Essay technique
Intros, Definitions and Assumptions
LNAT Section B · Technique guide
The question this answers
This is a technique guide, not a single prompt. It teaches the opening move of an LNAT Section B essay: how to write an introduction that paraphrases the question, defines the contested terms in a way that already favours your side, and names the hidden assumption the question smuggles in. It works the method on a running example: should voting be made compulsory, so that citizens face a penalty for not turning out at elections?
The stance
A technique guide has no single correct stance; the skill is to define your terms and pick a position before you write a sentence. On the worked example the demonstrated stance is qualified: compulsory turnout is defensible, but only if the law compels attendance at the ballot box and preserves the right to spoil the paper, so that the duty is civic rather than a forced choice of candidate.
Defining the terms
- An "introduction" in Section B is the first 80 to 100 words. It does three jobs and no others: it paraphrases the question in your own words, it defines the one or two terms the whole essay turns on, and it states your thesis. It is not a place for throat-clearing about how 'this is a complex and divisive issue'; that sentence is dead weight and the examiner has read it a thousand times.
- A "definition" in this context is not a dictionary entry but a stance-aware framing. A sharp definition is two to five lines, and it already hints at why it helps your side. Defining 'compulsory voting' as 'a legal duty to attend the poll, not a duty to endorse any candidate' is doing argumentative work before you have made a single point, because it pre-empts the objection that the state is forcing a choice.
- An "assumption" is the invisible plank the question stands on: something it takes for granted without stating. The most common LNAT pitfall is treating a 'should' question as if it assumes the thing is not currently happening. 'Should voting be compulsory?' does not assume voting is currently optional everywhere as a matter of fact; it assumes only that compulsion is physically possible, logically coherent, and worth arguing about. Naming that assumption is itself a markable move.
Assumptions to interrogate
- That a 'should X' question assumes X is possible, not that X is currently absent. 'Should voting be compulsory?' does not claim voting is optional now; it asks whether compulsion is justified, and it quietly assumes that compulsion can be enforced at acceptable cost. A strong essay names this rather than sliding past it.
- That a 'should X' question assumes X is both physically possible and logically coherent. Physical possibility: can the state actually compel attendance, register non-voters and levy a penalty? Logical coherence depends on the definition you pick: if 'voting' means 'freely endorsing a candidate', compelling it is incoherent, but if it means 'attending the poll', it is not. The assumption you challenge is therefore chosen by how you define the term.
- That the question is not a false dilemma. 'Should voting be compulsory?' can be heard as 'compulsory or the status quo', but the real menu is wider: compulsory attendance, compulsory registration only, incentives short of penalties, or nothing. Spotting that the binary is artificial lets you carve out a qualified middle position, which is almost always the stronger essay.
- That the second half of the proposition genuinely answers the first. Many prompts pair a problem with a 'solution' and assume the link holds ('turnout is low, so voting should be compulsory'). The hidden assumption is that compulsion actually cures the disease (low engagement) rather than just the symptom (low turnout). A good intro can flag that the cure may not fit the diagnosis.
The case for
Open by paraphrasing the question in your own words, so you argue about the real issue rather than the examiner's phrasing, and so you signal control from the first line.
Rewriting the prompt forces you to decide what it is actually asking before you commit a stance. 'Should voting be compulsory?' becomes 'should a citizen face a legal penalty for not turning out at an election?' The paraphrase strips the question to its operative core, the penalty, and quietly discards the noise. It also protects you from the classic error of answering the words on the page instead of the proposition behind them. An examiner reading your first sentence should feel that you have grasped the question more precisely than it was posed, which is exactly the move a lawyer makes when restating a vague clause or a loosely worded charge.
Define the contested term in a stance-aware way in the introduction, because whoever controls the definition usually controls the essay.
Distinct from paraphrasing, which clarifies the question, defining the term decides the battlefield. The whole compulsory-voting debate turns on what 'voting' means. If you define it as 'attending the poll, with an absolute right to spoil the ballot', you have already neutralised the strongest objection, that the state is forcing people to endorse politicians they despise. If your opponent defines it as 'casting a valid vote for a candidate', they win on coercion grounds. A sharp definition is not neutral scene-setting; it is the first and quietest argument, and the candidate who defines first and defines well rarely loses the framing.
Surface the hidden assumption the question is built on and name it explicitly, because exposing buried logic is precisely the reasoning skill the LNAT screens for.
Unlike defining a term, this is about the question's unstated premises. 'Should voting be compulsory?' assumes compulsion is possible and coherent, and the version that pairs it with low turnout assumes that compulsion cures disengagement rather than merely masking it. Stating in your introduction that 'the question assumes the cure fits the disease, and that assumption is exactly what is in dispute' tells the examiner you are reading underneath the prompt. This is the difference between a candidate who answers a question and one who interrogates it, which is the habit of mind admissions tutors are trying to detect.
Reject the false binary the prompt offers and stake out a qualified thesis in the same breath, so your introduction already promises a position more interesting than yes or no.
Distinct from naming the assumption, this is about what you do with it. Once you see that 'compulsory or nothing' is a false dilemma, you can offer a third option: compulsory attendance with a protected right to abstain on the paper. The introduction states this qualified thesis outright, so the reader can predict your conclusion from your first lines. A qualified stance is not fence-sitting; it is a sharper commitment than a flat yes, because it tells the examiner exactly which version of the proposition you defend and which concession you have already absorbed.
Keep the introduction to roughly 80 to 100 words and end it with a one-line signpost, so the structure of the whole essay is visible before the reader reaches the body.
Length discipline is itself a technique. An introduction that runs to a third of the essay has usually started arguing too early and left no room for development. The target is paraphrase, definition, assumption and thesis in three or four tight sentences, closing with a single clause that previews the grounds to come. This is distinct from the content points above because it governs proportion rather than substance: the same material, padded to 200 words, reads as waffle, while compressed to 90 it reads as command. Under a 40-minute clock, a lean opening also buys you the minutes that decide whether the essay finishes.
The case against
A heavily 'defined' introduction can look like the candidate is rigging the question, and examiners distrust a definition that does too much work.
If you define 'voting' so narrowly that the answer becomes trivially obvious, the essay reads as a stitch-up rather than an argument. The honest response is that a stance-aware definition must still be defensible: it should be a reasonable reading of the term that a fair opponent could accept, not a gerrymander. The discipline is to define for advantage but within the bounds of good faith, and to justify the definition in one clause rather than smuggling it in.
Spending precious opening minutes hunting for the hidden assumption can produce a strained, over-clever introduction that never gets to the point.
Not every prompt rewards a deep dig for buried premises, and an introduction that spends three sentences performing assumption-spotting can feel like showing off. The answer is proportion: name the single most important assumption in one clause and move on. The assumption matters because it shapes your thesis, not because it is a trophy to display; if it does not change how you argue, it does not belong in the opening.
Paraphrasing risks subtly changing the question, so a careless rewrite can leave you answering a different prompt from the one set.
A loose paraphrase ('should we encourage people to vote?') quietly drops the operative element, the penalty, and the essay then argues about engagement campaigns rather than compulsion. The fix is to paraphrase for precision, not for ease: keep every load-bearing word ('legal penalty', 'compulsory') and discard only the filler. The test is whether your paraphrase and the original would be answered yes or no in the same circumstances.
The argument, step by step
- Read the prompt twice and underline the one or two words the whole question turns on (here, 'compulsory' and 'voting'); those are the terms you will define.
- Paraphrase the question in a single sentence in your own words, keeping every load-bearing word and discarding the filler, so you argue the proposition rather than the phrasing.
- Choose a stance-aware definition of the key term that is both defensible and helpful to your side, and write it in one or two lines that already hint at why your position follows.
- Identify the hidden assumption the question rests on (possibility, coherence, false dilemma, or cure-fits-disease) and decide which one you will name and challenge.
- Reframe any false binary into a qualified thesis ('compulsory attendance, but with a protected right to spoil the paper') and write that thesis as one decisive sentence.
- Assemble the introduction in roughly 80 to 100 words: paraphrase, definition, named assumption, thesis, and a one-clause signpost of the grounds to come.
- Check the opening against three failure modes before moving on: no dead throat-clearing sentence, no definition so narrow it rigs the answer, no paraphrase that changes the question.
- Move into the body knowing the introduction has already done the framing; every later paragraph should be traceable back to the definition and assumption you set up in the first 90 words.
The model plan
Worked example prompt (paraphrased): should a citizen face a legal penalty for failing to turn out at an election, that is, should voting be made compulsory? Stance: yes to compulsory attendance, but only with an absolute right to spoil the ballot, so the duty is to participate, not to endorse. Intro (~90 words): paraphrase (the real question is about a penalty for not turning out, not about persuasion); definition (compulsory voting means a legal duty to attend the poll, not to validly endorse a candidate); assumption (the question pairs low turnout with compulsion and assumes the cure fits the disease, which I dispute, and it assumes a false binary between compulsion and nothing); thesis (compulsory attendance with a protected right to abstain is the defensible middle); signpost. Definition does the heavy lifting: by defining voting as attendance not endorsement, the coercion objection is pre-empted before it is raised. Body would then run on distinct axes (democratic legitimacy, fairness of unequal turnout, the autonomy objection, the practical Australian evidence, the cure-versus-symptom worry), each tracing back to the framing the introduction sets. Conclusion (~70 words): restate the qualified thesis, no new material, echo the proposition once.
The model essay
The question is usually put as whether voting should be compulsory, but that phrasing hides what is really being asked. Nobody proposes to force a citizen to endorse a candidate they despise. The real proposition is narrower and sharper: should a citizen face a legal penalty for not turning out at an election? Defined that way, compulsory voting means a duty to attend the poll, not a duty to vote for anyone, because the right to spoil the ballot remains absolute. On that definition my answer is yes, with one firm qualification, and I defend it on the grounds that follow.
The first ground is democratic legitimacy. A parliament elected on a turnout of two-thirds, skewed by age and class, governs everyone but is chosen by a self-selecting fraction. Compelling attendance widens the franchise in practice, not just on paper, so that the result reflects the whole electorate rather than the most motivated slice of it. A mandate built on near-universal participation is simply harder to dismiss as the preference of an activist minority.
The second ground is fairness, and it is distinct because it is about who is missing rather than how many. Low and uneven turnout is not random: it falls hardest among the young, the poor and the marginalised, the very groups whose interests are already least represented. Voluntary voting therefore entrenches an existing inequality of voice. Compulsion is a blunt instrument, but it is one of the few that reliably pulls the under-represented into the count.
The strongest objection is autonomy: that forcing a free citizen to the polling station is an illiberal intrusion, and that the right not to participate is as real as the right to participate. I take this seriously, and it is exactly why my definition matters. The law I defend compels attendance, not endorsement; the citizen who objects to every candidate may spoil the paper or vote for none, registering dissent without abstaining from the civic act. The intrusion is no greater than jury service or the census, both accepted duties of membership, and far smaller than the objection assumes once 'voting' is read as attendance rather than approval.
The practical case is not speculation. Australia has enforced compulsory attendance since 1924, with turnout consistently above ninety per cent, and the penalty is a modest fine. The system is stable, broadly accepted, and has not produced the tyranny the autonomy objection predicts. This is the difference between an argument from principle and one with a working example behind it: the policy has been tried at national scale and has held.
The deepest worry is whether compulsion cures the right disease. Low turnout is a symptom of disengagement, and forcing bodies into booths may mask that disengagement rather than heal it, producing uninformed or resentful votes. I concede the force of this, and it is the reason my stance is qualified rather than absolute: compulsion should sit alongside civic education and easier registration, not replace them. But a resentful vote freely spoiled still counts as participation, and the alternative, leaving the disengaged out entirely, does nothing for engagement and quietly accepts a hollowed-out electorate.
The case therefore holds on its own terms. Once the question is read precisely, as a penalty for non-attendance rather than a command to approve, the coercion that frightens us mostly dissolves. Voting should be compulsory in the narrow and defensible sense: a legal duty to attend the poll, paired with an untouchable right to abstain on the paper. That settlement secures the legitimacy and fairness of universal participation while leaving the citizen's conscience entirely free.
Authorities worth knowing
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Australia)
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth), ss 245 and following, introducing compulsory voting at federal level from 1924
Establishes a legal duty to attend the poll enforced by a modest fine, while the secrecy of the ballot preserves the elector's freedom to vote for no one; the leading real-world example that compulsory attendance can be separated from compulsory endorsement, which is the exact distinction a compulsory-voting essay should draw.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21
UDHR (1948), Article 21(3)
Declares that the will of the people, expressed in periodic and genuine elections, shall be the basis of the authority of government; supports the legitimacy argument that the franchise should reflect the whole electorate, while not itself requiring or forbidding compulsion, so it must be used for the principle and not over-read.
How the law frames it
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom has voluntary voting; there is a legal duty to register but no penalty for failing to turn out, and turnout at general elections has hovered around two-thirds of the electorate, skewed by age and class. This makes the UK the natural baseline against which a compulsory-attendance proposal is measured, and the fairness argument, that the missing voters are disproportionately young and poor, is grounded in UK turnout data. Any reform would also have to respect Article 9 and Article 10 freedoms, which is why the model essay's right-to-spoil definition matters.
Canada
Canada, like the UK, has voluntary federal voting with no compulsion, and turnout sits broadly in the 60s as a percentage. It is a useful comparator for the 'voluntary entrenches inequality' point, because the same uneven participation appears, and proposals for compulsory voting surface periodically without being adopted, showing the autonomy objection has real political weight in a similar common-law democracy.
ECHR
The European Convention protects free elections under Article 3 of Protocol 1, which guarantees the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature. Compulsory attendance has been treated as compatible with the Convention where the secrecy of the ballot and the right to cast a blank or spoiled paper are preserved, which is precisely the distinction between compelling attendance and compelling endorsement that the model essay's definition turns on.
Counter-arguments and how to defeat them
Counter. A stance-aware definition is just rigging the question: by defining 'voting' as mere attendance, the essay defines its own conclusion into existence rather than arguing for it.
Rebuttal. A definition rigs the question only if no fair opponent could accept it. 'Attendance with a protected right to spoil' is a reasonable, widely-used reading of compulsory voting, embodied in Australian law, not an invented one. Defining for advantage is legitimate so long as the definition is defensible and stated openly; the move is dishonest only when the reading is one no reasonable person would grant.
Counter. Spending the introduction naming hidden assumptions is over-clever and wastes words the candidate needs for the actual argument.
Rebuttal. One clause is enough. The point of naming the assumption is not display but direction: flagging that the prompt assumes 'the cure fits the disease' is what licenses the qualified thesis. If the assumption changes how you argue, it earns its place in the opening; if it does not, it is cut. The discipline is to name the single load-bearing assumption, not to catalogue every premise.
Counter. Paraphrasing the prompt is dangerous because a careless rewrite quietly changes the question, leaving the candidate answering something the examiner did not set.
Rebuttal. The rebuttal is a method, not a denial. Paraphrase for precision by keeping every load-bearing word and dropping only filler, then test the rewrite: would the original and the paraphrase be answered the same way in the same circumstances? 'Penalty for not turning out' preserves 'compulsory'; 'encourage people to vote' does not, and is rejected. Done with that check, paraphrasing sharpens rather than distorts.
Counter. Templated introductions all read the same, so an examiner spots the paraphrase-definition-assumption formula instantly and marks it as mechanical.
Rebuttal. The formula is internal scaffolding the reader should never see as a template. What the examiner notices is that the question has been grasped precisely, the key term defined sharply, and the position staked early; those read as command, not as a checklist. Varied phrasing and a genuine thesis hide the seams. Structure is felt as clarity, and only a lazy execution of it reads as paint-by-numbers.
Counter. Insisting the introduction stays at 80 to 100 words forces candidates to cut substance, when a richer opening could set up a deeper essay.
Rebuttal. Brevity in the opening is not lost substance; it is deferred substance. Argument belongs in the body, where it can be developed, not in an introduction that should only frame. A 90-word opening that paraphrases, defines, names the assumption and states the thesis has already done everything an introduction can do; padding it to 200 words steals minutes from the paragraphs that actually win marks.
Conclusion
The first ninety words decide how the rest of the essay is read. A strong Section B introduction does exactly three things: it paraphrases the question so you argue the proposition, not the phrasing; it defines the contested term in a way that is both defensible and quietly on your side; and it names the hidden assumption the prompt rests on, then converts any false binary into a qualified thesis. On the worked example, defining compulsory voting as a duty to attend rather than to endorse pre-empts the coercion objection before it is raised, and naming the 'cure-fits-disease' assumption licenses a qualified stance. Master the opening and the body almost writes itself, because every later paragraph is just the framing of the introduction worked out in full.
Evidence you can cite
- Turnout at Australian federal elections has remained consistently above 90 per cent of registered voters since compulsory voting was introduced in 1924, far higher than the typical 60 to 70 per cent seen in comparable voluntary systems, which supports the claim that compulsion reliably raises participation.Australian Electoral Commission, voter turnout statistics for federal elections — source
- Turnout at UK general elections has fluctuated around two-thirds of the electorate in recent decades, and is markedly lower among younger and lower-income voters, illustrating the uneven, self-selecting participation that the fairness argument relies on.House of Commons Library, UK general election turnout statistics — source
Further reading
- George Orwell, 'Politics and the English Language' - the model for stripping a sentence to its load-bearing words, which is exactly what paraphrasing a prompt demands.
- Lewis Carroll, through the Humpty Dumpty passage in Through the Looking-Glass - the classic warning that whoever controls the meaning of a word controls the argument.
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, chapter 2 - sustained argument that defines its terms before defending them, and steel-mans the opposing view.
- Lisa Hill, 'On the Reasonableness of Compelling Citizens to Vote' (Political Studies) - a rigorous defence of compulsory attendance that separates the duty to turn out from the duty to endorse.
- Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument - the anatomy of claim, ground and warrant, which makes the hidden 'assumption' of any proposition easier to see and name.