How to Write a Mapping Exercise Commentary for Westminster LSCI Summative 1
A mapping exercise commentary is a 500-word argument that explains your map and then defends a view, so spend about a fifth of the words on the map, a third on the facts and law, and the rest on your reasoned position. If you pick the Dudley and Stephens option, the marks sit in the “do you agree?” part, not in the retelling. Need a second pair of eyes on a draft? Our law assignment help page explains what support is available.
What the assessment is really asking
The Legal Systems, Cultures and Ideas Summative Assessment 1 mapping exercise at Westminster has two deliverables. First, a map in any format you like: Miro, Lucidchart, XMind, Canva or even SmartArt. Second, a Word commentary that explains the map and takes a position on one of seven topics.
The brief gives the commentary 500 words with a 10% margin either way, so aim for 450 to 550. The map, footnotes and bibliography do not count. You need at least four authoritative sources, cited in OSCOLA footnotes with an OSCOLA bibliography at the end. The submission file should be named as the brief instructs and carry no name or student ID, because marking is anonymous. Check the deadline and upload window in your own brief and on Blackboard rather than relying on this guide.
The seven topics range from assisted suicide to Network States. Option 3, law, ethics and morals, asks you to map the dilemmas and theories in R v Dudley and Stephens (1884), outline counsel’s arguments and the judges’ opinion, and say whether you agree with the ruling. This guide uses that option as its running example, but the method works for any of the seven.
If you would rather have structured feedback than guess, our coursework support service is built for exactly this kind of short, tightly marked task.
Suggested word split
The brief does not give a section-by-section split, so the figures below are suggested only. Adjust them to your topic.
| Part (suggested) | Words | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Explain the map | 90 to 110 | Show how to read it and why you built it that way |
| Facts, counsel and judgment | 120 to 140 | Accuracy and selection, not a full case note |
| Theories and dilemmas | 90 to 110 | Name and apply, do not list |
| Your position | 140 to 160 | Argument, counter-argument, conclusion |
A step-by-step plan
- Read the topic wording twice and underline every verb: map, outline, discuss, agree.
- Gather your four to six sources first, starting with the case report itself.
- Draw the map with the case in the middle and three arms for law, ethics and morals.
- Decide your position before you write a single sentence of commentary.
- Write the position paragraph first, then the facts, then the map explanation.
- Add footnotes as you write, not afterwards.
- Cut to 450 to 550 words, then check the bibliography against the footnotes.
- Export the map as an image and the commentary as a Word file.
Section-by-section guidance
The map
A map is not a mind map of everything you know. Each branch should answer a question the commentary will raise. For Dudley and Stephens, a useful layout has the facts and the necessity rule on the legal arm, utilitarian and deontological ideas on the ethical arm, and custom of the sea and public sympathy on the moral arm. Add links between branches, and label why they connect. Unlabelled arrows look decorative.
Explaining the map
Begin with how to read it, not what is in it. A line such as “solid lines show support and dashed lines show tension” tells the marker you designed the map with purpose. Then point to the one or two links that matter most to your argument.
Counsel and judges
The case was decided in 1884, reported at 14 QBD 273, and Lord Coleridge CJ gave the court’s opinion. The defendants had killed a cabin boy while adrift after a shipwreck. Their counsel argued necessity. The Crown argued that no authority allowed an innocent life to be taken to save another. The court rejected necessity as a defence to murder. Cover this in a handful of precise sentences. Later, the death sentence was commuted to six months’ imprisonment, a detail that helps your moral argument.
Theories and dilemmas
Pick two or three theories and apply them to the facts. Utilitarianism supports the survivors, since three lives outweigh one. Kantian ideas support the court, because the boy was used as a means. Legal positivism and natural law frame a further question: must a judge apply the law even where the result feels wrong? Hart and Fuller are standard starting points for that debate.
Your position
Say whether you agree, and give a reason a thoughtful person might dispute. Then test it. Later cases such as Re A (Conjoined Twins) in the Court of Appeal give you a way to ask whether the 1884 rule is still absolute. R v Howe on duress gives you a second comparison. An honest “I agree, but with this limit” usually scores better than a flat yes or no.
If your drafts keep running long, a proofreading service can help you trim to the limit and tidy OSCOLA footnotes.
What a higher-scoring answer looks like
| Weaker sentence | Stronger sentence |
|---|---|
| The case is about whether necessity is a defence. | The court refused necessity as a defence to murder because it could not identify a principled way to value one life above another. |
| Utilitarianism says it was right. | A utilitarian would say three lives outweighed one, yet that calculation depends on treating a sick, non-consenting boy as expendable. |
| I think the court was right. | I agree with the outcome, because a necessity rule would force courts to rank lives, but the later conjoined twins case shows the rule is less absolute than the 1884 language suggests. |
| The map shows lots of things. | The map uses dashed lines to show where the legal verdict and public sympathy pulled apart. |
Mark-maximising checklist
- The map and the commentary are separate, and the commentary explains the map first.
- The word count sits inside 450 to 550.
- You have at least four authoritative sources, with a mix of cases and scholarship.
- Every footnote follows OSCOLA and appears in the bibliography.
- You take a clear position and answer the strongest counter-argument.
- Every claim about the case is accurate and attributed.
- Your file name and document carry no name or ID.
Common mistakes
- Retelling the story. The markers know the facts. Use about 120 words and move on.
- Listing theories. A paragraph defining five philosophers earns less than two applied properly.
- Treating the map as an afterthought. If the commentary never refers to it, the pairing looks accidental.
- Relying on websites. The brief asks for sources that pass the CRAAP test, and a student blog rarely does.
- Inconsistent OSCOLA. Mixed italics, missing court indicators or a bibliography in the wrong order cost easy marks.
- Sitting on the fence. “There are arguments on both sides” is not a position.
Common student worries
“I can’t fit it in 500 words.” Almost everyone says this. The fix is selection: one clear point per paragraph and no sentence that exists only to show you did the reading.
“I’m not a philosophy student.” You do not need to be. Two named theories, applied to the facts in plain language, are enough at this level.
“What if my view is unpopular?” Markers reward reasoning, not agreement. A well-supported minority view is safer than a vague popular one.
For a worked illustration, see this reference sample for the Dudley and Stephens mapping commentary, for study use only. It shows the map content as a table, then a commentary with numbered markers and an OSCOLA-style reference list. Use it to see the structure, then build your own from your own reading. For wider background on the system the case belongs to, see our common law assignment help page, and for local support, visit the Westminster University assignment help page.
FAQs
Can I use a diagram tool I already know?
Yes. The brief allows any format or tool, including Miro, Lucidchart, XMind, Coggle, Canva, CMap or SmartArt. Pick the one you can finish quickly, since clarity matters more than polish.
Does the map count towards the 500 words?
No. The brief says the map, footnotes and bibliography are not counted. The commentary itself should sit between 450 and 550 words.
How many sources do I need?
The brief asks for at least four authoritative sources, acknowledged in OSCOLA footnotes and listed in an OSCOLA bibliography. Choose sources that pass the CRAAP test: current, relevant, authoritative, accurate and written for a clear purpose.
Should I paste the map into the Word file?
The brief allows a separate upload or an image placed before the commentary. Either way, keep the map apart from the commentary text. Confirm the exact upload instructions in your module area.
Which topic is easiest?
There is no easy option. Choose the one where you already have a view you can defend and sources you can read in time. A case-based topic such as Dudley and Stephens gives you a fixed set of facts, which helps with a tight word limit.
Can I quote the judgment directly?
Short quotations are fine if they do real work, but with 500 words you will usually do better to paraphrase and cite. If you do quote, add a pinpoint reference in the footnote.
If you are short of time before the deadline, send your brief through our submit assignment page and we will advise on the next step, or explore our essay writing services for similar short-form legal tasks.
