The Law National Admissions Test (LNAT 2016) is one of most challenging and complex assessments for aspiring undergrads. The test is designed to assist University Law Admissions teams with selecting the best students for their course. Law courses are naturally extremely demanding, and therefore the LNAT 2016 is unlike any other assessment, in that it does not measure intellectual ability. The test is a measure of common sense, competency and a person’s ability to prove that they can handle a university degree in law. In this blog, we’ll provide you with sample questions from each part of the test.
What does the LNAT 2016 test involve?
There are two parts to the LNAT 2016. The first is a multiple choice assessment, consisting of 12 passages, with 4 questions following each passage. For this part of the assessment, you will be given 1 hour and 35 minutes to complete all 42 questions.
The second is an essay based assessment, where you will choose a subject from a range of topics to argue for or against. You will be given a choice of 3 questions, of which you must answer one. The essay will need to be typed and submitted in an electronic format. You will have 40 minutes in which to complete the essay.
The LNAT does:
- Test candidates’ ability in regards to Verbal Reasoning;
- Assess candidates’ ability in Deductive and Inductive Reasoning skills;
- Evaluate candidates’ ability in regards to understanding, interpreting and analysing large amounts of information;
- Test candidates’ ability to distinguish between inferences, generalisations, opinions and conclusions.
The LNAT does not:
- Assess candidate’s intelligence regarding the law;
- Rely on candidate’s knowledge and understanding obtained from previous education;
- Expect candidates to have prior knowledge to the topics used in the assessment;
- Guarantee a candidate’s place at their chosen university.
LNAT 2016 Multiple Choice Assessment
Within the multiple-choice section of the LNAT 2016 exam, you will be provided with different styles of questions, in order to assess your comprehensive ability. It is important that you understand the skills being tested in this section and how they are extremely specific and tailored to aspiring law students.
The three main types of questions that you can expect to answer during the multiple-choice section are as follows:
- Argument Questions;
- Literary Style Questions;
- Analytical Questions.
Now, let’s take a look at a sample LNAT 2016 multiple choice style passage. Read through the passage and then have a go at answering the 2 questions below.
Diving In Football
Speaker A – The popularity of modern football has reached an all-time high. Football is by far and away the most popular sport in the world. In a way, you could argue football has transcended sport itself. It has become a language, a means to bridge the gap between different kinds of people. Unless, of course, you are American. Unfortunately, as its popularity grows, so does the desperation to win. Now more than ever, the financial rewards for winning in football have grown disproportionate, and this has given rise to a new form of sporting cancer – diving.
Diving (or flopping as it’s known in the USA) is the practice of faking or exaggerating injury, in order to con or cheat the referee – thereby gaining an advantage. Whether that advantage is a free kick or a penalty, the result is irrelevant. The bottom line is that this has to stop. The phrase ‘football is a man’s game’ is horrendously outdated, but there is some truth behind it. Not only is diving cheating, but it slows the game down. It’s embarrassing to watch perfectly healthy athletes pretending to be hurt, and it’s even worse when your team suffers the consequences of it. Cheating is cheating, plain and simple. We need to kick this out of the game, before it kills football altogether.
Speaker B – One of the biggest debates currently raging in football at the moment, particularly in the United Kingdom, is on the issue of diving. Speak to almost any football fan in the UK about the subject of diving, and you’ll be met with anger, rage and frustration. You’ll hear phrases such as ‘football is a man’s game’ and ‘diving is cheating’. Britain’s rage towards diving is palpable. More so than any other country, Britain holds the moral integrity of its footballers above all else. The ideal British footballer is strong, quick and above all else – honest. The problem with this image is that it’s just not true.
In reality, Britain has become absurdly hypocritical with its footballers. Diving is seen as one of the ultimate evils, yet crunching leg breaking tackles are openly cheered. A bevvy of footballers have lined up to admit that they openly set out to hurt the opposition, and certain managers rejoice in inflicting physical pain on the opposition. Yet in Britain, these people are not villains. Some of them are even seen as heroes. What is worse, openly jeopardising the career of a fellow professional, or seeking to gain an unfair advantage? Life is about taking advantage of your opportunities. In football, just as in any other area of life, there will be people who cheat to get ahead. I am not suggesting we should let this go unpunished, but it is what it is. Let’s not kid ourselves – diving IS cheating. However, it’s nowhere near as bad as British football would have you believe; and it certainly doesn’t put other players at risk.
1. What is the overall point that Speaker A is trying to make?
A – Diving is not manly.
B – Diving is embarrassing.
C – Diving is outdated
D – Diving needs to be stopped.
2. In paragraph 2, speaker A uses the term ‘bottom line’. What is the name for this type of phrase?
A – Idiomatic
B – Platonic
C – Idiosyncratic
D – Nomothetic
Question 1: What is the overall point that Speaker A is trying to make?
Answer = D. Diving needs to be stopped.
Explanation = Speaker A is clearly trying to show that diving needs to be stopped. While he does describe diving as embarrassing and not manly, these are both just used to illustrate a wider argument. Similarly, the term outdated is used to describe the term ‘football is a man’s game’, not diving itself.
Question 2: In paragraph 2, speaker A uses the term ‘bottom line’. What is the name for this type of phrase?
Answer = A. Idiomatic.
Explanation = An idiomatic phrase is an informal English expression, containing words which mean different to what is used in the expression. For example, bottom line does not mean the bottom/lowest/very last line. It means ‘the definitive truth is…’.
LNAT 2016 Essay Question
For Section B, you will be required to answer only one question out of three possible choices.Your answer should be no longer than 750 words, and a standard essay should be between 500 to 600 words. You will only have 40 minutes to conduct the entire essay, and so time management is crucial.
You will need to construct a clear and concise argument that is straight to the point, provides a quality argument, and most importantly, written in a persuasive, controlled and detailed structure.
The best preparation in regards to the essay section of the assessment, is to practice drafting essay plans and reading high quality newspapers (usually in the form of a broadsheet). Reading newspapers will allow you to gain a basic understanding into the goings-on in the world around you, including current affairs, economics, technological changes, and social developments. You are not expected to have a detailed understanding of the essay topics in which will appear in the LNAT 2016 exam. What is expected from you, is to create an argument based on explanations, assumptions and analysis that fundamentally form a persuasive and conclusive argument.
Let’s take a look at a sample essay based question:
‘Arranged marriages should no longer be tolerated within Western societies’. Discuss.
This question focuses on your ability to discuss your opinions and provide valuable explanations and examples and discuss the importance of both sides of the argument.
To argue ‘for’ banning arranged marriages, the key points you could include are:
- As human beings, it is in our nature to find our own life partner through freedom of choice. You could expand this claim by providing examples of freedom of choice, equality and diversity;
- It can be argued that arranged marriages can lead to abuse, neglect and deprivation that could have been avoided if a person was given the opportunity to make their own choices;
- Arranged marriage is a barrier to integration. It encourages segregation and rejects diversity and equality. You could talk about different cultures and how in some cultures, this is deemed to be the ‘norm’ and therefore prolongs their culture to live through exclusion and repression.
To argue ‘against’ arranged marriages, the key points you could include are:
- Religions and customs are difficult to separate and would prove extremely difficult to change. You can discuss how arranged marriages are more apparent in some cultures than in others, and highlight the implications of removing traditions from a culture that have ultimately been followed for hundreds of years;
- Perception of cultural attack. The perception of attacking a person’s beliefs and culture could be seen as discriminatory. People will feel victimised and disassociated with wider cultures. You can discuss how societies have become more notoriously aware of equality and discrimination. Attacking a person’s culture and their traditions could be seen to be an act of discrimination, which will ultimately cause conflict amongst cultures, religions and society;
- Taking away a person’s traditions. It may be tradition for arranged marriages to take place, and taking it away from their culture, it taking away what they believe in. From generations to generations, it is likely that the family member is subject to arranged marriages because family history has been no different;
Other Products You Might Be Interested In
If you are interested in more questions just like the above, make sure you purchase our Law National Admissions Test Guide. Containing essential info and more, this is the ultimate guide to passing the LNAT.
Here are two versions of what you should not do, but which seem to have been taught as correct models for an analytical essay:
- statement is correct because [argument A]
- statement is correct because [argument B]
- 'But some people disagree!':
- statement is incorrent because [argument C]
- statement is incorrect because [argument D]
- 'conclusion': 'Overall, I agree with argument D.'
- statement is correct because [argument A]
- on the other hand maybe statement is incorrect because [argument B]
- still, statement may be correct after all because [argument C]
- but some disagree with this too because [argument D]
- 'conclusion': 'Overall, I agree with argument D.'
What is wrong with these is that you are just listing a bunch of possible arguments for and against, with no critical analysis, before deciding apparently arbitrarily that one of them is best. Being fair to both sides does not mean presenting all arguments as if they were equally compelling. Some arguments are good and some are bad and you're supposed to distinguish the good from the bad. Being fair to both sides does mean showing that you understand the grounds on which your own view might reasonably be criticized.
What you should do is to make an argument for your viewright from the beginning of the essay. So (and this is not a template because there are several good ways to write an essay)
- Introduction should briefly unpack what the question is getting at and state the position that you will argue for
- Body of essay should pursue your line of argument (which can include more than one 'point in favour' of your view, but doesn't have to, as long as your argument is careful and interesting), and address possible objections either immediately as they arise, or after you have concluded the preliminary case for your view
- Conclusion should follow from your argument - that is, the reader needs to read your conclusion and immediately see how what you have just said in the last few paragraphs leads to what you are concluding. If you find yourself starting your final paragraph with 'Overall...', ask yourself whether what you are about to write actually flows from the preceding argument, or whether you're just doing some opaque, impressionistic weighing exercise. Nine times out of ten it's the latter.