user content would have occurred without the platforms existence since
the perpetrators agency remains primary.
- Evaluation: Holding platforms liable blurs the distinction between facilitating
communication and causing harm, undermining coherence in legal doctrine.
- Imposing direct legal liability is legally and logistically unworkable given the global
scale and diversity of social media platforms.
- Analysis: Corporate fragmentation complicates accountability (eg. Metas
multiple subsidiaries)
- Determining which specific entity or employee bears responsibility for user
actions would be infeasible.
- Excessive liability risks chilling online speech and entrenching censorship as
corporations preemptively remove legitimate content to avoid litigation.
- From a rule of law perspective, unclear or unenforcaeable obligations
undermine fairness and predictability in regulation.
- However, The traditional ‘neutral host’ defence is eroding as platforms increasingly
shape user behaviour through algorithmic design.
- Algorithms amplify sensational or divisive content because it increases
engagement; this is not mere hosting but active curation
- This conduct introduces forseeability; if harm arises predictably from
algorithmic promotion, negligence should be established.
- But, while algorithmic design may exacerbate harmful content, it doesn’t meet
the legal threshold for liability because influence and intention are distinct.
- Intentional harm requires purpose or direct recklessness, as this isn’r
present it lacks mens rea.
- Under US law (section 230) and Eu regimes such as the Digital
services act platforms receive conditional immunity, they are
responsible for failing to act after notification.
- While moral accountability may exist, law punishes agency, not architecture;
social wrongness does not automatically translate to legal accountability.
 - Regulation, not litigation ensures compliance while preserving freedom and
innovation.
- The UK online Safety Act imposes a duty of care requiring platforms to
manage foreseeable risks, enforced by regulators rather than courts.
- This model encourages systemic protection without overextending tort law. It
treats digital harm as a matter of design but not fault, which better matches
the nature of online spaces.

Conclusion:
- Legal liability fails on principles of causation, intent and enforcement. The apparent
counterclaim- that platforms algorithms make them complicit- rests on moral
institution, not legal doctrine and collapses when tested against established
standards of fault and forseeability.
- Platforms should bear regulatory duties to mitigate harm but remain free form legal
liability for users’ speech.
- The law’s legitimacy liesd in its precision: to punish culpable actors, not neutral
conduits. In the digital age, such restraint protects both justice and the freedom it
upholds.
Trial by Jury
“Is trial by jury still an effective and fair way of delivering justice in modern
societies?”

Intro:
- Context:
- Effective and Fair:
- Justice:
- Modern Societies:
- Thesis: Trial by jury remains effective and fair in modern societies for serious
crimes where democratic legitimacy matters most, but requires targeted
reforms like hybrid models for complex cases to address cognitive limits and
backlogs.

Main Body:
- Democratic legitimacy
- Remove bias by allowing a group of people with different perspectives
to culminate points
- Reduces individual judicial bias and enhances public trust
- Reflect societal values, applying ‘community standards’ where judges
may apply ‘elite’ interpretations.
- In diverse societies, juries prevent authoritarian by distributing power,
as seen in history, rejecting oppresive laws (eg. Vietnam war draft
resistance verdict)
- Weakness; Cognitive bias and limitatins
- The average juror may be struggle with scientific evidence or complex
legal principles such as facilitating vs causality.
- There is a chance of picking the simpler verdict due to lack of
comprehension of the opposing sides point.
- Implicit biases or stereotypes may still persist despite diversity, not
being trained to ignore these biases unlike judges, potentially limits the
fairness of the verdict of the jurors.
- Modern backlogs erode justice by prolonging suffering prompting reform to
allow for judge only cases.
- Juries suit complex and nuanced cases but for the sake of efficiency,
professional judges are in demand for minor or technical offences.
- Necessitates hybrid models; such as mixed courts, provide the jury
with the ultimate verdict to ensure democratic legitimacy but utilise a
judge to direct the jury in matters of law in order to reduce the
ignorance on legal principles. Judges can in this way overrule unfair
rulings and overall aids in efficiency.

Conclusion:
- Overall, trial by jury remains a valuable and broadly fair way of delivering
justice for the most serious offences, because it anchors criminal conviction
in the consent and moral judgment of ordinary citizens rather than a narrow
legal elite.
- However, its effectiveness is clearly strained in complex, technical and high-
volume cases, so in modern societies it is best seen not as a universal gold
standard but as an institution that should be preserved for grave crimes and
reformed or supplemented—through judge-only or hybrid models—where its
cognitive and practical limits most obviously threaten accuracy and
timeliness.
Public funding-art
Does public art funding merit taxpayer money?

Intro:
- Public art funding: Governemnt subsidiaries for galleries, festivals and installations
via taxes.
- Taxpayer money: Resources collected by the public to fund essential services and
societal improvements.
- Thesis: While some argue that public art funding is a luxury that diverts resources
from vital services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure, to a significant
extent it does merit taxpayer support. This is because public art serves as a long-
term investment in cultural identity, social cohesion, education, and economic vitality
—benefits that indirectly enhance the public good.

Main body:
- Cultural enrichment
- Public art plays a vital role in developing a shared cultural identity and
preserving national heritage, which justifies state support.
- Public art reflects collective memory, values and narratives of a society-
offering citizens a sense of belonging and identity.
- Without government funding, art would be left to market forces that prioritize
cokmmercial success over cultural significance.
- For example, the Hong Kong M+ Museum and the UK’s Tate modern show
how government supported art institutions preserve and display cultural
narratives for future generations.
- From a civc republican perspective, state support of art ensures that culture
remains a publc good accessible to all citizens, not just the wealthy elite.
- Critics argue that national iderntity can be maintained through education or
media without costly artistic projects.
- However, art unique transcends language and can bridge generational
and social divides in ways other cultural programs cannot.
- Socioeconomic value and urban regeneration
- Public art serves not only cultural but also economic functions, prooting
tourism, regeneration and local pride.
- Investments in creative industries stimulate surrounding economies through
tourism, job creation and commercial development.
- For example, “the angel of the north’ in the UK initially faced public criticism
for cost but later became a symbol of regional pride and stimulated tourism
and development in Gateshead.
- Similarly, street art initiatives like those in Melbourne and Berlin contribute to
urban identity and attract millions in tourism revenue for local businesses.
- When viewed in this light, art funding acts as a long-term investment rather
than an expenditure, producing measurable economic returns.
- Critics might argue funding should focus directly on social issues like
unemployment rather than ‘indirect’ benefits of art.
- Yet art-led regeneration projects have shown lasting community benefits such
as reduced crime rates.
- Accessibility, education and equality of participation
 - Public funding of art ensures equitable access, allowing diverse communities
to experience culture and creativity.
- Without government support, only private galleries and commercialised art
forms would dominate, excluding marginalised voices.
- Public art fosters inclusivity, through community murals, artists-in-school
programs and free museum days. All of these mediums nurture expression
and empathy.
- For example, the U.S “Works progress administration’ employed artists during
the great depression, democratising art and brining it to public spaces while
provifing employment.
- From a utilitarian standpoint, funding art maximises overall social happiness
by providing cultural enricfhment to the largest possible number of people.
- Some arrt that private sponsorship could replace taxpayer funding
- Howver, private interests often promote self-serving or brand-driven
art, which may limite creative freedom and diversity.
- Prioritisation: art vs essential services
- Despite it merits, critics contend that art should not compete for funding with
essential services like healthcare, housing, or education.
- The opportunity cost argument is that in times of economic austerity, every
tax dollar should meet pressing material needs.
- For example, during austerity in Greece (2010s), arts budgets were slashed
to address debt crisis, reflecting the perceived hierarchy of needs.
- From a Rawlsian justice perspective, funding priorities should first secure
basic rights before luxury goods like arts.
- However:
- It is a false dichotomy to see art opposed to well-being. Studies show
engagement with art improves mental health, civic participation, and
educartion outcomes.
- Thus, funding public art is not wasteful but contributes holisti welfare,
complementing rather than replacing essential public spending.

Conclusion:
- While critics raise legitimate concerns about competing fiscal priorities, public art
funding merits taxpayer money to a considerable extent.
- It upholds culture as a shared public good, enhances economic and social vitality,
and enriches community well-being.
- In a balanced democracy, taxpayer resources should not only meet physical needs
but also cultivate the collective spirit, creativity, and identity that bind society
together.
Civil liberties vs National security
“Is it ever justifiable for a democratic government to restrict civil liberties significantly in the
name of national security?”

Intro:
- Civil liberties: Fundamental individual rights and freedoms, such as freedom of
speech, right to due process, privacy and right to assemble. These rights are
protected by a states constitution or law.
- National security: The protection of a states sovereignty, citizens and institutions from
threats including terrorism, war and cyberattacks.
- Thesis: Whilst unrestricted infringement on civil liberties undermines its democratic
values it seeks to protect thus, to a certain extent temporary restrictions on civil
liberties can be justifiable when needed to preserve a nations security. However,
such measures demand, rigorous oversight to protect from authoritarian abuse and
ensure that ultimately liberty is preserved not abolished.

Main body:
- Social contract and state responsibility
- A democratic state has a moral and legal duty to safeguard the security of
its citizens, even if this necessitates some curtailment of individual
freedoms.
- The social contract theory posits that citizens surrender certain liberties so
the state can protect fundamental rights like life and safety.
- In times of imminent threat- eg. terorism, war, pandemics- absolute liberty
can endager collective welfarel.
- For example, post-9/11 measures such as the USA PATRIOT ACT enabled
governments to detect and prevent terrorism through surveillance and
intellenge sharing.
- From a utilitarian perspective, limiting individual rights for collective safety
yields the greatest good for the greatest number.
- Overreliance on security rhetoric may normalise state encroachment and
create a ‘state of exception’ where rights are indefinitely suspendid.
- Hence, the justification must be context-specific, temporary and
ensure accountability.
- Preservation of democracy as a higher-order good
- In certain crises, restricting liberties may be necessary to prevent the collapse
of democracy itself.
- Paradoxically, to maintain a free society, the state may need to act illliberally
against to destroy it. Demonstrating the paradox of tolerance.
- This was seen for example in the UK during World War II which imposed
censorship and detention under defence regulations to fight fascism. T Hese
actions, though restrictivel. Defended democracy from existential threats.
- Similarly, post-WWII West Germany allowed restrictions on extremist political
parties to prevent a return to totalitarianism.
- From a communitarian lens, civil liberties exist meaningfully only within a
stable community. Hence safeguarding democracy sustains liberty in the long
term.
 -Yet the danger lies in subjectivity: governments can misuse ‘national sevurity’
to silence dissenters, journaists or minories as seen in Turkey after the 2016
coup.
- Therefore, the justification must be contingent upon genuine evidence-
based threats to constitutional order.
- However, there is a risk of overreach and erosion of trust
- Extensive or prolonged restrictions erode public trust, democratic
accountability and the rule of law.
- Civil liberties are core to the legitimacy of democratic governance; when
citizens lose privacy or free speech, they lose their power to hold the state
accountable.
- For example, Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations about the NSA showed
mass surveillance well beyond its counterrorism remit, sparking global debate
on privacy violations.
- Once powers expand, they are rarely rescinded, risking a slide toward
permanent securitisation.
- However, effective oversight mechanisms, such as independent judicial
review and time limits have showed to be effective in preventing such
ovvereach while maintaining flexibility in crisis.

Conclusion:
- It is sometimes justifiable for a democratic government to restrict civil liberties if the
threat to national security is severe, proven, and immediate. However, such
restrictions must always pass the tests of necessity, proportionality, temporariness,
and accountability.
- A democracy that sacrifices liberty carelessly in pursuit of safety risks becoming
indistinguishable from the tyranny it seeks to avoid.
- Thus, while temporary restriction may protect democracy, indefinite suppression of
rights will eventually destroy it.
Widespread surveillance
Should widespread surveillance be authorized to prevent terrorism?

Intro:
- Widespread surveillance: Mass collection of personal data (communications,
location, financial records) by state agencies without individualized suspicion or
warrants.
- Terrorism prevention: Proactive measures to detect and disrupt threats to national
security, often justified under emergency powers.
- Thesis: No, widespread surveillance should not be authorized solely to prevent
terrorism. While security demands targeted intelligence, mass surveillance erodes
civil liberties, invites abuse, and proves empirically ineffective against adaptive
threats. Surveillance must protect liberty, not sacrifice it.

Main body:
- Topic Sentence: Mass surveillance violates core liberal principles of privacy and
autonomy, treating citizens as suspects rather than rights-bearers.
- Privacy is foundational to dignity (Article 8 ECHR, Fourth Amendment US
Constitution); mass data collection presumes guilt by association.
- Philosophically, Mill’s harm principle permits intrusion only for direct harm
prevention — terrorism justifies targeted, not universal, measures.
- Example: UK’s Investigatory Powers Act (2016) enabled bulk data retention,
later ruled unlawful by courts for disproportionality.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- Proponents cite ticking bomb scenarios — surveillance saves lives
preemptively.
- Yet real terrorism (e.g., 7/7 London bombings) succeeds despite
surveillance; hypotheticals don’t justify systemic rights erosion.
Judicial warrants ensure accountability without mass overreach.
- Topic Sentence: Evidence shows mass surveillance yields minimal terrorism
prevention while generating vast false positives and resource waste.
- Post-9/11 US programs (PRISM, NSA bulk collection) were discontinued after
reviews found they stopped zero major plots.
- Terrorists adapt via encryption and low-tech methods; bulk data overwhelms
analysts (e.g., “needle in haystack” problem).
- From a law-and-economics view, targeted intelligence (human sources,
warrants) outperforms mass trawling at lower cost.
- Example: Paris 2015 attacks occurred amid France’s extensive surveillance
regime.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
- Advocates point to thwarted plots (e.g., New York subway bomb
2009).
- These relied on targeted tips, not mass data; bulk collection’s
“successes” are unverifiable and dwarfed by civil liberty costs. Privacy
advocates’ audits confirm inefficacy.
- Topic Sentence: Authorizing mass surveillance for terrorism creates precedents for
mission creep, suppressing dissent under “security” guise.
- History shows expansions: UK’s Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
morphed from terror to routine crime surveillance.
- Chilling effects deter free speech; citizens self-censor under perceived
monitoring (Panopticon effect, Bentham/Foucault).
- Legally, broad authorizations evade proportionality tests (ECHR Article 8(2));
vague “national security” clauses enable executive overreach.
- Counterargument & Rebuttal:
 - Safeguards like oversight committees prevent abuse.
- Oversight fails: Snowden leaks revealed systemic NSA violations
despite FISA courts. Weak accountability invites politicization — e.g.,
surveillance of journalists or activists labeled “threats.”

Conclusion:
- Widespread surveillance should not be authorized for terrorism prevention.
- It fails empirically, risks abuse, and undermines the freedoms terrorism attacks.
- Targeted, accountable measures suffice for security without sacrificing privacy — the
bedrock of open societies.
- Democracies defeat terror by upholding liberty, not mimicking oppressors. True
security flows from justice, not from a panopticon state.
Sentence recommendations
Opening and thesis
● “This question asks whether X; this essay will argue that, although there are
compelling reasons to accept Y, a more defensible position is Z.”
● “For the purposes of this discussion, X will refer to Y rather than the broader category
of Z.”
● “While reasonable people could take opposite views on this issue, the central claim
defended here is that X.”
Structuring main points
● “The first reason to adopt this view is that X, which directly affects Y.”
● “A second, and perhaps more fundamental, consideration is that X.”
● “In practice, this means that when X occurs, Y is very likely to follow.”
● “Before accepting this conclusion, it is necessary to consider an important objection.”
Handling counterarguments
● “A powerful objection maintains that X, suggesting that the argument above proves
too much.”
● “This criticism has intuitive appeal, because it highlights cases in which Y seems
clearly unacceptable.”
● “However, the objection overreaches: it shows that X is problematic in some
instances, not that it is always unjustified.”
● “Even if this objection is granted, it can be answered by limiting the claim to situations
in which Y and Z are present.”
Analysis and precision
● “This point is not merely rhetorical; it goes to the heart of why X is treated as
important in the first place.”
● “The argument relies on an unstated assumption, namely that X; once this is
questioned, the conclusion becomes less secure.”
● “Crucially, the example does not establish that X is never permissible, only that it
carries significant risks in contexts like Y.”
● “What matters is not just the outcome, but the principle: if X is allowed here, it
becomes difficult to explain why Y should be forbidden.”
Nuance and qualification
● “It would be too strong to claim that X is always wrong; a more defensible view is that
it requires stringent justification.”
● “The fact that X sometimes produces good consequences does not, by itself, show
that it is morally acceptable in general.”
● “A more modest conclusion is that X should be regarded as a presumptively wrongful
interference, which can be justified only when Y.”
● “This suggests that the disagreement is not about ends, but about which means are
compatible with respecting Y.”
Concluding elegantly
● “Taken together, these considerations support a cautious but firm conclusion: X may
be justified, but only within tightly defined limits.”
● “On balance, the arguments in favour of X carry greater weight than the objections,
provided that safeguards such as Y are in place.”
● “Ultimately, the question is not whether X can ever be allowed, but under what
conditions it ceases to undermine the very values it is supposed to protect.”
● “Therefore, while the issue remains contested, the more defensible position is that X
should be treated as an exception, not the rule.”
Mock 1
What is your response to the view that the purpose of education is to prepare young people
for the world of work?

With the rapid modernization of technology, social interaction and globalization within our
world's political systems, economical systems and culture it is only inherently expected for
the proponents of our future, the youth, to evolve with us. However, what we have seen is a
halt in the evolution of the educational system, remaining stoic and as rigid as the time it was
proposed. For the sake of this essay, education will be set within the confines of primary
through to high school/sixth form, Public or Private. Additionally, young people referencing
the population of students of age 18 or under. Although the necessity of education is
apparent and reflects the societal value of intelligence and ambition, its ultimate purpose is
not to prepare young people for the world of work, but for the expectation of obedience and
an acceptance for the longstanding system of exacerbating inequality.

A set curriculum, fixed timetables and praise of following instructions has followed students
for decades, proving an emphasis for rigidness and memorization. This mindset of the
educational system, whilst relevant to the previous structure of the work system- prioritising
efficiency, autocracy and obedience- does not fall into the model of working following the
liberalisation of work. With a rise in innovation, flexibility made into an expectation and
technological literacy taking the forefront, it is questionable whether the portrayal of a good
student as a follower will truly aid them in the atmosphere of competing leaders.

Another perspective that is highlighted within the current educational system is the creation
of set curriculums, ineffectively stimulating intellectual curiosity and creating generalists
rather than specialists. A student with an immense talent for the fine arts is destined to feel
incapable of success when compared to the standard for academic excellence in
mathematics or STEM based subjects. The current workforce no longer wants the
stampeding crowd of generalists, claiming to be a necessity as they provide the multi-
disciplinary approach that schools advocated for. Places of work searching for the most
passionate, most knowledgeable and most curious employees will find that they had not
been given the equality of opportunity as their talents were stifled by their lack of well-
roundedness. Is it not fair to say thus that the education system is failing students by
creating replicas of the same ‘prototype’ without checking to see if this prototype matches
what is currently being demanded?

Furthermore, concepts of meritocracy, recognition for achievements and standardised tests

do no more other than test wealth. The current educational system searches for the most
committed to academic excellence and ignores the structural inequalities that dictate how far
a student can go before they reach the barrier of intellect that wealth creates for them.
Studies have consistently shown that the SAT, a standardised test created to rank students,
primarily within the United States of America, is strongly correlated to the average income of
the neighbourhood the child is from. Creating a false causality between the scores of a
student and how intelligent they are means that a sense of confidence, cockiness and most
dauntingly, certainty, is instilled into the employees and employers of the future. The issue
with this is that whilst wealth gets a student so far, is it not representative of their value in the
economical system of the world and thus may fall short once confronted with the reality of
the tasks they are given.

Defenders of the current, traditionalist, educational system believe that the habits and
mindset that the tasks within school give students are made to shape them into disciplined,
resilient and articulated individuals. However, the teachings of school are at most artificial
and at minimum, unrealistic. Teaching these skills through an accumulation of knowledge
and then placing these superficially well prepared students into a world where they have to
put them into practice well lead to inevitable failure. The education system needs to be
reformed to help students understand the practical role they have within society and develop
them with experience. Philosophers and writers of famous literature such as William Blake
and Rousseau argue that children have to be put in an environment of primitive behaviour
during the years in which I have defined schooling.

Although the defence for our educational system remains strong, they fall short when put
under the perspective of the work atmosphere. In an everchanging, modern world where
innovation, creativity and curiosity are necessary to keep evolving, the leaders, engineers,
architects and lawyers of our future must develop in a system which nurtures it.

Mark 66/100 (upper 2:1)

Strengths
● Clear position: You answer the question and maintain a consistent stance that
education’s real function is social control and reproduction of inequality, not
preparation for work.
● Ambitious framing: You make big claims about meritocracy, inequality, and the
changing nature of work, showing willingness to tackle abstract ideas.
● Awareness of counter-arguments: You gesture to defenders of the traditional system
and briefly respond, which is a key expectation for high-band LNAT essays.

Main weaknesses

1. Focus on the question

● The question is “What is your response to the view that the purpose of education is
to prepare young people for the world of work?”. You largely reframe it into “the
purpose is obedience and inequality,” but you do not consistently test that claim
against a nuanced account of “preparing for work” (e.g. skills, socialisation,
credentials, citizenship).
● Several paragraphs drift into a general critique of schooling and inequality without
tying points back to whether education does, or ought to, prepare for work and in
what sense.
How to improve:
● In each main paragraph, explicitly link back to the purpose of education and “the
world of work” (e.g. “Even if one argues that discipline and standardisation prepare
students for work, this preparation is misaligned with contemporary labour markets
because…”).

2. Structure and argumentation

● There is an introduction and a conclusion, but the middle lacks a clearly signposted
progression (e.g. Point 1: nature of work vs school habits; Point 2: curriculum and
specialisation; Point 3: inequality and access; Point 4: counter-argument and partial
defence).
 ● Topic sentences sometimes state a claim that the paragraph then only partially
develops or repeats at a high level without tight reasoning.
How to improve:
● Use a simple structure:
● Intro: stance + roadmap (2–3 reasons).
● 2–3 body paragraphs: each focused on one clearly defined reason, argued
through in depth, not breadth.
● 1 counter-argument paragraph that is fairly presented and then evaluated.

3. Use of evidence and examples

● The SAT example is promising but underdeveloped and uncited; you state that
“studies have consistently shown” correlations with neighbourhood income but do
not explain what that shows about the purpose of education vis-à-vis work.
● References to Blake and Rousseau are extremely thin; you do not identify a specific
work, idea, or quotation, and the claim that they support “primitive behaviour”
environments is vague and arguably inaccurate.
How to improve:
● Prefer one or two well-developed examples to many vague ones:
● For inequality: briefly sketch how standardised testing advantages the
affluent, then explicitly link to hiring and career prospects.
● For philosophy: if using Rousseau, name the idea (e.g. education in “Émile”)
and tie it clearly to your point about experiential learning.

4. Critical balance and nuance

● The essay is heavily one-sided and sometimes makes sweeping generalisations
(“standardised tests do no more other than test wealth”, “the education system is
failing students by creating replicas of the same ‘prototype’”) without acknowledging
partial truths or counter-examples.
● High-band LNAT scripts show that the writer can weigh strengths and weaknesses,
not just attack.
How to improve:
● Strengthen the counter-argument section by seriously considering ways in which
education does prepare for work (e.g. basic literacy, time management, cooperation)
and then argue why these are insufficient or misaligned today.
● Include at least one concession such as: “There is some force in the view that…”
before refining or limiting it.

5. Language, clarity, and register

● Vocabulary is generally strong, but some sentences are convoluted or grammatically
awkward (e.g. comma splices, incorrect word choice: “economical system” rather
than “economic system”, “proponents of our future, the youth, to evolve with us” is
unclear).
 ● Occasional misuse or near-miss of terms (“liberalisation of work”, “world’s political
systems, economical systems and culture”) makes the prose feel less controlled.
How to improve:
● Aim for precise and concise sentences rather than long, ornate ones. LNAT markers
explicitly reward clarity and fluency over grand phrasing.
● Leave 2–3 minutes at the end to correct obvious grammar and word-choice slips.

Strengths:

1. Clear Thesis: You establish a clear (and provocative) counter-argument early: the
purpose is not work, but “obedience and an acceptance for the longstanding system
of exacerbating inequality.”
2. Range of Points: You touch on relevant issues: pedagogical rigidity vs. modern
flexible work, the generalist vs. specialist debate, the correlation between wealth and
standardised test performance.
3. Critical Perspective: You correctly identify meritocracy as a contested concept and
link assessments to socioeconomic inequality—a sophisticated point when well-
supported.

Weaknesses & Areas for Improvement:

1. Lack of Balance & Nuance: This is the most significant flaw. The essay reads as a
polemic. A top LNAT response would rigorously engage with the defence of
education’s role in preparing for work (developing cognitive skills, discipline,
foundational knowledge, socialisation) before deconstructing it. Your single
concluding paragraph addressing the “defenders” is superficial and does not fairly
weigh opposing evidence. A law professor looks for the ability to see all sides of an
issue.
2. Under-Developed Arguments: Points are raised but not fully explored analytically.
○ You mention “obedience” but do not define it or anchor it in educational theory
(e.g., fleeting reference to Foucault or the sociology of education would
strengthen this).
○ The jump from “generalists” to the workforce’s desire for “passionate”
specialists is asserted, not argued. You do not consider the value of a broad
foundation before specialisation at university or in training.
○ The reference to Blake and Rousseau is a good instinct, but it is thrown in
without explanation. What exactly do they argue? How does it support your
point? This feels like namedropping rather than integrated analysis.
3. Structural Issues: The paragraphs are internally coherent, but the overall essay lacks
a logical progression. It moves from rigidity, to generalism, to meritocracy, to
artificiality without a clear, building narrative. A tighter structure (e.g., Thesis ->
Counter-argument -> Critique 1 (pedagogy) -> Critique 2 (assessment/inequality) ->
Synthesis/Conclusion) would be more persuasive.
4. Style and Precision:
○ Vagueness: Phrases like “the liberalisation of work,” “the atmosphere of
competing leaders,” and “the barrier of intellect that wealth creates” sound
impressive but are conceptually vague. In law, precision is paramount.
○ Overstatement: Claims like “the education system is failing students” are too
absolute without careful qualification. A more measured, academic tone
would be “the system may be failing to adequately prepare many students.”
○ Proofreading: “well lead” should be “will lead”; “economical” should be
“economic”; the syntax can be convoluted (e.g., the final sentence of the third
paragraph).
Mock 2
Public figures should be held to higher moral standards than ordinary citizens. Do
you agree?

The influx of social media, immediate technologies and potential for widespread
dissemination of information leads to inevitable rising of public figures; People who
have gained a large amount of recognition from the general population and hold
power over what information is being shared, spoken, spread. This is referencing
politicians, CEO’s of major corporations, well known people within arts and media,
and of social media influencers with a large cumulative following. Moral standards
will be viewed within the constraints of the law, under the perspective of legal
relativism what is deemed immoral is deemed legal. Thus, ultimately, this essay will
argue that public figures should be held to higher moral standards than ordinary
citizens due to the extreme levels of influence on the average person, the
expectation that they represent the image of a community. Although opposers of
this statement may argue that they are still inherently human, the outcome of their
actions is disproportionate to the outcome from the average citizen.

Public figures, whether they are within politics, economics, film, fine arts or social
media, all hold a grip on the general mass. Granted the gift of a louder voice there is
an immediate responsibility that this influence isn’t exploited or neglected. When a
public figure is a proponent of something deemed immoral, there is a risk that
followers of their ideology will justify and thus replicate immoral behaviour or beliefs.
Especially with the rise of a technological literate youth. In Psychology, the belief
that the youth look for role models and replicate behaviour without filtering out moral
beliefs is incredibly common. Called the observational learning theory, public figures
become the immediate role models and thus have the obligation to uphold moral
standards that will benefit general society. Critics may argue that the individual has
the responsibility to be critical about the information and actions of public figures.
Although this does present a lesson about media literacy, it is fundamentally flawed
as it ignores the patterns of societal behaviour. People are not capable of always
being critical and are susceptible to biases based on what key figures say. Thus, this
responsibility must fall onto the public figure as their actions will inevitably influence
viewers.

Furthermore, public figures represent communities of people, whether a minority of

the population or a general group of people. When information about their actions
and beliefs is as available as it currently is, public figures must acknowledge that
their morals and thus their behaviour reflects on the community of people they
represent. Upholding good morals and being a proponent of ethical behaviour
provides a good reputation and thus a better wellbeing for the members belonging to
that community. If a public figure were to negatively represent a community, they
risk damaging the wellbeing of that part of society and thus are negatively damaging
society as a whole. Critics may argue that public figures do not always consent nor
seek to represent a community. Although this may be true, the fact that public
figures are aware of what they are representing, they should seek to ensure
protection for those alike to them.

Opposers to the concept that public figures should be upheld to a higher moral
standard might posit that it is unfair to judge a person with a higher standard as they
are in essence human too. The characteristics of human beings is that we inherently
make mistakes and thus aren’t able to under every circumstance uphold perfect
standards. Additionally, the argument that every person is equal under the law is
brought about by these said opposers. By holding certain people accountable to a
higher standard than others there is a risk of demolishing this constitutional right of
fair legal procedure. However, this viewpoint looks solely at the act committed and
not at the entirety of the outcome. When the average person with little cultural and
technological power commits a crime their mistake is judged and limited to the
barrier of themself. Contrastingly, the actions of a public figure are reflected in the
people watching and risk becoming a way to justify harmful/immoral actions. If the
aim of governance is to ensure protection of the wellbeing of society then a person
committing a singular crime versus a person committing a crime and potentially
limiting the power of deterrence on certain beliefs or crimes are very different.

Ultimately, whilst oppositions of this belief raise key points of universalism in moral
judgment, for the sake of protection for general society it is necessary to hold public
figures to higher moral standards.

72/100

Feedback:
Strengths

1. Clear argument and stance

You take an explicit position — public figures should be held to higher moral standards —
and defend it consistently. The claim is well-defined and qualified within the framework of
law, ethics, and public responsibility. That intellectual clarity impresses LNAT markers.

2. Logical structure
The essay has a clear progression:
1. Introduction framing key terms and your conclusion.
2. Argument based on influence and responsibility.
3. Argument based on representation of communities.
4. Counter-argument grounded in equality and human fallibility.
5. Conclusion reaffirming the thesis.
This meets a core LNAT expectation: a structured, purposeful flow.
3. Engagement with theory and psychology
Referencing observational learning theory is excellent — it shows interdisciplinary
awareness and justification beyond moral instinct. You apply it directly to social media
culture, which grounds the argument in a modern context.

4. Use of counterarguments
You acknowledge and respond to opposing views (human imperfection, legal equality). The
rebuttals are proportionate and logically handled — this shows critical maturity.

Weaknesses and improvement points

1. Precision and style

● Some sentences are overwritten or grammatically strained, with excessive
commas and unclear phrasing (e.g. “The influx of social media, immediate
technologies and potential for widespread dissemination of information
leads to inevitable rising of public figures”).
→ Simplify to improve flow and clarity. LNAT markers heavily reward
concision.
● Terms like “economic,” “technological,” and “legal relativism” need slightly more
accurate use. “Legal relativism” here seems misplaced — relativism is a
moral/philosophical idea; legality is separate.
Improvement: Refine vocabulary to ensure conceptual accuracy and tighten sentence
construction.

2. Depth of justification
While the psychological argument is compelling, your second main body paragraph (public
figures representing communities) remains a little shallow. It asserts that they “represent
communities” but could explore:
● How this differs for chosen vs imposed representation (e.g. elected officials vs
celebrities).
● Whether representation can justify stricter moral expectations without legal
overreach.
Adding this nuance could push the essay into the 75–78 range.

3. Balance and proportionality

Some rebuttals feel brief. For example, you dismiss the “equal under the law” objection
mainly by distinguishing outcome rather than principle. A slightly more textured engagement
— recognising why equality matters before distinguishing public influence — would show
greater depth.

4. Minor mechanics
● Occasional missing articles (“under every circumstance uphold perfect
standards” → “under every circumstance to uphold perfect standards”).
 ● Overuse of semicolons and commas. Punctuation polish would make it easier to read
under timed conditions.

Strengths:

1. Excellent Structure & Clarity: The essay follows a near-model LNAT structure: clear
thesis statement, two substantive paragraphs supporting your agreement, a
dedicated paragraph dealing with the strongest counter-argument, and a concise
conclusion. This makes your argument easy to follow and assess.
2. Effective Use of Counter-Argument: You have correctly identified the most potent
objection—the principle of equality and shared human fallibility—and addressed it
substantively in its own paragraph. You do not dismiss it; you engage with it and offer
a reasoned rebuttal based on the disproportionate consequences of a public figure’s
actions. This shows mature critical thinking.
3. Strong, Relevant Reasoning: Your core pillars of argument are sound and
legally/socially pertinent:
○ Influence & Role Modelling: The link to observational learning theory is
effective and elevates the argument beyond mere opinion.
○ Representation: The point about a public figure’s actions affecting the
wellbeing of the community they represent (willingly or not) is sophisticated
and touches on concepts of reputation and collective responsibility.
○ Consequentialist Rebuttal: Your final counter-argument paragraph is the
essay’s highlight. Distinguishing between the act and the outcome (“the
entirety of the outcome”) and focusing on the erosion of deterrence shows
real analytical depth.
4. Precise Definitions: You usefully define your key terms (“public figures,” “moral
standards”) at the start, providing a clear framework for the discussion.

Areas for Minor Improvement (to reach the very top band):

1. Depth of Example: While the reasoning is strong, the essay would be even more
compelling with a brief, concrete example. For instance, when discussing influence, a
passing reference to a real-world case (e.g., the impact of a politician’s racist
language, or a celebrity’s promotion of harmful financial schemes) would ground your
theoretical points in evidence and demonstrate wider knowledge.
2. Nuance on ‘Moral Standards’: You wisely confine morality to the “constraints of the
law,” but a top-tier candidate might briefly explore the tension here. Who holds them
to these higher standards? The law (which treats them equally)? The media? The
public? Acknowledging this practical difficulty would add a layer of sophistication.
3. Proofreading & Polish: Minor grammatical issues persist (e.g., “rising of public
figures” should be “rise of public figures”; “the influx of social media, immediate
technologies” is slightly awkward). The prose is very good but can be refined further
for total precision.