Non-substantive evaluation 15 markers overview
Topics:
- Internal general structure and tips for AQA A-Level Law 15 markers
- Law and Justice
- Law and Morality
- AQA: Law and Society
- AQA: Criminal theory
- AQA: Tort theory
- AQA: Contract theory
- AQA: Human Rights theory
Internal general structure and tips for AQA A-Level Law 15 markers
General information
,The 15 markers should always have the following instruction, this is important:
‘you are required to provide an extended answer which shows a clear, logical and
sustained line of reasoning leading to a valid conclusion.’
There will usually be 10 marks for the evaluation on the theoretical topic and 5
marks for the evaluation of this topic concerning a substantive/practical part of
the law.
You must address both parts of the question, and you must allocate the
appropriate time/wording according to the marks (so write more about the first
part as it is 10 marks, and write less about the second part as it is 5 marks).
For the first part (10 marks):
Answer the question/statement: tick off each instruction/topic word to make sure
you have covered it (eg explain, meaning, importance, cause, effectiveness, etc).
- Define the key terms/theories.
- Make an evaluative/analytical point in relation to what the question is
asking. Give an example/theorist for the points to highlight why it is
valid/provide further information. Explain the example to show how it
supports your point. Take the examples from any area of the law, whatever
example you can best develop. Even if the question in the second part
specifies only to apply to a certain legal area, you do not need to do this in
the first part of the question.
o From a previous examiners’ report: ‘answers could undoubtedly
have been stronger and more comprehensive had they incorporated
examples drawn additionally from other areas of law in the first part
of the question, opening up the possibility of examination of a
broader range of interests, and so a deeper analysis of the role of
the law,’ so that examples of law in the second part of the question
would not be repetitive and could provide further evaluative value.
- Repeat the above steps for more points, in order to fully answer the
question/statement.
o From a previous examiners’ report: ‘For instance, in relation to the
decision in R v R, some students simply asserted that the case
demonstrates that there is a moral dimension to the law. They did
not explain why or how this might be so.’
- Give a solid, rounding-up conclusion that is ‘valid’ – link the conclusion to
the points made, do not introduce anything new in the conclusion, just
summarise the points.
- Check the conclusion and paragraphs match, in order to build a ‘clear,
logical and sustained line of reasoning.’ Make sure you answer the
question/statement through analysis and knowledge.
For the second part (5 marks):
Answer the question/statement by evaluating the theory discussed in the first
part in the context of the substantive/practical part of the law that is identified in
the question. So, compare/analyse/evaluate/etc how the substantive law
interacts/highlights/contradicts/etc (whatever the key instruction words are) with
the theoretical part.
, - Identify a specific area of the law (eg a section in legislation or a certain
case).
- Explain and evaluate how this interacts/highlights/contradicts/etc
(whatever the key instruction words are) with the theoretical part.
- Repeat the above steps for other elements of the law.
o From a previous examiners’ report: ‘Better answers were able to
identify those aspects of the Act which have a connection with
moral rules. For example, the idea of a common duty of humanity
and the recognition that it was right to protect trespassers from
dangers that could cause injury, or the additional moral duty to see
that children were protected. Alternatively, some argued that,
although the Act went against moral rules by protecting those who
had no right to be there, s. 1(3) of the Act lays down requirements
that have to be met before the occupier becomes liable and that
any occupier who meets those requirements should be liable given
their level of knowledge and fault.’
Topics:
- Internal general structure and tips for AQA A-Level Law 15 markers
- Law and Justice
- Law and Morality
- AQA: Law and Society
- AQA: Criminal theory
- AQA: Tort theory
- AQA: Contract theory
- AQA: Human Rights theory
Internal general structure and tips for AQA A-Level Law 15 markers
General information
,The 15 markers should always have the following instruction, this is important:
‘you are required to provide an extended answer which shows a clear, logical and
sustained line of reasoning leading to a valid conclusion.’
There will usually be 10 marks for the evaluation on the theoretical topic and 5
marks for the evaluation of this topic concerning a substantive/practical part of
the law.
You must address both parts of the question, and you must allocate the
appropriate time/wording according to the marks (so write more about the first
part as it is 10 marks, and write less about the second part as it is 5 marks).
For the first part (10 marks):
Answer the question/statement: tick off each instruction/topic word to make sure
you have covered it (eg explain, meaning, importance, cause, effectiveness, etc).
- Define the key terms/theories.
- Make an evaluative/analytical point in relation to what the question is
asking. Give an example/theorist for the points to highlight why it is
valid/provide further information. Explain the example to show how it
supports your point. Take the examples from any area of the law, whatever
example you can best develop. Even if the question in the second part
specifies only to apply to a certain legal area, you do not need to do this in
the first part of the question.
o From a previous examiners’ report: ‘answers could undoubtedly
have been stronger and more comprehensive had they incorporated
examples drawn additionally from other areas of law in the first part
of the question, opening up the possibility of examination of a
broader range of interests, and so a deeper analysis of the role of
the law,’ so that examples of law in the second part of the question
would not be repetitive and could provide further evaluative value.
- Repeat the above steps for more points, in order to fully answer the
question/statement.
o From a previous examiners’ report: ‘For instance, in relation to the
decision in R v R, some students simply asserted that the case
demonstrates that there is a moral dimension to the law. They did
not explain why or how this might be so.’
- Give a solid, rounding-up conclusion that is ‘valid’ – link the conclusion to
the points made, do not introduce anything new in the conclusion, just
summarise the points.
- Check the conclusion and paragraphs match, in order to build a ‘clear,
logical and sustained line of reasoning.’ Make sure you answer the
question/statement through analysis and knowledge.
For the second part (5 marks):
Answer the question/statement by evaluating the theory discussed in the first
part in the context of the substantive/practical part of the law that is identified in
the question. So, compare/analyse/evaluate/etc how the substantive law
interacts/highlights/contradicts/etc (whatever the key instruction words are) with
the theoretical part.
, - Identify a specific area of the law (eg a section in legislation or a certain
case).
- Explain and evaluate how this interacts/highlights/contradicts/etc
(whatever the key instruction words are) with the theoretical part.
- Repeat the above steps for other elements of the law.
o From a previous examiners’ report: ‘Better answers were able to
identify those aspects of the Act which have a connection with
moral rules. For example, the idea of a common duty of humanity
and the recognition that it was right to protect trespassers from
dangers that could cause injury, or the additional moral duty to see
that children were protected. Alternatively, some argued that,
although the Act went against moral rules by protecting those who
had no right to be there, s. 1(3) of the Act lays down requirements
that have to be met before the occupier becomes liable and that
any occupier who meets those requirements should be liable given
their level of knowledge and fault.’
