September 20, 2013 [LAWS 123 TEST CHEAT SHEET]
Each requirement on a separate line
Generally one noun verb or adjective on each line.
Words like 'any' 'in' etc go with any word as they cannot be satisfied by themselves
Must be able to ask a sensible question of each line.
Disjunctives - Separate lines 'and'
Conjunctives - Same line 'or'
Put 'ors' in capitals and ones that you add in for added clarity in square brackets.
e.g. removes, takes or carries = removes [OR] takes or carries
State the issue
Example: is “food” limited to any nutritious substance taken to maintain life and growth or
can it include liquids taken for this purpose?
Phrased as a question “is a *noun+ limited to… or can it include…?” “when a person *verbs+
something, are they limited to… or can they also…?” “when a person *verbs+ something, are
they limited to… or is it sufficient that they…?”
Has 2 limbs (LABEL THESE X, WIDE, Y, NARROW)
Neutral element that sides agree on – can be from dictionary
Uses the same word as in the legislation in the same sense and part of speech
If a person [verb] something, is it necessary to [neutral element] [distinction] (narrow
def/pros) or is it sufficient for [neutral element] whether or not [distinction] (wide
Is [noun] limited to [neutral element] [limiting factor] or can it also include [neutral
element] regardless of [limiting factor]?
Don't overcomplicate it and explain it thoroughly nothing is too small to include.
Primary meaning is strongest.
Only write down the definitions that you will actually talk about and make sense for the
Narrow limb has to exclude the wide.
Who it supports
Because it says this... September 20, 2013 [LAWS 123 TEST CHEAT SHEET]
And this suggests .....
What does this suggest about the other limb....
Therefore this argument supports limb/party....
This definition supports the pros/def by effectively setting out exactly the interpretation the
pros/def is arguing for
This definition offers some support to both sides. While the words … suggest the issue word
is limited in scope to …, the words … suggest it is wide enough to include …
The dictionary definition has no bearing on the issue and is therefore inconclusive
The defence/prosecution would argue that the main sense of the dictionary
definition supports the wide/narrow limb, as it describes (issue word) as …
The prosecution/defence would argue that [the sub sense of the definition supports
the narrow/wide limb]/[their limb is not excluded by the definition+ because …
The defence/prosecution would rebut this by arguing that the main sense of the
definition is the most common and primary definition, and therefore holds more
I suggest that overall the dictionary definition [tentatively] supports the narrow/wide
limb/is inconclusive as neither limb is conclusively supported or excluded.
The dictionary is a guide, but not determinative
Choose a neutral statement, not biased to either limb.
Often less is more, leaving a lot to assumption is a good idea as it is less likely to be
loaded or biased.
Choice example: put in both meanings and the issue word "the fish bowl fell on the
kittens basket and two animals were hurt. Gives the choice between either limb as
both are possible.
Anti loaded: Context supports one limb but you think of another. "The food at the
wine tasting was delicious" Think the food is wine because you are at a wine tasting
but there is equal chance they are talking about nibbles.
Think of an activity connected to the issue word for example premises? camping,
Example written in Normal English September 20, 2013 [LAWS 123 TEST CHEAT SHEET]
Uses issue word in same part of speech and sense of the word e.g.
intransitive/transitive (the plane dropped/he dropped the ball)
Relevant to distinction in issue statement
Neutral; not biased or loaded
Persuasive one way or the other, may be anti-loaded
State the example
Go through criteria
State which side it helps and explain why
i.e. show how this demonstrates that the natural an