Too descriptive
You explain the law, but do not apply it to the facts of the problem.
Law Assignment Brief & Argument Support
Understand the Brief and Apply Authority to the Facts
Understand your law brief, review your own legal analysis, and turn tutor feedback into a clear action plan before you submit.
What’s Going Wrong With Your Law Assignment?
Most law assignments do not lose marks because the area is difficult. They lose marks because the legal analysis, authority, and application to the facts are not clear enough.
Weak authority
Points are made without citing the cases or statutes that support them.
IRAC missing
The answer does not clearly separate issue, rule, application, and conclusion.
Statute misread
The statute is quoted but not interpreted for the scenario.
No clear conclusion
The answer does not reach a reasoned legal conclusion.
OSCOLA problems
Citations are inconsistent or do not follow OSCOLA.
Choose Your Situation
Start from where you are now — before writing, after drafting, or after receiving feedback.
Before writing
I only have the brief
Use Brief Decoder to understand your law brief — the command words, learning outcomes, marking criteria, and whether it is an essay or a problem question — so you know the structure and authority expected before you write.
- Decode the brief
- Spot what markers expect
- Plan the structure early
Draft ready
I already have a draft
Use Marker’s Eye to check whether your own draft answers the legal question — issue identification, use of authority, application to the facts, argument, structure, and critical analysis — and see your likely grade blockers.
- Check analysis depth
- Find evidence gaps
- Improve your argument
Tutor feedback
I have tutor feedback
Use Feedback Decoder to make sense of comments like ‘too descriptive’, ‘needs more authority’, or ‘apply the law’, spot weaknesses that keep repeating, and prioritise what to fix next.
- Understand comments
- Prioritise fixes
- Improve next attempt
See the Glow-Up
From descriptive and unclear to structured, evidence-led, and easier to improve.
Messy law assignment
- Descriptive writing
- Weak evidence
- Points not linked to the argument
- Vague conclusion
The topic may be right, but the work does not yet show enough analysis, evidence, or clear reasoning.
Your report shows what to fix
AnalyseStructureImprove
Clearer law assignment
- Clearer structure
- Stronger analysis
- Evidence linked to the argument
- Clear, supported conclusion
You get a clearer view of what needs improving, so you can strengthen your own work before submission.
Choose the Support That Fits Your Stage
Start with a free preview, unlock one report, or use a Study Pass when you need more than one check.
Clarity Preview
£0
Start with a free preview before unlocking the full report.
Best for Checking whether the report will help.
- Upload your brief, draft, or feedback
- See first diagnostic signals
- Understand whether a full report is useful
Single Report Unlock
£3.99
Unlock one full structured report when your preview looks useful.
Best for One assignment or one immediate problem.
- Full structured report
- Weak-area guidance
- Practical next steps
- Clear improvement direction
Study Pass
£7.49
Monthly access: 5 checks each month across any tool.
Best for Students working across more than one stage.
- 5 checks per month across any tool
- Use across Brief Decoder, Marker’s Eye, or Feedback Decoder
- Renews automatically each month until cancelled
- Unused checks expire at the end of each monthly cycle and do not carry over
Study Pass Plus
£9.99
More checks across Brief Decoder, Marker’s Eye, and Feedback Decoder.
Best for Students managing several assignments or revisions.
- 4 Brief Decoder checks
- 4 Marker’s Eye checks
- 2 Feedback Decoder checks
Human Graded Review
£12 / 1,000 wordsA human academic reviewer checks your work against marking criteria.
No ghostwriting. No submission-ready work. You receive structured guidance to improve your own assignment.
Applied, not decorative
Legal Analysis Made Practical
Legal method only earns marks when it applies authority to the facts — not when cases are simply named.
Structure
IRAC / ILAC
Not just a template.
Separate issue, rule, application, and conclusion so the argument is clear.
Authority
Case Analysis
Not just a case name.
Use ratio and obiter to show why a case decides the point.
Statute
Statutory Interpretation
Not just quoting the Act.
Apply the rules of interpretation to the specific facts.
Argument
Legal Argument
Not just assertion.
Build the argument from authority to a reasoned conclusion.
Citation
OSCOLA
Not just footnotes.
Cite authority consistently so the argument is traceable.
Concept
Evidence
Analysis
Conclusion
Why Law Students Lose Marks Even When They Understand the Topic
A law assignment can state the law correctly and still lose marks if it does not apply that law to the facts with authority.
Common mark-loss patterns
-
Law without application
The rule is stated but not applied to the scenario.
-
Assertion without authority
A point is made without citing a case or statute.
-
Cases without ratio
A case is named but its reasoning is not used.
-
Analysis without a conclusion
The answer does not reach a reasoned legal outcome.
-
Citation left too late
OSCOLA becomes inconsistent when references are added at the end.
What markers usually reward
Marking focus- Legal analysis & application Core marking priority
- Use of authority Core marking priority
- Clear structure (IRAC / ILAC) Commonly rewarded
- Reasoned conclusion Commonly rewarded
- Academic legal writing Important supporting area
- OSCOLA referencing Frequently affects the final result
Good legal work does not just state the law. It applies authority to the facts. Exact marking priorities vary by university, course, module, assessment brief, assignment type, and study level.
AI Alone Is Not Enough
Generic AI can produce text, but it does not always understand your brief, your marking criteria, or where your law argument is weak.
Fast, but often too broad.
- May miss UK marking criteria
- Can sound polished but vague
- Does not always know your tutor’s brief
- Can create generic conclusions
- Leaves you unsure what to fix
Risky and not built around learning.
- Often focuses on finished work
- Can reduce your control as the author
- May not explain the thinking clearly
- Does not always help you improve future work
- Can create academic-integrity concerns
Structured support that keeps you in control.
- Reviews your brief, draft, or feedback
- Highlights weak analysis and evidence gaps
- Connects guidance to UK marking criteria
- Gives a clear improvement report
- Helps you improve your own work
You stay the author. We help you understand what to improve.
Start Free, Unlock Only If It Helps
Upload your brief, draft, or feedback. Get a preview first. Unlock the full report only when it feels useful.
Low-risk preview
See the value before you pay
Start with what you already have. The preview helps you understand whether the full report can give you the clarity, structure, and next steps you need.
No pressure to unlock unless the preview helps.
-
Upload
Brief, draft, or tutor feedback
-
Preview
See the first diagnostic signals
-
Unlock
Get the full structured report
-
Improve
Use the report to strengthen your own work
Built for students who want clarity before submission — not guesswork.
What You Actually Receive
Not a ghostwritten assignment — a structured academic report that shows what to understand, fix, and improve.
Your improvement report
A clear report, not vague advice
You receive structured guidance based on your brief, draft, or feedback, so you can see the weak areas and improve your own work with more confidence.
- See where your structure is unclear
- Check whether your analysis goes beyond description
- Find evidence and referencing gaps
- Understand how law concepts should support the argument
- Turn feedback into a practical next-step checklist
You stay the author. We help you understand what to improve.
Law Assignment Review
Brief clarity
Marking criteria
Structure issues
Evidence gaps
Argument strength
Conclusion clarity
Referencing signals
Next-step checklist
Analysis depth
Needs strengtheningYour draft explains the topic, but needs clearer evaluation of why it matters.
Evidence use
Improve sourcesAdd credible academic sources to support your key claims.
Structure & argument
Tighten flowMake each section build the argument toward your conclusion.
Next action
Priority fixConnect your conclusion directly to the analysis and evidence.
Next steps
- Strengthen analysis
- Add better evidence
- Tighten the argument
- Check referencing
You do not receive a ghostwritten assignment. You receive a structured report that helps you improve your own work.
Law assignment clarity
What Law Markers Are Really Looking For
Law assignments are rarely marked on knowing the law alone. Marks come from identifying the legal issue, applying authority to the facts, weighing competing arguments, and reaching a reasoned conclusion — whether you are writing a problem question or a critical essay.
No ghostwriting. No assignment outsourcing. Structured guidance for your own work.
-
Critical analysis
Why does my law essay keep getting marked as ‘too descriptive’?
In law, setting out what a rule or case says is only the starting point. ‘Too descriptive’ usually means you have stated the law but not done anything with it — you have not weighed competing interpretations, questioned the authority, or shown what it means for the question in front of you. Markers reward the reasoning, not the recall.
Stronger work evaluates: it compares how different cases or arguments treat a point, explains which is more persuasive and why, and links that judgement back to the question. Marker’s Eye reviews your own draft for exactly this — where it slips into description and where the analysis needs to go further.
Marker’s Eye -
Essay vs problem question
Law essay or problem question — why does it change how I write?
They test different skills, so the same approach will not work for both. A problem question gives you a factual scenario and asks you to apply the law to those facts and predict the likely outcome, usually through a structured IRAC or ILAC method. An essay asks you to build and defend an argument about the law itself — to evaluate, criticise, or discuss a proposition.
Getting this wrong is a common way to lose marks: writing an abstract essay in answer to a problem question, or simply describing the law when the question asked you to argue. Brief Decoder helps you read the command words and assignment type in your brief so you know which one you are actually being asked to write.
Brief Decoder -
Legal authority
What does ‘needs more authority’ mean on my feedback?
It means a point in your work is not yet backed by law. In legal writing an assertion only carries weight if it is supported by a case or a statute — and naming the authority is not enough on its own. A case dropped in without explanation leaves the marker unsure why it is there.
The fix is to cite the specific authority and then explain its relevance: what the case decided, or what the provision requires, and how that supports your point on these facts. Feedback Decoder helps you turn comments like ‘needs more authority’ or ‘apply the law’ into a clear list of where to add and explain support.
Feedback Decoder -
Using cases
How do I use ratio decidendi and obiter dicta properly?
Many students name a case and move on, without showing why it matters. The ratio decidendi is the binding legal reason for the decision — that is the part that does the work in your argument. Obiter dicta are the judge’s remarks made in passing; they can be persuasive but are not binding, so they carry less weight.
Strong analysis identifies the ratio of a case and uses it to decide the point you are arguing, rather than reciting the facts of the case or quoting it at length. Being clear about what is ratio and what is obiter is often what separates a confident answer from a descriptive one.
-
Legal argument
How do I build a legal argument that reaches a clear conclusion?
Weaker answers list points or restate the law and then stop; stronger answers argue. That means evaluating the competing positions, dealing with the counterargument, and committing to a reasoned conclusion rather than leaving the reader with ‘it depends’. In law, the strength of your conclusion depends on how well you weighed the authority to get there.
Where the law is genuinely uncertain, say so — but still take the most defensible position and justify it. Setting out an opposing view and then explaining, with authority, why your answer is stronger is usually what lifts an argument from competent to convincing.
Start with your law brief, draft, problem question or tutor feedback. Get a structured report that helps you improve legal reasoning, authority and application while keeping the final work your own.
Questions Students Ask Before Trying It
Clear answers before you upload your brief, draft, or feedback.
-
Start with the command words. ‘Advise’ or a factual scenario points to a problem question; ‘critically evaluate’, ‘discuss’, or ‘to what extent’ points to an essay. Check the learning outcomes and marking criteria too, as they show what you need to demonstrate. Brief Decoder can break a law brief down into these parts before you start.
-
Open with a clear line of argument that answers the question, use each section to evaluate authority and competing views rather than just describe the law, and finish with a conclusion that follows from your analysis. There is no single template, so always check your module’s guidance.
-
IRAC stands for Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion (ILAC adds Law or Legislation). It is a way of reasoning, not a set of headings: identify the legal issue, state the relevant rule with authority, apply it to the specific facts, and reach a conclusion. The application step is where most marks are won or lost.
-
Textbooks and articles help you understand an area, but marks come from primary authority. Where a case matters to your argument, read enough of it to use its ratio accurately rather than relying only on someone else’s summary, and cite the case itself, not just the textbook that mentioned it.
-
OSCOLA uses footnotes for citations, with a bibliography at the end. Keep the format consistent for cases, legislation, and secondary sources, and cite as you write so it does not become inconsistent later. Conventions can vary slightly by faculty, so check your own OSCOLA guide.
-
Set out the strongest opposing view fairly, then show with authority why your position is still more convincing. Acknowledging and answering counterarguments makes your argument look stronger, not weaker — ignoring them is what markers notice.
-
Set out the competing positions, then commit to the answer you can best support on the authority. A reasoned conclusion that picks a side is rewarded; sitting on the fence with ‘it could go either way’ and no justification usually is not.
-
Read it against the question, not just for accuracy: does each part answer the legal issue, use authority, and apply it to the facts? Marker’s Eye can review your own draft against UK marking criteria and flag issue spotting, weak authority, thin application, and unclear conclusions — the things markers tend to penalise.
-
No. My Perfect Writing does not write your assignment. It reviews your brief, draft, or feedback and explains what to improve, so you make the changes and remain the author. Always follow your own university’s academic integrity rules.
-
Quote the relevant section, then do something with it. Marks are lost when a statute is copied out but never connected to the scenario. Work through the key words of the provision, consider their ordinary meaning and the purpose behind the Act, and show how they resolve the issue on these facts — the same way you would apply a case.
Fix the confusion before you submit.
Upload your brief, draft, or feedback and see what needs improving before you decide to unlock the full report.
You stay the author. We help you understand what to improve.