Difference between revisions of "Analysis v Description"

Analysis v description: How to do more of the former...

The key distinction between a good (2:1) and an excellent (1st) paper is usually depth of analysis as opposed to description. The easiest way to quantify the two terms is establishing why something is rather than what it is. The ‘what’ is not completely irrelevant, but its utility can be limited. How you analyse will differ slightly based on the type of exam, so this piece will address essay questions and problem questions separately.

Essay Questions

Analysis in essay questions fundamentally relies on the adoption of a position. Structure is key to good analysis, so setting yourself up for success with an introduction, main body, and conclusion is important.

We will take the question ‘Ghosts should have a proprietary interest in land. Discuss.’ as an example.

The Introduction

An introduction is vital to ensuring that your work is structured so the reader can follow your analysis. The introduction should broadly contain three elements: context/definitions, a roadmap, and the final overall argument. 10% of the overall word count tends to be a good benchmark.

First, your context/definitions will outline any descriptions which are important for the remainder of the essay.

• What are ghosts?
• Does the essay make any assumptions for simplicity (i.e., that they exist)?
• What is a brief definition of a proprietary interest and which type is discussed (ownership, easements etc)?

Furthermore, there will be far more to say than the allotted word count. Consequently, you should then limit the scope of the piece so that it is easier to have in depth analysis. You can say that the word ‘should’ in the context of the essay means to adhere to pragmatism in land law (which you would then define). You might also limit the scenario to haunted houses as that is where ghosts are most prominent.

Second, your roadmap will tell the reader exactly where the paper goes. The rule of three often works, but do not stick to that for the sake of it. If you have two sections in mind which work better, use them. I would be hesitant of having more than three in the context of City essays which tend to be 2,000 words. Your overall analysis will greatly benefit from the clarity of a roadmap.

Finally, in the same vein, your final sentence should have a thesis statement. Your question will often present a binary black and white choice. Things are often grey, and the answer is usually ‘it depends’. You might have a thesis like ‘Overall, this essay argues that ghosts in occupation of a property for over 100 years should be granted a range of proprietary interests in land, specifically tailored to support haunted tourism revenue, with the generated benefits allocated to property preservation through a trust’. There are no wrong theses. Go for a thesis that you feel you can have the most depth of analysis in.

The Main Body of the essay

But what is depth of analysis? You can conceptualise it by asking yourself two questions throughout, WFC (‘who f-ing cares’(insert your own choice of word here e.g. 'flipping'?)) and why.

WFC

First, a technique I was taught in sixth form, is reading through a section and writing WFC in the margins. This will help you substantiate arguments and provide depth, especially when analysing scholarship. For example, you may say ‘Dicey argues against the use of “wide, arbitrary, or discretionary powers”.’ This statement is mere description and will not push you into that upper band of marks. A WFC will naturally follow as its relevance to the paper is not explicitly stated. This helps you differentiate what is descriptive but does not necessarily provide a fix. This is where the second limb of analysis comes in.

Why?

Second, ask yourself ‘why’ until you are unable to. This is what most of your main body paragraphs will consist of. Below is an example:

• The temporal threshold for proprietary rights in ghosts should be 100 years. Why does long-term occupation matter?
• Long-term occupation, such as 100 years, mirrors legal concepts like adverse possession, where prolonged, uninterrupted presence strengthens a claim to property. Why should this apply to ghosts?
• The law emphasises the duration and continuity of occupation, not the nature of the occupant. If a ghost has been present for a century, it establishes a relationship with the land comparable to that of a human. Why is 100 years significant?
• A 100-year occupation signifies a deep, historical connection, surpassing generational shifts. This length of time embeds the ghost’s presence in the property’s identity, meriting legal recognition of an interest in the property.

You could likely ask more whys from here but, in the interest of brevity, that will suffice. You may recognise that this exercise also ends up creating a PEEL structure. You have your point for a paragraph and go back and forth between evidence and explaining the significance of that evidence until you can link back to your thesis statement.

Conclusion

Your conclusion is simple. You restate your thesis statement and what was discussed. You might find it beneficial to add a short sentence at the end called a trampoline point. It recognises the limitations of the essay and what could be discussed in future. In our example, it could be something like the impact of other ghouls on the discussion. It shows a deeper understanding of a topic if you can find a good trampoline point, but it is not essential.

Problem Questions

Analysis for problem questions differs slightly. The key takeaway will still be ‘why’ over ‘what’; however, your position differs and is often establishing why a certain legal argument is (un)likely to succeed. Generally, a problem question will feature an introduction, IRAC paragraphs, and a conclusion. The following short problem question will help illustrate: Walter Wisteria installs an automated garden gnome in his home that shoots water at anyone who enters his driveway uninvited. Unfortunately, the gnome accidentally sprays a delivery person, causing them to slip and injure themselves. Advise Mr Wisteria.

Introduction

A problem question introduction mirrors that of an essay. You want to outline at the outset what the underlying dispute is about. The above dispute concerns tortious personal injury. You then want to outline any law which is relevant for the entirety of the answer. The above may be warrant some indication of the general principles of tort law - duty of care, breach, causation, and harm. This may also lead you nicely to a roadmap and a general thesis statement. For questions that prompt you to advise, word your thesis statement as advice. For example, ‘Overall, Mr Wisteria will be advised that XYZ is the most likely outcome’. In problem questions, your thesis statement will have a lot of nuances. Details are often intentionally omitted to see whether you can catch them and their impact on the dispute.

The Main Body

Your main body will entirely comprise of IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) paragraphs. This section is formulaic. For each individual issue, have a new paragraph.

Start with what the issue is at hand is. The first issue in the above is establishing a duty of care. From there you should establish the law. For example, does a duty of care exist or is further consideration needed for a novel duty. When stating the law, you do not want to describe the facts of a case. For example, you do not want to state ‘The tortfeasor in Robinson injured an elderly woman…’ as it will use up valuable words. It may show some degree of knowledge through description but will not take you the top marks. Unless your circumstances mirror another case very closely, you should only ever mention the principle of a case. For example, you may say ‘Reasoning by analogy to previous duties, as in Robinson,…’ to try and establish a novel duty. Even if your circumstances mirror another case closely, you will only use the facts in passing. You want to say why a case was ruled a certain way rather than what the facts of the case are.

The goal is application of the law to the scenario. Again, there will be intentional omissions to test your analytical abilities. Considering you are aiming to assert whether an argument would be successful or not, this will lead to an often-nuanced position. As a word of caution, however, do not attempt to find facts which are clearly not there or are irrelevant. Do not, for example, attempt to argue that Mr Wisteria owed a duty of care because he was a public official when there is no evidence to suggest that he was acting in any official capacity during the incident in question. The example problem question is reductive and you will usually have plenty of information to find nuance in. For the conclusion, you want to assess the likelihood of success of a position based on the differentiators which have not been mentioned in the problem question. For example ‘In scenario A, a court is likely to rule B. In scenario X, Y is likely’.

Conclusion

Your conclusion (which is short and separate to the one which you have within your IRAC paragraphs) will broadly follow the same principle as the essay question conclusion. The main difference will be that a trampoline point may not be useful and you are summing up the advice rather than the argument. It may be shorter than an essay question conclusion because you have already given mini conclusions in your IRAC paragraphs.

Final Thoughts

Overall, you should establish ‘why’ something is rather than ‘what’ it is. You should ask yourself throughout the piece how something is relevant to your overall argument and you should make sure that your work, especially in an essay, is sufficiently limited in scope to ensure that you can have depth.