Basically I couldn't see an LNAT forum for this year so I'd thought I would make one, mainly because I have a question.
Is it worth stating your main argument in the introduction, and when stating your weaker argument disprove it afterwards? Or should I keep it balanced throughout and come to my conclusion at the end?
Any help appreciated!
Hey, I have some questions about the LNAT.
1.) I'm wanting to take the LNAT pretty soon (oct/nov) am I able to do this even if I'm not applying to a university that requires it?
2.) How long is your LNAT score valid/available for?
3.) Can you take the LNAT more then once? like over and over again?
4.) How long is the LNAT exam?
5.) What is deemed as a good score?
6.) If you get a bad score, does this show to every uni even if you don't state it?
You should tell the reader what you are going to argue at the outset.
I think by your second option you mean to suggest an essay where the reader can't tell what your position is until you suddenly introduce it in your final paragraph. This is a bad essay. You need to have an argument from start to finish, so that the reader can see that your conclusion is just that - something that follows from the series of points (along with objections and responses) you have made so far.
I get the impression that a lot of students are taught at school to write discursive essays that consist simply of a list of opinions on either side of a debate, and then a final paragraph pretty much arbitrarily taking one side or the other. If that's what you've been taught you need to unlearn it before you write the LNAT essay.
Consider the following argument:
"There are numerous mentally ill offenders in our prisons. This is shameful. The only point of punishment is deterrence. But to be deterred one needs to be a rational person, and a rational person is a person who understands the likely consequences of his or her actions. Mentally ill offenders are, by definition, less than fully rational. So they cannot be deterred, and should not be in prison."
1. Which of the following is an unarticulated assumption of the argument?
(a) There are numerous mentally ill offenders in our prisons.
(b) Imprisoning the mentally ill is shameful.
(c) Imprisonment is a form of punishment.
(d) Rational people understand the likely consequences of their actions.
(e) Those who cannot be deterred should not be in prison.
2. Which of the following is a flaw in the argument?
(a) It does not tell us anything about the definition of mental illness that it is using.
(b) It starts from the assumption that we should be ashamed of our prisons.
(c) It suggests that we have to embark on a very troublesome review of the way that imprisonment is used as a punishment.
(d) It does not allow for the possibility that some people who were not mentally ill when they offended might become mentally ill in prison.
(e) It relies on statistics.
3. Which of the following can we most reliably infer that the author of the argument believes?
(a) People should not be sent to prison except as a last resort.
(b) Mentally ill people should be treated in hospital for their illnesses.
(c) Offenders who are not mentally ill should always be punished by imprisonment.
(d) All offences have consequences.
(e) The point of punishment is not rehabilitation.
Consider the following passage:
"As the child grows up, the subjection of his conscience to the mind of the adult seems to him less legitimate and, except in cases of arrested moral development, ... unilateral respect tends of itself to grow into mutual respect and to the state of cooperation which constitutes the normal equilibrium. It is obvious that since in our modern societies the common morality which regulates the relations of adults to each other is that of cooperation, the development of child morality will be accelerated by the examples that surround it."
4. Which of the following most accurately captures the main idea of the passage?
(a) Children who are not set good moral examples will remain in a condition of arrested development.
(b) It is illegitimate for adults to rely on their authority in dealing with older children.
(c) The only way to run a modern society is by cooperation.
(d) Modern societies tend, by the kind of moral examples they set, to speed up the moral development of children.
(e) Young children do not respect anyone or anything.
5. Which of the following claims is made by the author of the passage?
(a) It is normal for adult human beings to cooperate.
(b) It is not respectful to defer to another person's authority.
(c) A young child will not learn to cooperate without the subjection of his or her conscience to the mind of an adult.
(d) Adults in modern societies always respect each other.
(e) Children develop in all sorts of different ways.