Choose one of three essay questions and argue a clear position in 40 minutes. In the real LNAT you choose one question and have 40 minutes.
All questions are written by Keiko Study in the official format; they are not official LNAT papers.
Write your essay
Choose one question, start the 40-minute timer and write. Your draft is saved in this browser only; it is never sent to Keiko.
0 / 750 words · 40:00 left
What a strong answer does
Question 1: 'If a law is widely broken, it should be repealed.' Do you agree?
State your answer in the first paragraph and hold to it. A qualified answer is fine, for example that widespread law-breaking is a reason to look at a law again but never on its own a reason to scrap it, as long as you say exactly where you stand.
Draw the distinction the question turns on: a law broken because people think it is pointless or unjust is different from one broken because obeying it is inconvenient, such as speeding or evading tax. For the second kind, the answer may be better enforcement, not repeal.
Take on the strongest objection directly: laws that are routinely ignored breed contempt for the law in general and fall unfairly on the few who happen to be caught. Explain why this does or does not change your answer.
Build the argument on two or three well-chosen examples that you actually develop, rather than a long list. No knowledge of law is expected, and if you rely on an assumption, say what it is.
Finish with a conclusion that follows from what you have argued, not a summary of both sides.
Aim for about 500–600 words and do not go beyond 750. Plain, accurate English and a tight structure count for more than length, so leave a few minutes to cut repetition and check your writing.
Question 2: Should parents need their children's permission before posting photographs of them online?
Answer the question in your opening lines: yes, no, or yes from a certain age. Say what 'permission' could mean for a child too young to give it.
Make clear whether you are arguing about the law, about what parents ought to do, or both. These can have different answers, and mixing them up weakens an essay.
Set out what is at stake on each side: a child's privacy and later control over their own image, against parents' ordinary freedom to share family life and the difficulty of the state policing what happens inside families.
Deal with the strongest objection to your view, not a weak one. If you support a permission rule, explain how it could work for a toddler; if you oppose one, explain what protects a teenager who objects.
Keep the argument economical. One clear line of reasoning, developed with a concrete example or two, is better than a survey of every point you can think of.
Reach a definite conclusion in about 500–600 words, and certainly no more than 750, written in clear, correct English.
Question 3: Should universities make lower offers to applicants from schools with poor exam results?
Take a clear position early and say what you mean by a 'lower offer', for example a grade or two below the usual requirement.
Explain the principle your answer rests on, for example that grades measure ability only partly and depend on the help a pupil has had, or that universities should judge applicants only on what they have achieved. State any assumptions openly rather than inventing statistics.
Face the strongest objection to your view. If you support lower offers, answer the charge that they are unfair to applicants just above the line, or that a school's results are a crude guide to a pupil's circumstances. If you oppose them, say what you would do about unequal schooling instead.
Consider the effect on the students themselves: whether those admitted on lower offers are set up to succeed, and what support that might require.
End with a conclusion that answers the question as set, rather than a list of considerations.
Keep to about 500–600 words, and no more than 750. Write plainly, avoid repeating yourself, and save time to check your spelling and grammar.