LAW5000 · Australian Legal Reasoning and Methods
The 40% Written Assessment: Problem-Question Technique
The revision chapter pulls the whole unit together for the 40% Written Assessment (in Trimester 1 titled the 'Take-Home Exam'): three fact scenarios asking you to find, read and interpret legislation and/or case law and answer questions, open-book and released online, within 3,000 words. Here you drill the workflow — read the statute, run IRAC/MIRAT on each scenario, and write to the rubric (issue identification 35%, analysis and argument 40%, structure and writing 15%, presentation and referencing 10%).
What this chapter covers
- 01The task shape: three fact scenarios on (often fictional/unfamiliar) legislation and/or case law, 3,000 words, open-book, released online
- 02The workflow: read the statute carefully → identify issues → run IRAC/MIRAT → check against the rubric
- 03Reading unfamiliar legislation fast: purpose/objects clause, definitions, operative provisions, penalties
- 04Applying statutory interpretation (literal → context → purpose) and precedent to the facts
- 05Spotting ultra vires regulations, drafting errors, and the penal-provision presumption
- 06Managing the 3,000-word limit across three scenarios (IRAC to save words; MIRAT where facts must be set out)
- 07The rubric: issue identification 35%, analysis & argument 40%, structure & writing 15%, presentation & referencing 10%
- 08Presentation: clarity when referring to outside matters; acknowledging AI where permitted; no hurdle but the late-penalty applies
A full IRAC scenario where a regulation over-reaches the parent Act
- +1Issue. Identify the issues precisely: (a) is the $2,000 penalty in the Regulations valid, given the Act caps the penalty at $1,000? and (b) has Frank in fact breached the notice requirement? Sharp issue-spotting targets the 35% issue-identification criterion.
- +2Rule. State the delegated-legislation rule (a regulation is valid only within the parent Act's conferred power; excess is ultra vires and may be severed), the presumption that penal provisions are construed narrowly, and the interpretive direction to read the scheme purposively.
- +2Application — the penalty is ultra vires. The Act fixes the maximum penalty at $1,000; the Regulation purports to impose $2,000. A regulation cannot exceed the penalty the parent Act authorises, so the $2,000 maximum is beyond power and likely severed, leaving the Act's $1,000 cap to apply — reinforced by the penal-provision presumption.
- +2Application — did Frank breach the requirement? Frank's notice is 20 mm, exceeding the 15 mm minimum, so he complies with the lettering rule. Whether the separate wording defect is itself an offence depends on the Act's operative provision, read purposively against the Act's purpose; if the Act does not clearly make that wording defect an offence, the penal presumption favours Frank.
- +1Conclusion. Advise Frank that the $2,000 penalty is very probably invalid (ultra vires), so any liability is capped at the Act's $1,000; and that he likely has a strong argument he did not breach the notice requirement at all. State conclusions tentatively and note the outcome turns on the Act's operative wording. Keep the answer within the word budget and footnote clearly.
Key terms
- Written Assessment (40%)
- The unit's largest task: three fact scenarios requiring you to find, read and interpret legislation and/or case law and answer questions, open-book and released online, within 3,000 words. In Trimester 1 the same task is titled the 'Take-Home Exam'.
- Problem question
- A fact scenario that must be resolved by applying law to facts, usually with IRAC or MIRAT. The staple of the Written Assessment; marks reward structured application, not a recited summary of the law.
- Open-book assessment
- An assessment in which materials may be used — so raw recall is not the point; the marks come from selecting, reading and applying the right law under a word and time budget.
- Marking rubric
- The criteria the Written Assessment is graded against: issue identification (35%), analysis and argument (40%), structure and writing (15%), and presentation and referencing (10%). Writing deliberately to these weightings is essential.
- Severance
- A court's removal of the invalid (ultra vires) part of a regulation or provision so that the valid remainder can continue to operate — for example, striking an excess penalty while leaving the offence intact.
- Penal-provision presumption
- The common-law presumption that offence-creating and penalty provisions are construed narrowly, resolving genuine ambiguity in favour of the person facing the penalty.
The 40% Written Assessment: Problem-Question Technique FAQ
Is the 40% Written Assessment a final exam?
No — there is no invigilated exam. It is a written assessment of three problem-question scenarios on legislation and/or case law, open-book and released online, submitted on Moodle within 3,000 words. In Trimester 1 the identical task is titled the 'Take-Home Exam', but in Trimesters 2 and 3 it is a Written Assessment. Confirm the exact framing and dates for your trimester in your unit guide.
How is the Written Assessment marked?
Against four criteria: issue identification (35%), analysis and argument (40%), structure and writing (15%), and presentation and referencing (10%). The two biggest slices reward spotting the right issues and arguing the law against the facts — which is why a disciplined IRAC/MIRAT structure, not a summary of the law, is what earns marks. There is no hurdle, but the Monash late-penalty applies.
How do I manage 3,000 words across three scenarios?
Budget words the way you budget marks: give each scenario a roughly equal share and, within it, spend most on issues and application. Use IRAC to save words where the facts are given and switch to MIRAT only where the facts must be set out. Edit ruthlessly — concision is part of structure-and-writing, and over-length work can attract a penalty.
Can Sia help me prepare for the Written Assessment?
Yes, as a study aid. Ask Sia to generate fresh three-scenario practice problems, to walk the read-statute-then-IRAC workflow with you, or to check a draft answer against the rubric, one step at a time. It teaches technique and checks your reasoning; it does not sit the assessment for you, and you must acknowledge AI use as your unit guide requires — academic-integrity rules apply.
Exam move
Prepare for the Written Assessment by rehearsing the whole workflow, not by memorising content — it is open-book, so recall is not the point. Practise reading an unfamiliar Act fast: go straight to the purpose/objects clause, the definitions, the operative provision and the penalties, then run IRAC or MIRAT on the facts. Build the reflexes that recur in these problems — test every regulation for ultra vires against its parent Act, apply the literal-context-purpose path to any provision, and reach for the penal-provision presumption when a penalty bites. Rehearse to the rubric: since issue identification (35%) and analysis and argument (40%) dominate, make issue-spotting sharp and application thorough. Time and word-budget your practice across three scenarios so pacing is automatic, and keep footnotes clean for the presentation marks. There is no hurdle, but submit on Moodle early to avoid the late-penalty. Ask Sia to set full three-scenario practice sets and to mark your answers against the four criteria.
Working through The 40% Written Assessment: Problem-Question Technique in LAW5000? Sia is AskSia’s AI Law tutor — ask any LAW5000 The 40% Written Assessment: Problem-Question Technique question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how LAW5000 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
