Practice: Outlining 6 Essays in 30 Minutes
The ability to plan an essay quickly is one of the most valuable skills for LNAT Section B. On test day, you have approximately 5 minutes to choose your topic and plan your essay before you start writing. This lesson provides a rapid planning drill — outlining 6 essays in 30 minutes — that builds your speed, flexibility, and confidence across different topic areas.
Why Rapid Planning Matters
The 5-Minute Planning Window
In Section B, you have 40 minutes total. The optimal allocation is:
| Activity | Time |
|---|
| Read the 3 prompts and choose one | 2–3 minutes |
| Plan your essay | 3–5 minutes |
| Write your essay | 28–30 minutes |
| Review and edit | 2–3 minutes |
The planning phase is where most of the intellectual work happens. A well-planned essay almost writes itself; a poorly planned essay meanders, contradicts itself, and runs out of time.
Why Practise Outlining Without Writing?
Writing a full 500–600 word essay takes 30–35 minutes. Outlining takes 5. By practising outlines only, you can rehearse the planning process six times in the time it would take to write one full essay. This gives you:
- Breadth: exposure to many different topics and arguments
- Speed: the planning process becomes automatic
- Flexibility: you learn to construct arguments on topics you have not specifically prepared for
- Confidence: you walk into the test knowing you can plan any essay in under 5 minutes
The 5-Minute Outline Format
For each essay, produce this outline in 5 minutes or fewer:
| Element | Content | Time |
|---|
| Thesis | One sentence stating your position | 30 seconds |
| Argument 1 | The claim + the example you will use | 60 seconds |
| Argument 2 | The claim + the example you will use | 60 seconds |
| Counter-argument | The strongest opposing view | 45 seconds |
| Rebuttal | Your response to the counter-argument | 45 seconds |
| Conclusion | How you will end (one sentence) | 30 seconds |
This is a skeleton, not a draft. You are not writing full sentences — you are noting key words and phrases that will guide your writing.
The Drill: 6 Essays in 30 Minutes
Below are six essay prompts, one from each major topic area. Set a timer for 30 minutes and produce a 5-minute outline for each one. Do not write the full essay — outlines only.
Prompt 1: Ethics
"Is it ever morally justifiable to break the law?"
Model Outline:
- Thesis: Breaking the law is morally justifiable in exceptional circumstances where the law itself is unjust and legal means of change have been exhausted.
- Argument 1: Historical precedent — the Suffragettes broke the law because legal channels for women's enfranchisement were closed. Their lawbreaking was morally justified by the injustice it opposed.
- Argument 2: Philosophical basis — Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail" argues that one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. The distinction between just and unjust law provides a principled basis for civil disobedience.
- Counter-argument: Rule of law — if individuals decide for themselves which laws to obey, the legal system collapses. The remedy for unjust laws is democratic change, not individual defiance.
- Rebuttal: Democratic channels are not always available (e.g., the disenfranchised cannot vote to change the law). Civil disobedience is a last resort, not a first option, and typically involves accepting legal consequences — which demonstrates respect for the rule of law even while challenging a specific law.
- Conclusion: Lawbreaking is justified only when the law is clearly unjust, legal alternatives are inadequate, and the actor is willing to accept the consequences.
Prompt 2: Politics
"Does social media threaten democracy?"
Model Outline:
- Thesis: Social media poses genuine threats to democratic discourse but also strengthens democracy in other ways; the net effect depends on regulation.
- Argument 1: Echo chambers and polarisation — algorithms feed users content that reinforces existing views, reducing exposure to opposing perspectives. This undermines the informed deliberation that democracy requires. Example: The role of social media in political polarisation in the US.
- Argument 2: Misinformation — false content spreads faster than corrections. The Cambridge Analytica scandal demonstrated how social media data can be weaponised for political manipulation.
- Counter-argument: Social media has democratised political participation. Movements like Black Lives Matter and the Arab Spring used social media to organise, mobilise, and give voice to marginalised communities in ways traditional media never could.
- Rebuttal: These benefits are real but do not negate the structural threats. The question is not whether social media can serve democracy but whether its current design — optimised for engagement, not truth — does so. Regulation (such as the EU Digital Services Act) can preserve the benefits while mitigating the harms.
- Conclusion: Social media threatens democracy not inherently but by design; regulation that addresses algorithmic amplification and misinformation can preserve its democratic benefits.
Prompt 3: Technology
Specimen prompt: Should governments regulate artificial intelligence?
Model Outline:
- Thesis: Governments should regulate AI, but regulation must be proportionate and adaptive to avoid stifling innovation.
- Argument 1: Accountability — when AI systems make consequential decisions (criminal sentencing, hiring, medical diagnosis), there must be accountability for errors and biases. The COMPAS sentencing algorithm in the US demonstrated how unchecked AI can reproduce racial bias.
- Argument 2: Precedent — we regulate every other technology that affects public safety (pharmaceuticals, vehicles, food). AI is no different. The EU AI Act (2024) provides a risk-based framework that regulates high-risk applications without restricting low-risk innovation.
- Counter-argument: Over-regulation will drive AI development to less regulated jurisdictions, putting compliant countries at a competitive disadvantage. Innovation requires experimentation, and excessive rules stifle it.
- Rebuttal: The EU AI Act takes a proportionate approach, imposing strict requirements only on high-risk applications. Low-risk AI is largely unregulated. This is analogous to pharmaceutical regulation: strict for drugs, light for cosmetics. Competitive disadvantage is a risk, but a race to the bottom on safety standards is worse.
- Conclusion: Proportionate, risk-based AI regulation — strict for high-risk applications, light for low-risk — balances safety with innovation.
Prompt 4: Criminal Justice
"Should the age of criminal responsibility be raised?"
Model Outline: