Description
Introduction to Law and its Study – UK English Legal System
There needs to be a slightly more rigorous focus on the actual question set. You are asked to discuss amending s2 of the Suicide Act in the context of the slippery slope argument – but at no stage do you explicitly refer to the slippery slope in your essay. Some of your arguments are clearly relevant to this, but you need to do more to make it clear that you are addressing the question you have been asked to discuss directly. This is simply a case of tying your argument into the title more explicitly.
Indicate that you are aware of – but not persuaded by – opposing arguments. You present your view in extremely definite terms (certain consequences ‘will’ or ‘would’ arise from legalisation). You need to be slightly more circumspect than this (how can you be so sure?) – unless you can provide appropriate/adequate evidence in support of your assertions, which you do not do. Better to indicate that these are arguments you are persuaded by, but that other arguments also exist to the contrary (e.g. autonomy) which you find less compelling, explaining why.
Finally, there is still some work to do around referencing. You need to be consistent in style throughout (and you haven’t necessarily stuck to OSCOLA – make sure you revisit the guidance on the Intro to Law Canvas site and apply this), and – importantly – you need to refer to sources more effectively/appropriately. There are a number of instances where evidence/authority is required in terms of reference to primary sources (e.g. to Bills, Parliamentary debates/votes, legislation from other jurisdictions, etc., and/or to any form of authority/evidence for the points that you make, but where these are either entirely absent or elsewhere you provide only a vague/general reference to secondary literature.
This is feedback from previous coursework on the same topic. However, the word count is different. Please follow the feedback provided to avoid any mistakes.
