📚 Year 12 OCR Law: Essay Writing Framework and Model Answers | Year 12 OCR 法律：论文写作框架与范文
The Year 12 OCR Law syllabus challenges students to master both knowledge and application. This article provides a clear essay writing framework, complete with model answers, to help you structure problem questions and evaluation essays effectively. By following these guidelines, you can present legal arguments with confidence and precision.
Year 12 OCR 法律教学大纲要求学生既要掌握知识，又要学会应用。本文提供清晰的论文写作框架，并附有范文，帮助你有效组织场景题和评估题。遵循这些指导原则，你就能自信而精准地呈现法律论证。
1. Understanding OCR Law Essay Requirements | 理解OCR法律论文要求
The OCR AS Level Law specification (H015) comprises two examined papers: Paper 1 ‘The Legal System and Criminal Law’ and Paper 2 ‘Law Making and the Law of Tort’. Each paper includes problem questions that test your ability to apply legal rules to factual scenarios, and evaluation essays that require you to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of areas of law.
OCR AS 法律课程(代码 H015)包含两份试卷：卷一‘法律体系与刑法’，卷二‘法律制定与侵权法’。每份试卷都包括场景题，考查你将法律规则应用于事实情境的能力，也包括评估题，要求你分析某个法律领域的长处与不足。
Assessment objectives (AOs) are key: AO1 tests your recall of legal rules and cases, AO2 demands application to given facts, and AO3 rewards you for evaluating the law. A successful essay demonstrates a balance among all three, with particular emphasis on AO2 for problem questions and AO3 for evaluation essays.
评估目标是关键：AO1 考查你对法律规则和判例的记忆，AO2 要求你将知识应用到所给事实中，AO3 则奖励你对法律的评判。一篇成功的论文应三者兼顾，问题题侧重 AO2，评估题侧重 AO3。
Time management is essential. You should allocate roughly one minute per mark. For a 15-mark problem question, spend 15 minutes; for a 30-mark evaluation essay, allow 30 minutes. This discipline prevents you from running out of time on higher-mark questions.
时间管理至关重要。大约一分钟答一分。15 分的场景题用 15 分钟；30 分的评估题用 30 分钟。这种纪律可以避免你在高分题上时间不足。
2. The IRAC Framework for Problem Questions | 问题题的IRAC框架
The IRAC method – Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion – is the gold standard for answering problem questions. It provides a logical flow that examiners can follow easily, ensuring you do not miss critical steps.
IRAC 方法——问题、规则、应用、结论——是回答场景题的黄金标准。它提供了一个逻辑流程，考官容易跟进，也确保你不会漏掉关键步骤。
Begin by identifying the legal issue arising from the scenario. State the issue clearly, using the names of the parties and the area of law. For example, ‘The issue is whether Alex has committed assault against Ben under the common law.’
首先，识别情境中产生的法律问题。明确陈述该问题，使用当事人的名字和法律领域。例如，‘问题是 Alex 是否依普通法对 Ben 构成了企图伤害。’
Next, set out the relevant legal rule. Cite the definition of the offence or principle, mention the source – be it statute or common law – and refer to key precedents. For instance, for assault you would state: ‘Assault is an act that causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence, as defined in R v Ireland [1998] AC 147.’
接下来，列出相关的法律规则。引用罪行或原则的定义，说明其来源——无论是成文法还是普通法——并提及关键判例。例如，对于企图伤害，你可以说：‘企图伤害是指行为人使受害人感知即将遭受非法人身暴力的行为，定义见 R v Ireland [1998] AC 147。’
Then apply the law to the facts in detail. Do not just repeat the rule; explain how each element is satisfied or not satisfied by the given facts. Use the names of the characters and refer directly to the scenario. This is where you earn AO2 marks.
然后，将法律详细应用于事实。不要只是重复规则；要解释每一个要件是如何在给定事实中得到满足或不满足的。使用人物姓名并直接引述情境。这是你获取 AO2 分数的地方。
Finally, reach a reasoned conclusion. Your conclusion must follow logically from your application, and you may acknowledge any alternative outcomes. For example, ‘It is highly likely that Alex would be found liable for assault, although the remoteness of the threat might weaken the prosecution’s case.’
最后，得出有理有据的结论。你的结论必须从应用中合乎逻辑地推出，你也可承认其他可能的结果。例如，‘Alex 很可能被判犯有企图伤害罪，尽管威胁的间接性可能削弱检方的主张。’
3. Structuring Evaluation Essays | 评估题的结构
Evaluation essays require a different structure. OCR expects you to discuss a statement or area of law critically, showing awareness of differing viewpoints and recent reforms. The recommended structure is: Introduction, Arguments For, Arguments Against, and Conclusion.
评估题需要不同的结构。OCR 希望你批判性地讨论某一陈述或法律领域，展现对不同观点和近期改革的认识。推荐的结构是：引言、支持论点、反对论点、结论。
In the introduction, unpack the statement and outline the lines of argument you will pursue. Do not simply repeat the question; indicate the key themes. For example, ‘The statement raises questions about the effectiveness of custodial sentences and whether alternatives such as community orders better serve the aims of sentencing.’
在引言部分，解析该陈述并概括你将展开的论证线索。不要简单重复题目；要指出关键主题。例如，‘该陈述对监禁刑的有效性提出了质疑，并引发对社区令等替代方式是否更能实现量刑目的的思考。’
For each argument, use the PEEL approach: Point, Evidence, Explanation, Link. State a clear point, support it with a case, statute, or statistic, explain its significance, and link back to the statement. This ensures your essay remains tightly focused on the question.
每一个论点，都可采用 PEEL 法：观点、证据、解释、回链。提出一个明确观点，用判例、法条或统计数据加以支撑，解释其意义，并回链至该陈述。这样能确保文章始终紧扣问题。
You must consider counter-arguments. Even if you personally agree with the statement, acknowledge the strongest opposing views and show why you find them less persuasive. This demonstrates AO3 skills at a higher level.
你必须考虑反方论点。即使你个人同意该陈述，也要承认最强有力的反对意见，并说明为何你认为它们说服力较弱。这将展现更高层次的 AO3 能力。
Conclude by weighing up both sides and offering a personal, justified view. Avoid sitting on the fence; the examiner wants to see your judgement. For instance, ‘While custodial sentences serve a necessary retributive and deterrent function, the evidence suggests that community orders achieve lower reoffending rates for non-violent offenders.’
结尾时权衡双方，给出有依据的个人观点。避免模棱两可；考官希望看到你的判断。例如，‘尽管监禁刑履行了必要的报应和威慑功能，但证据表明，对于非暴力罪犯，社区令能实现更低的再犯率。’
4. Identifying the Issues Accurately | 准确识别法律问题
A common pitfall is misreading the scenario and missing a key issue. In criminal law, look for the actus reus and mens rea elements of specific offences. If the scenario mentions a punch, consider s.47 ABH; if a weapon is used, consider s.20 or s.18 wounding.
一个常见陷阱是误读情境而遗漏关键问题。在刑法中，要寻找具体罪行的犯罪行为和犯罪意图要素。如果情境提及一拳，考虑第 47 条实际身体伤害；如果用了武器，则考虑第 20 条或第 18 条的伤害。
In tort law, an event with a broken leg may point to negligence. Check the three-part test from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605: duty of care, breach, and causation. Always ask: did the defendant owe a duty? Did they fall below the standard of care? Was the damage not too remote?
在侵权法中，导致腿部骨折的事件可能指向过失侵权。检查 Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 案中的三阶段测试：注意义务、违反义务和因果关系。始终要问：被告是否负有义务？其行为是否未达到合理注意标准？损害是否不是过于遥远？
Read the scenario at least twice before you begin writing. Underline any words that suggest an element of an offence or tort, such as ‘intentionally’, ‘recklessly’, ‘pushed’, ‘warned’, or ‘stormy weather’. These clues guide your analysis.
动笔前至少阅读情境两遍。在任何暗示罪行或侵权行为要素的词语下划线，比如‘故意地’、‘鲁莽地’、‘推’、‘警告过’或‘暴风雨天气’。这些线索能引导你的分析。
If a scenario involves multiple defendants, list each separately and examine their potential liability. Do not blend their acts together unless they were part of a joint enterprise. This systematic approach prevents omission of marks.
如果情境涉及多个被告，则逐一列出并分别审查其潜在责任。除非他们构成共同犯罪，否则不要混淆各自的行为。这种系统方法可防止漏掉得分点。
5. Stating the Relevant Law with Precision | 精确陈述相关法律
Marks are awarded for accurate knowledge of legal principles. For each issue, set out the legal definition verbatim where possible, and cite the relevant Act or case. In criminal law, memorise the key sections of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the definitions for assault, battery, ABH, and GBH.
法律原则的准确掌握才能得分。对于每个问题，尽可能逐字写出法律定义，并引用相关法案或判例。在刑法中，要熟记《1861年侵害人身罪法》的关键条文以及企图伤害、殴打、实际身体伤害和严重身体伤害的定义。
For example, state: ‘Battery is the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another person, as per Lord Lane CJ in R v Venna [1976] QB 421.’ Do not just write ‘the defendant hit the victim’, because that conflates fact with law.
例如，要写出：‘殴打是指故意或鲁莽地对他人施加非法暴力，依据首席法官 Lane 勋爵在 R v Venna [1976] QB 421 案中的判决。’不要只写‘被告打了受害人’，因为这混淆了事实与法律。
When you cite a case, ensure it is relevant to the proposition you are advancing. If you are discussing causation, use R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95 for the principle that the victim’s reaction must be reasonably foreseeable. Avoid dropping in case names without connecting them to the rule.
引用判例时，要确保其与你提出的主张相关。如果你在讨论因果关系，则应引用 R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95 来说明受害人的反应必须是可合理预见的这一原则。避免生硬套入案例名称而不将其与规则联系起来。
If there is a recent Supreme Court ruling, mention it to show contemporary awareness. For instance, in negligence essays, reference Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4 to discuss the incremental approach to duty of care.
如果有近期的最高法院裁决，应提及以展现你对当代法律发展的了解。例如，在过失侵权论文中，引用 Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4 来讨论注意义务的渐进式方法。
6. Applying Law to Facts in Depth | 将法律深入应用于事实
The application section is where high marks are earned. Use a ‘ping-pong’ technique: state a factual snippet, then immediately link it to a legal element. For example, ‘Tom raised his fist – an act – and Gina saw this, causing her to fear she was about to be hit. This satisfies the actus reus of assault as applied in Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983) 76 Cr App R 234.’
应用部分是获取高分的地方。使用‘乒乓’技巧：陈述一个事实片段，然后立刻将其与某法律要件联系起来。例如，‘汤姆举起了拳头——这是一个行为——吉娜看到后，害怕自己即将被打。这满足了企图伤害的犯罪行为要件，正如 Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983) 76 Cr App R 234 案中适用的那样。’
Consider both sides. If an element is ambiguous, say so. For example, ‘It is unclear whether the threat was immediate enough for assault because Tom was standing three metres behind a glass door. The court might distinguish this from R v Ireland, where silent phone calls sufficed.’
要考虑正反两面。如果某个要件模棱两可，就明确指出来。例如，‘尚不清楚该威胁对于企图伤害而言是否足够即时，因为汤姆站在三米外的玻璃门后面。法院可能将此与 R v Ireland 案区分开来，后者中无声电话就已足够。’
In tort law, when assessing breach of duty, use the factors from s.2(3) of the Compulsory Insurance Act: likelihood of harm, seriousness of potential injury, social value of the activity, and cost of precautions. Weigh these against the facts. ‘Driving at 40 mph near a school posed a high likelihood of harm to children; the seriousness of injury could be catastrophic; the social value of speeding is nil, and the cost of slowing down to 20 mph was minimal.’
在侵权法中，评估是否违反义务时，可运用《强制保险法》第 2(3) 条中的因素：伤害发生的可能性、潜在伤害的严重性、活动的社会价值以及预防措施的成本。将这些与事实进行权衡。‘在学校附近以 40 英里每小时的速度行驶，对儿童造成伤害的可能性很高；伤害的严重性可能是灾难性的；超速的社会价值为零，而减速至 20 英里每小时的预防成本微乎其微。’
Do not state the law and then simply assert ‘this applies here’. Explain why it applies, using the facts as the reason. Every application sentence should contain a fact and a legal consequence.
不要先陈述法律，然后简单断言‘这在此处适用’。要使用事实作为理由来解释为何适用。每一个应用句子都应包含一项事实和一个法律后果。
7. Reaching a Well-Reasoned Conclusion | 得出充分论证的结论
Your conclusion must be consistent with your analysis. It should summarise the likely outcome and, if appropriate, mention any defences or partial defences that might reduce liability, such as loss of control or consent.
你的结论必须与分析一致。它应总结可能的结果，并在适当情况下提及任何可能减轻责任的抗辩或部分抗辩，比如失控或同意。
Use hedging language such as ‘It is submitted that’, ‘It is likely that’, or ‘The court would probably find’. This shows you understand that legal outcomes are not always binary and may hinge on judicial interpretation.
使用‘据认为’、‘很可能是’或‘法院可能会判定’等委婉表达。这表明你理解法律结果并非总是非此即彼，而可能取决于法官的解释。
In an evaluation essay, your conclusion should present a definitive stance, supported by the weight of your analysis. For instance, ‘Overall, the current law on consent in non-fatal offences is unnecessarily complex and in need of reform, but the proposals in the Law Commission’s Report No.361 offer a coherent way forward.’
在评估题中，你的结论应提出一个明确的立场，并以你分析的权重为支撑。例如，‘总体而言，目前非致命犯罪中关于同意的法律过于复杂，亟需改革，但法律委员会第 361 号报告中的提议提供了一个连贯的前进方向。’
Avoid introducing new arguments in the conclusion. It should only draw together threads already discussed in the body of your essay. If you raise a new point, you risk confusing the examiner and losing marks for structure.
避免在结论中引入新论点。它只应收拢正文中已经讨论过的线索。如果你提出新观点，会让考官感到困惑，并在结构上失分。
8. Model Answer: Criminal Law Problem Question | 范文：刑法场景题
Question: Josh, angry at Mia, throws a glass at her but misses. The glass smashes against the wall and a shard cuts Mia’s arm, requiring stitches. Discuss Josh’s criminal liability for non-fatal offences against the person.
问题： 乔什对米娅很生气，向她扔了一个玻璃杯但没有砸中。杯子在墙上摔碎，一片碎片割伤了米娅的手臂，需要缝合。讨论乔什对米娅可能承担的人身伤害刑事责任。
Issue: The issue is whether Josh is liable for assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, or malicious wounding under s.20.
问题： 问题是乔什是否需承担企图伤害、殴打、《1861年侵害人身罪法》第47条下殴打导致实际身体伤害(ABH)的责任，或第20条下的恶意伤人。
Rule: Assault requires an act causing apprehension of immediate unlawful violence (R v Ireland). Battery is the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force (R v Venna). ABH is assault or battery occasioning ‘actual bodily harm’, defined as any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim (R v Miller [1954] 2 QB 282). Malicious wounding under s.20 requires a wound – a break in the continuity of the whole skin – and the defendant must intend or be reckless as to some harm (R v Savage, DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699).
规则： 企图伤害需要行为人作出令他人感知即将遭受非法暴力的行为(R v Ireland)。殴打是故意或鲁莽地施加非法暴力(R v Venna)。ABH 指伴随实际身体伤害的企图伤害或殴打，实际身体伤害定义为任何旨在妨害受害人健康或舒适的伤害或损伤(R v Miller [1954] 2 QB 282)。第20条下的恶意伤人要求有‘伤口’——即完整皮肤的连续性破裂——且被告须意图造成某种伤害或对此罔顾后果(R v Savage, DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699)。
Application: When Josh threw the glass, Mia would have apprehended immediate violence, satisfying assault. However, the glass missed, so no direct force was applied. Battery would arise only indirectly, as in DPP v K [1990] 1 WLR 1067, where the force was applied via a medium. Here, the glass smashing and a shard cutting Mia’s arm is an indirect application of force. Mia’s cut requiring stitches is actual bodily harm, so an ABH charge is applicable. For s.20, the cut is a wound as it broke the skin. The remaining question is whether Josh had the mens rea for malicious wounding – intention or recklessness as to some harm. Throwing a glass at someone indicates at least recklessness, so s.20 is likely established.
应用： 乔什扔玻璃杯时，米娅会感知到即时暴力，这满足了企图伤害。但杯子未砸中，因此没有直接施加暴力。殴打仅能间接成立，如 DPP v K [1990] 1 WLR 1067 案所示，暴力可通过介质施加。本案中，杯子破碎，碎片割伤米娅手臂，属于间接施加暴力。米娅需要缝合的伤口构成实际身体伤害，因此可适用 ABH 指控。就第20条而言，割伤构成伤口，因为皮肤破裂。余下的问题是乔什是否具有恶意伤人的犯罪意图——意图或罔顾后果造成某种伤害。向人扔玻璃杯至少表明罔顾后果，因此第20条很可能成立。
Conclusion: Josh is most likely liable for malicious wounding under s.20, as all actus reus and mens rea elements are satisfied. The lesser offence of ABH is also made out in the alternative.
结论： 乔什最有可能需承担第20条下的恶意伤人责任，因为所有犯罪行为和犯罪意图要件均已满足。较轻微的 ABH 罪名也可作为替代成立。
9. Model Answer: Tort Law Problem Question | 范文：侵权法场景题
Question: Lara, a café owner, mopped the floor but failed to put out a warning sign. Tom, a customer, slipped on the wet floor and broke his wrist. Advise Tom on a claim in negligence under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
问题： 拉拉是一家咖啡馆的店主，她拖了地但未放置警示牌。顾客汤姆在湿滑地板上滑倒，手腕骨折。请根据《1957年占有人责任法》，就汤姆在过失侵权中的索赔提供建议。
Issue and Rule: Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, an occupier owes a common duty of care to lawful visitors. S.2(2) requires the occupier to take such care as is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which they are invited.
问题与规则： 根据《1957年占有人责任法》，占有人对合法到访者负有普通注意义务。第2(2)条要求占有人采取合理的注意，确保到访者在为其受邀目的而使用场所时是合理安全的。
Application: Lara, as café owner, is an occupier. Tom was a lawful visitor – a customer. By mopping the floor and leaving it wet without signage, Lara created a foreseeable risk of slipping. Under s.2(3)(a), Lara should have expected children or less careful visitors might not appreciate the danger. A warning sign costs almost nothing, so failing to place one falls below the standard of a reasonable occupier. Tom’s broken wrist is clearly damage that was caused by the breach.
应用： 拉拉作为咖啡馆老板，是占有人。汤姆是合法到访者——一名顾客。拉拉拖地后未放置任何标志便走开，制造了可预见的滑倒风险。根据第2(3)条(a)项，拉拉应当预见到儿童或不太谨慎的到访者可能无法意识到该危险。警示牌成本几乎为零，因此未放置警示牌的行为未达到合理占有人的标准。汤姆手腕骨折显然是因该违反义务行为造成的损害。
Defences: Lara might argue volenti non fit injuria, but Tom did not willingly accept the risk of an unmarked wet floor. Contributory negligence could be raised if Tom was distracted or running, but no such facts are given. The defence is unlikely to succeed.
抗辩： 拉拉可能会主张风险自愿承担，但汤姆并未自愿接受一个未做标识的湿滑地板的风险。如果汤姆当时分心或跑动，可提出共同过失，但情境并未给出这样的事实。该抗辩不太可能成功。
Conclusion: Tom is likely to succeed in a claim under the 1957 Act and would be awarded damages for his injury, subject to any reduction for contributory negligence if raised successfully.
结论： 汤姆很可能依据1957年法案成功索赔，并将获得伤害赔偿，除非成功提出共同过失而导致赔偿额扣减。
10. Model Answer: Evaluation Question on Sentencing | 范文：量刑评估题
Question: ‘Custodial sentences are the most effective way of dealing with offenders.’ Critically evaluate this statement. [30 marks]
问题： ‘监禁刑是处理罪犯最有效的方式。’批判性评估此陈述。[30分]
Introduction: The statement touches on the purposes of sentencing under s.142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: punishment, reduction of crime, reform and rehabilitation, protection of the public, and reparation. Custody achieves some aims well but may fall short on others, particularly rehabilitation.
引言： 该陈述涉及《2003年刑事司法法》第142条规定的量刑目的：惩罚、减少犯罪、改造与复归、保护公众以及补偿受害人。监禁刑能很好地实现某些目标，但在其他目标上可能有所不足，尤其是在复归方面。
Arguments For: Custodial sentences serve retributive justice, satisfying public demand for punishment. High prison populations can incapacitate dangerous offenders, thereby protecting society. The threat of imprisonment also deters potential offenders, as seen in the sharp drop in knife crime after custodial guidelines were strengthened.
支持论点： 监禁刑实现了报应正义，满足了公众对惩罚的需求。高在押人数能剥夺危险罪犯的犯罪能力，从而保护社会。监禁的威胁也能威慑潜在犯罪者，例如在持刀犯罪量刑指南加强后，此类犯罪数量急剧下降。
Arguments Against: Reoffending rates for short custodial sentences are alarmingly high; over 60% of prisoners serving less than 12 months reoffend within a year. Prisons are overcrowded and under-resourced, hampering rehabilitation programmes. Community orders, with tailored requirements like drug rehabilitation, have shown better outcomes in reducing reoffending, as evidenced by Ministry of Justice statistics.
反对论点： 短期监禁刑的再犯率高得惊人；服刑不足12个月的囚犯中，超过60%在一年内重新犯罪。监狱人满为患且资源不足，阻碍了复归改造计划的实施。社区令配合药物康复等针对性要求，在降低再犯方面表现出更好的效果，司法部的统计数据可资佐证。
Conclusion: While custodial sentences are indispensable for serious violent and sexual offenders to protect the public and deliver retribution, they are far from the most effective means for many non-violent offenders. A smarter mix of community orders and restorative justice would better serve the aims of reform and crime reduction.
结论： 尽管对于严重暴力犯罪和性犯罪者，监禁刑在保护公众和实现报应方面不可或缺，但它远非处理许多非暴力罪犯的最有效手段。更灵活地结合社区令和恢复性司法，才能更好地服务于改造和减少犯罪的目标。
11. Common Mistakes to Avoid | 常见错误及其避免
One frequent error is treating a problem question like an evaluation essay and spending too long discussing the background of the law rather than applying it. Keep the rule section concise and spend the bulk of your time on application.
一个常见错误是把场景题当成评估题，花费太多时间讨论法律背景而非应用法律。规则部分要简洁，把大部分时间花在应用上。
Another mistake is failing to cite case names accurately. Even if you recall the principle, a missing case name can cost easy AO1 marks. Create a revision table of the 20 most important criminal and tort cases and review them regularly.
另一个错误是未能准确引用判例名称。即使你记住了原则，缺少判例名称也会丢掉容易取得的 AO1 分数。制作一张包含 20 个最重要刑法和侵权法判例的复习表，并定期回顾。
Students often ignore the call of the question. If the question asks ‘Discuss the extent to which…’, you must address both the extent and the limits. Underline directive words like ‘critically evaluate’, ‘advise’, or ‘explain’ and tailor your answer accordingly.
考生常忽视题目指令。如果题目问‘讨论……在多大程度上……’，你就必须既讨论其程度又讨论其局限。在‘批判性评估’‘提供建议’或‘解释’等指令词下划线，并据此调整你的回答。
In evaluation essays, avoid a purely descriptive list of points. You must weigh arguments, use connectives such as ‘however’, ‘furthermore’, and ‘on the other hand’ to show analysis, not just description.
在评估题中，避免纯粹描述性的罗列论点。你必须权衡论点，使用‘然而’‘此外’‘另一方面’等连接词来体现分析，而非仅仅描述。
Finally, many candidates write a conclusion that is barely a sentence long. Take the time to synthesise your discussion and give a clear final verdict, especially in evaluation questions where the conclusion carries significant weight.
最后，许多考生的结论只有短短一句话。花时间综合你的讨论，给出清晰的最终判断，尤其是在结论占有相当分量的评估题中。
12. Time Management and Exam Tips | 时间管理与考试技巧
Divide your time according to marks. For Paper 1, which has 30-mark and 15-mark questions, start with the highest-mark question to maximise the marks you gather while your energy is fresh.
根据分数分配时间。针对包含 30 分和 15 分题目的卷一，从分值最高的题目开始，趁精力充沛时获取最多分数。
Read the instructions carefully. You may have a choice of questions; choose the ones for which you can immediately recall relevant cases and principles. Do
Published by TutorHao | Year 12 法律 Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
屏轩国际教育cambridge primary/secondary checkpoint, cat4, ukiset,ukcat,igcse,alevel,PAT,STEP,MAT, ibdp,ap,ssat,sat,sat2课程辅导，国外大学本科硕士研究生博士课程论文辅导Cancel reply