📚 AS AQA Law: Case Analysis Practical Exercise | AS AQA 法律：案例分析实战演练
Mastering case analysis is the cornerstone of success in AS AQA Law. This practical guide walks you through the essential techniques, from issue spotting to structured application, using realistic scenarios based on criminal and tort law. Build confidence, avoid common pitfalls, and learn to think like a lawyer. Ready to transform your exam performance? Let’s dive in.
掌握案例分析是 AS AQA 法律成功的基础。这份实战指南将引导你掌握从发现问题到结构化应用的基本技巧，并结合刑法和侵权法的真实情景进行练习。你将建立信心，避开常见陷阱，学会像律师一样思考。准备好提升你的考试表现了吗？让我们开始吧。
1. Understanding the Case Analysis Task | 理解案例分析任务
In AS AQA Law papers, you will encounter problem questions that present a fictional scenario. Your task is not simply to recount legal rules but to apply them precisely to the facts given. Examiners look for a logical, well-reasoned argument that reaches a sustainable conclusion. This mirrors what solicitors and barristers do daily: advise a client on likely legal outcomes. A strong answer demonstrates both accurate knowledge of the law and the ability to use it as a tool in a new situation.
在 AS AQA 法律试卷中，你会遇到呈现虚构情景的问题。你的任务不是简单地复述法律规则，而是将其精准地应用于给出的事实。考官希望看到逻辑严密、推理充分的论证，并得出站得住脚的结论。这正反映了事务律师和出庭律师的日常工作：就潜在的法律结果为客户提供建议。一份优秀的答案既能展示准确的法律知识，又能体现将法律作为工具应用于新情境的能力。
Problem questions typically focus on one or two areas of substantive law you have studied, such as non-fatal offences against the person, property offences, or negligence. The instruction will often be ‘Advise X on their criminal liability’ or ‘Discuss any claims in tort arising from this incident’. Your answer must be focused on the named party and address all possible legal issues arising from the facts, even if some liability seems minimal. Ignoring a subtle nuance can cost marks.
问题情景通常集中在你已学过的一两个实体法领域，例如对人身的非致命犯罪、财产犯罪或过失侵权。题目要求通常是 “就 X 的刑事责任向其提供建议” 或 “讨论此事件可能引发的任何侵权索赔”。你的回答必须围绕指定当事方，并处理事实引发的所有法律问题，即使某些责任看似微小也不可忽略。忽视细微的差别可能损失分数。
2. The IRAC Method: Your Guiding Framework | IRAC 方法：你的指导框架
IRAC – Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion – is the most widely recommended structure for law problem questions. It ensures your answer is systematic and complete. While you should not label sections arbitrarily in the exam, using this mental framework will help you build a cohesive argument for each potential claimant or defendant. Start by identifying the legal issue raised, state the relevant rule with supporting authority, apply that rule to the specific facts, and then draw a tentative conclusion.
IRAC —— 即问题、规则、应用、结论 —— 是法律问题题目中最广为推荐的结构。它能保证你的回答系统且完整。虽然在考试中你不应随意标出各部分标题，但使用这一思维框架将帮你为每一潜在的原告或被告构建连贯的论证。首先识别所涉法律问题，陈述相关规则并辅以判例依据，然后将规则应用于具体事实，最后得出暂定结论。
Some teachers add an extra ‘P’ for Policy or an ‘O’ for Outcome, but at AS level, a disciplined IRAC approach is perfectly sufficient. The real skill lies in the ‘Application’ stage, where you must weave facts and law together. Avoid the common mistake of writing a lengthy essay on the general law before even mentioning the scenario. Each paragraph of legal principle should be immediately followed by its application. This keeps your answer relevant and earns higher marks.
有些老师会加上代表 “政策” 的 P或代表 “结果” 的 O，但在 AS 阶段，严谨的 IRAC 方法完全足够。真正的技巧在于 “应用” 阶段，你必须将事实与法律编织在一起。要避免在提及情景之前长篇大论地写一般法律原则。每一段法律原则之后都应紧跟其应用。这样可以保持答案的针对性，从而获得更高分数。
3. Issue Spotting: Identifying Legal Questions | 发现问题：识别法律问题
Issue spotting is the first critical step. Read the scenario at least twice, highlighting every action that could give rise to liability. Ask yourself: ‘What has happened? Who did what to whom? Was there any harm? What was the defendant’s state of mind?’ For criminal law, think in terms of actus reus and mens rea elements of specific offences. For tort, identify duty of care, breach, causation, and damage. Do not jump to conclusions yet; simply list every possible legal issue you notice.
发现问题是关键的第一步。情景至少阅读两遍，标出每一个可能引发责任的行为。问自己：“发生了什么？谁对谁做了什么？是否有伤害？被告当时的心态如何？” 在刑法中，思考特定犯罪的犯意和犯行要件。在侵权法中，识别注意义务、违反、因果关系和损害。现阶段不要急于下结论；只需列出你注意到的所有法律问题。
Look for multiple parties and overlapping offences. For example, a single punch might raise issues of assault, battery, and perhaps ABH under s.47 OAPA 1861 if injury occurs. If the victim is a police officer, you might also consider assault on a constable in the execution of duty. In tort, a car accident might involve negligence, vicarious liability, and even occupiers’ liability if on private land. A complete issue list ensures you do not leave out a claim that could gain you extra marks.
留心多方当事人和重叠的犯罪行为。例如，一次拳击可能引发恐吓、殴打，若造成伤害还可能涉及《1861 年侵犯人身罪法》第 47 条的实际身体伤害。如果受害者是警察，你可能还需考虑袭击正在执行职务的警察。在侵权法中，一场车祸可能涉及过失侵权、替代责任，甚至若发生在私人土地上还可能涉及占用人责任。一份完整的问题清单能确保你不会遗漏可以为你赢得额外分数的索赔。
4. Rule: Stating the Relevant Law | 规则：陈述相关法律
Once you have spotted the issues, the next step is to state the legal rule accurately. For each potential offence or tort, define the actus reus and mens rea (for crime) or the elements of the cause of action (for tort). Use key case names and, where appropriate, statute sections. For instance, when discussing battery, note that it involves the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force (R v Ireland). When stating the rule for negligence, set out the Caparo Industries plc v Dickman test: foreseeability of damage, proximity, and it must be ‘fair, just and reasonable’ to impose a duty.
一旦发现问题，下一步是准确陈述法律规则。对每一可能的犯罪或侵权行为，定义其犯行和犯意（就犯罪而言）或诉因要件（就侵权而言）。使用关键案例名称，并在适当情况下引用法条。例如，讨论殴打时，说明其涉及故意或轻率地施加非法武力（R v Ireland）。陈述过失侵权规则时，列出 Caparo Industries plc v Dickman 测试：损害可预见性、邻近性，以及施加义务必须 “公平、公正且合理”。
Do not just recite case names without explanation. Show the examiner that you understand why the case matters. For example, ‘The meaning of “immediate” in assault was extended in Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police Station, where the defendant looking through a window late at night was held to place the victim in fear of immediate force even though the defendant remained outside.’ This demonstrates depth. Remember that the rule must be stated before you apply it, but keep the statement concise and focused only on what is needed for the facts.
不要只是背诵案例名称而不加解释。要向考官展示你理解该判例为何重要。例如，“在 Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police Station 案中，法庭将‘即时’暴力的含义扩大，认定被告深夜向窗户内张望的行为使受害者害怕即将遭受即时的武力，即使被告仍在屋外。” 这展现了理解的深度。记住，规则必须在应用前陈述，但陈述应简洁，只聚焦于事实所需。
5. Application: Applying Law to Facts | 应用：将法律应用于事实
This is where many students fall short. Application means taking each element of the legal rule and asking, ‘Is this satisfied by the facts?’ It is not a summary of what happened. You must explicitly link the facts to the law. For example, if the scenario says ‘Tom pushed Sam, causing Sam to stumble back and knock his head on a table’, your application for battery might be: ‘Tom’s push amounts to the application of unlawful force; there is no consent and no lawful excuse. The force caused Sam to stumble, satisfying the requirement of contact. Therefore, the actus reus of battery is present.’
这是许多学生失分的地方。应用是指将法律规则的每一个要件逐一用事实检验，问自己：“事实是否满足这一要件？” 这不是对事件的简单总结。你必须明确地将事实与法律联系起来。例如，如果情景是 “Tom 推了 Sam，导致 Sam 向后踉跄，头撞到桌子”，你对殴打的适用可以是：“Tom 推搡的行为构成非法武力的施加；不存在同意，也无合法理由。该武力导致 Sam 踉跄，满足了接触的要求。因此，殴打的犯行要件已具备。”
Use the language of the legal test directly in your application. If a statute uses ‘maliciously’, apply that term according to the definition in R v Cunningham or R v Savage. Discuss whether the defendant had the necessary intention or recklessness. For negligence breach, consider the standard of the reasonable person, as in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks, and apply the four factors from the Compensation Act 2006 if relevant. Always consider possible defences, even if you ultimately reject them on the facts. This shows comprehensive analysis.
在你的应用分析中直接使用法律测试的用语。如果法条使用 “恶意地” 一词，则根据 R v Cunningham 或 R v Savage 案的定义来运用该词。讨论被告是否具备必要的故意或轻率。对于过失侵权的违反义务，考虑 Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks 案中的理性人标准，并在适当情况下应用《2006 年赔偿法》的四个因素。始终考虑可能的抗辩理由，即使你最终基于事实予以否认。这展示了全面的分析。
6. Conclusion: Reaching a Reasoned Outcome | 结论：得出合理的判决
Your conclusion should be a concise statement of the overall likelihood of liability. It does not need to be absolute; indeed, law is often uncertain. Use cautious language such as ‘It is therefore likely that X will be found liable for…’ or ‘Z is likely to succeed in a claim for negligence because…’. If there is a strong counter-argument, acknowledge it. A balanced, evaluative conclusion impresses examiners far more than a dogmatic one.
你的结论应简明陈述承担责任的总体可能性。结论不必绝对；事实上，法律往往具有不确定性。使用谨慎的措辞，如 “因此，X 很可能被认定对……负有责任” 或 “Z 很可能在过失侵权索赔中胜诉，因为……”。如果存在强有力的反论，应予以承认。一个平衡、评估性的结论远比一个教条式的结论更能打动考官。
Do not introduce new law or facts in the conclusion. It should flow naturally from the application you have just completed. For each issue you identified, there should be a corresponding mini-conclusion. In a multi-issue problem, you can bundle them into an overall summary at the end, but ensure each defendant’s liability is clearly addressed. This structure makes it easy for the examiner to follow your reasoning and award credit for each analytical step.
不要在结论中引入新的法律或事实。它应自然地从你刚刚完成的应用分析中引出。对你识别出的每一个问题，都应有一个对应的小结论。在一个涉及多个问题的大题中，你可以在最后把它们综合成一个总体摘要，但要确保每个被告的责任都得到清晰的处理。这种结构使考官更容易理解你的推理过程，并为每一步分析授予分数。
7. Using Case Precedents Effectively | 有效使用判例法
Cases are the language of law. In AS AQA Law, you are expected to cite leading authorities to support your statement of the rule. However, you do not need to recite every detail of a case. Typically, a case name plus a brief statement of the principle it established is sufficient. For example: ‘A duty of care arises between road users (Nettleship v Weston).’ Or, for mens rea of ABH: ‘The mens rea is the same as for assault or battery; it is enough that the defendant intended or was reckless as to the infliction of unlawful force, even if they did not foresee actual bodily harm (R v Roberts).’
判例是法律的表达。在 AS AQA 法律中，你需要引用标志性判例来支持你对规则的陈述。但你不需要背诵案例的每一个细节。通常，案例名称加上对其确立的原则的简要说明就已足够。例如：“道路使用者之间产生注意义务（Nettleship v Weston 案）。” 或者，对于 ABH（实际身体伤害）的犯意：“其犯意与恐吓或殴打的犯意相同；被告只要意图或轻率地施加非法武力即可，即使他们没有预见到实际身体伤害（R v Roberts 案）。”
To show higher-level skill, you can draw analogies or distinguish cases. For instance, ‘Unlike the situation in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, here there is sufficient proximity between the police and the individual informant because the officers specifically undertook to protect them.’ This technique demonstrates that you are not just memorising but reasoning with authority. Build a mental bank of key cases for each topic and practise using them in context.
为了展现更高层次的技能，你可以进行类推或区分案例。例如，“与 Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 案的情形不同，本案中警察与特定线人之间有足够的邻近性，因为警方明确承诺保护他们。” 这一技巧表明你不仅是在记忆，而是在运用法律依据进行推理。为每个主题建立一个关键案例的心理库，并练习在具体情境中使用它们。
8. Common Pitfalls to Avoid in Case Analysis | 案例分析中需要避免的常见陷阱
One major pitfall is regurgitating prepared essays. A problem question demands a tailored response, not a general exposition. Another is mixing up legal tests – for example, applying the test for recklessness from R v Cunningham (subjective) to a strict liability offence, where it does not belong. Also, avoid conclusory statements without analysis: merely saying ‘D is liable for battery’ earns no marks without showing why the elements are met. Always unpack the reasoning step by step.
一个主要的陷阱是复述提前准备好的文章。问题题目要求的是有针对性的回答，而不是空泛的阐述。另一个陷阱是混淆法律测试标准 —— 例如，将 R v Cunningham 案中的（主观）轻率测试应用于严格责任犯罪，这是不当的。此外，要避免没有分析的结论性陈述：仅仅说 “被告承担殴打责任” 而没有说明为何要件已满足，这样的回答不会得分。一定要逐步展开推理。
Students sometimes forget to consider alternative offences or claims. If the facts might amount to common assault but not ABH, discuss both and explain why one is more appropriate. Similarly, do not overlook partial defences like loss of control or diminished responsibility in murder scenarios. Finally, manage your time. Spend the majority of your answer on application and analysis, not on embellishing the rule statement. Practise with a timer to calibrate your pace.
学生有时会忘记考虑替代罪名或索赔。如果事实可能构成普通恐吓/殴打而非 ABH，那么两者都要讨论，并解释为何某一罪名更为恰当。同样，不要忽略谋杀情景中的部分抗辩理由，如失控或减轻责任。最后，要管理好时间。将大部分回答时间花在应用与分析上，而不是堆砌规则陈述。使用计时器练习，以调整你的节奏。
9. Sample Scenario: Criminal Law (Non-Fatal Offences) | 示例场景：刑法（非致命犯罪）
Scenario: During an argument in a pub, Alex shouts at Ben, ‘I’m going to smash your face in!’ and takes a step forward. Ben, who is nervous, flinches and steps backward into Charlie, who falls and breaks his wrist. Alex then laughs and walks away.
情景： 在一场酒吧争执中，Alex 向 Ben 喊道：“我要把你的脸打烂！” 并向前迈了一步。紧张不安的 Ben 退缩了，向后退了一步撞到了 Charlie，后者摔倒在地并折断了手腕。接着 Alex 笑着走开。
Analysis – Issue 1: Assault on Ben. The rule: assault is an act which causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force (Fagan v MPC). Words alone can be enough (R v Ireland), and a conditional threat (‘your money or your life’) may still be assault. Here, Alex’s shouted words and step forward created an apprehension of immediate force. Ben flinched, indicating he feared force. Thus the actus reus is likely present. The mens rea is intention or recklessness as to causing such apprehension. Alex’s action seems deliberate. Conclusion: Alex is likely liable for assault against Ben.
分析 —— 问题 1：对 Ben 的恐吓。 规则：恐吓是使受害者担心即将遭受非法武力的行为（Fagan v MPC）。单凭言语可能就足够（R v Ireland），而附条件的威胁（“要钱还是要命”）仍可构成恐吓。此处，Alex 喊出的话语和向前的步伐使 Ben 担心即将遭受武力。Ben 的退缩表明他害怕遭受武力。因此犯行要件很可能满足。犯意是意图或轻率导致此种担心。Alex 的行为似属故意。结论：Alex 很可能对 Ben 承担恐吓责任。
Analysis – Issue 2: Battery on Ben? There was no physical contact between Alex and Ben, so no battery. However, if Ben’s flinch led to contact with another person, that might be an indirect battery? Alex’s act caused Ben to move and bump Charlie, but the immediate force was applied by Ben to Charlie, not by Alex to Ben. Thus no direct battery on Ben.
分析 —— 问题 2：对 Ben 的殴打？ Alex 和 Ben 之间没有身体接触，因此不构成殴打。但是，如果 Ben 的退缩导致了与他人的接触，这是否构成间接殴打？Alex 的行为导致 Ben 移动并撞到 Charlie，但即时武力是由 Ben 对 Charlie 施加的，而非 Alex 对 Ben。因此对 Ben 不存在直接的殴打。
Analysis – Issue 3: Liability for Charlie’s injury. Could Alex be liable for ABH under s.47 OAPA? ABH requires an assault or battery plus actual bodily harm. The causal chain ran from Alex’s shout to Ben’s flinch to Charlie’s fall. The courts accept ‘take your victim as you find him’ and intervening acts. However, Ben’s reaction was an instinctive response to Alex’s assault, not a free, voluntary act. Under R v Roberts, if the victim’s action was a reasonably foreseeable consequence, the defendant remains liable. Here, a person flinching and bumping into someone in a pub is foreseeable. The mens rea for s.47 is the same as for the assault. Thus Alex may be convicted of ABH on Charlie, even though he did not intend to harm Charlie.
分析 —— 问题 3：对 Charlie 伤害的责任。 Alex 是否可能根据《侵犯人身罪法》第 47 条承担 ABH 责任？ABH 要求恐吓或殴打加上实际身体伤害。因果链条从 Alex 的喊叫到 Ben 的退缩，再到 Charlie 摔倒。法庭接受 “接受受害者本来的情况” 原则，并考虑介入行为。然而，Ben 的反应是对 Alex 恐吓的本能反应，而非自由自愿的行为。根据 R v Roberts 案，如果受害者的行为是合理可预见的后果，被告仍须负责。此处，一个人在酒吧里退缩并撞到别人是可预见的。第 47 条的犯意与恐吓相同。因此，Alex 可能被判定对 Charlie 构成 ABH，即使他并不想伤害 Charlie。
Overall conclusion: Alex is likely guilty of assault on Ben and of s.47 ABH on Charlie. There is no battery on Ben. The case illustrates how a single incident can generate multiple offences and how legal causation can extend liability to unintended victims.
总体结论： Alex 很可能犯有对 Ben 的恐吓罪和对 Charlie 的 ABH 罪。不存在对 Ben 的殴打。本案例说明单一事件如何能产生多项犯罪，以及法律因果关系如何能将责任延伸至非预期的受害者。
10. Sample Scenario: Tort Law (Negligence) | 示例场景：侵权法（过失侵权）
Scenario: Maya, a cyclist, is riding along a narrow lane when a car driven by Dan passes very close to her. Maya swerves to avoid a parked van that Dan’s passage forced her towards, and she falls, breaking her ankle. There was no contact between the car and the bicycle. The van was parked halfway on the pavement by a builder, Ed, who was unloading tools.
情景： 骑自行车的 Maya 正在一条狭窄的小路上行驶，此时一辆由 Dan 驾驶的汽车紧贴着她驶过。为避开因 Dan 的通行而迫使她靠近的一辆停着的货车，Maya 急转方向，摔倒在地，脚踝骨折。汽车与自行车之间没有接触。货车由正在卸载工具的建造商 Ed 半停在人行道上。
Analysis – Issue 1: Dan’s negligence. Rule: A driver owes a duty of care to other road users, including cyclists (Nettleship v Weston). Dan passed very close, which arguably fell below the standard of a reasonable driver. Breach is judged by the four factors from the Compensation Act 2006 where relevant, but simply a lack of due care. Maya’s swerve was a reasonably foreseeable evasive action. Causation: ‘but for’ Dan’s close pass, Maya would not have swerved. The break of the ankle is a personal injury, a recognised form of damage. No novus actus interveniens: Maya’s reaction was not unreasonable. Dan’s liability for negligence seems strong.
分析 —— 问题 1：Dan 的过失。 规则：驾驶人对其他道路使用者（包括骑自行车者）负有注意义务（Nettleship v Weston 案）。Dan 车的紧贴驶过，可以说低于理性驾驶人的标准。违反义务的判定依据《2006 年赔偿法》的四个因素（在相关时），但简言之就是缺乏应有注意。Maya 的转向是可合理预见的避让动作。因果关系：“若非” Dan 的紧贴驶过，Maya 不会转向。脚踝骨折是人身伤害，属于公认的损害类型。无新介入行为：Maya 的反应并非不合理。Dan 的过失责任看起来可能性很大。
Analysis – Issue 2: Ed’s possible liability. Ed parked the van partially on the pavement while unloading. As an occupier or builder, he may owe a duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 or 1957 to lawful visitors (though Maya is not a visitor, but a highway user). More likely, a claim in common law negligence. The question is whether Ed’s parking created a foreseeable risk of harm. A van parked in a narrow lane might foreseeably cause cyclists to take evasive action, especially if the pavement is obstructed. However, Dan’s driving is the primary cause. Ed might share some liability (contributory negligence?), but Maya’s claim against Ed is weaker than against Dan.
分析 —— 问题 2：Ed 可能的责任。 Ed 在卸载时将货车半停在人行道上。作为占用人或建造商，他可能根据《1984 年或 1957 年占用人责任法》对合法到访者负有义务（尽管 Maya 不是到访者，而是道路使用者）。更可能的是普通法上的过失索赔。问题在于 Ed 的停车方式是否造成了可预见的伤害风险。在狭窄小路上停泊货车，尤其当人行道被堵塞时，可预见会迫使骑车者采取避让动作。然而，Dan 的驾驶是主要原因。Ed 可能分担部分责任（共同过失？），但 Maya 对 Ed 的索赔弱于对 Dan 的索赔。
Conclusion: Maya is likely to succeed in negligence against Dan. A claim against Ed is possible but more difficult to establish. This scenario demonstrates how multiple tortfeasors can be involved and the importance of careful causation analysis.
结论： Maya 很可能在对 Dan 的过失索赔中胜诉。对 Ed 的索赔有可能但更难成立。这一情景展示了多个侵权人如何被牵连，以及仔细分析因果关系的重要性。
11. Self-Assessment Checklist | 自我评估清单
Use the following checklist after writing a practice answer. Tick each box only if you are confident you have met the criterion.
在写完练习答案后使用以下清单。只有在你确信已达到标准时才在方框中打勾。
| English Criterion | 中文标准 |
| I identified all relevant legal issues from the facts. | 我从事实中识别出了所有相关法律问题。 |
| For each issue, I stated the correct legal rule with case or statutory support. | 对每个问题，我陈述了正确的法律规则，并附有判例或法条依据。 |
| My application explicitly linked specific facts to each legal element. | 我的应用分析明确地将具体事实与每个法律要件联系起来。 |
| I considered possible defences or alternative outcomes where appropriate. | 在适当之处我考虑了可能的抗辩或替代结局。 |
| My conclusion is balanced and supported by the preceding analysis. | 我的结论平衡且有先前的分析作为支撑。 |
| I used case names accurately and appropriately, not as empty labels. | 我准确恰当地使用了案例名称，而非空洞的标签。 |
| I avoided long general introductions and focused on the specific scenario. | 我避免了冗长的概括性介绍，聚焦于具体情景。 |
12. Final Tips for Exam Success | 考试成功的最后提示
Practise under timed conditions using past papers from the AQA website. Write out full answers, not just bullet points, to build stamina. After each practice, compare your answer to the mark scheme and a model answer if available. Pay attention to the weighting of marks: if a problem question is worth 30 marks, aim to spend about 35-40 minutes on it. Time allocation is as important as legal knowledge.
使用 AQA 官方网站上的历年真题进行限时练习。写出完整答案，而不仅是要点，以锻炼耐力。每次练习后，将你的答案与评分方案和（如有的话）范例答案进行比较。注意分数的权重：如果一道问题题价值 30 分，那么应打算花大约 35 至 40 分钟作答。时间分配与法律知识同等重要。
Develop a routine for the first few minutes of reading. Annotate the question paper: underline key words, write abbreviations for possible offences or torts in the margin, and draw a quick causation diagram if it helps. This planning phase will give your answer a coherent structure from the start. Finally, remain calm and methodical. Even if you spot an issue you are less confident about, apply the IRAC logic – you may still gain marks for identifying the issue and attempting analysis.
培养开始阅读题目的头几分钟的常规动作。在试卷上做批注：在关键词下划线，在空白处写下可能涉及的犯罪或侵权缩写，如果有助于理解，画一个简短的因果关系图。这一规划阶段将使你的答案从一开始就具有连贯的结构。最后，保持冷静和有条不紊。即使你发现一个你不太有把握的问题，也要运用 IRAC 的逻辑 —— 你可能仍然会因识别出问题并尝试分析而得分。
Published by TutorHao | Law 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