Stimulus and scenario questions are designed to test whether students can apply their Legal Studies knowledge in context. In theory, this should be reassuring. Students are given information. They are told what to focus on. They are not expected to rely on memory alone.
In practice, these questions expose some of the most persistent weaknesses in exam execution.
The 2024 Examiner’s Report makes clear that many students struggled to use stimulus material effectively. Responses often demonstrated sound knowledge of the course but failed to engage meaningfully with the scenario provided. As a result, marks were lost not because the law was misunderstood, but because it was applied generically rather than contextually.
Treating stimulus as decoration rather than direction
One of the most common errors in stimulus-based questions is treating the source material as something to reference superficially rather than something that shapes the response.
In both the Sample Questions and the 2024 examination, Section B scenarios were deliberately constructed to narrow the focus of the task. Students were expected to draw on specific facts, perspectives or constraints contained within the stimulus when analysing or evaluating an issue. The Examiner’s Report indicates that many responses mentioned the stimulus briefly, often by naming a person, institution or statistic, but then reverted to a general explanation that could have applied to almost any situation.
Stronger responses used the stimulus to frame their reasoning. They referred back to the details provided and used them to justify claims about effectiveness, impact or limitation. The stimulus was not an add-on. It was central to the argument being made.
Writing prepared answers into unfamiliar contexts
Another pattern identified in the Examiner’s Report was overreliance on rehearsed responses.
Stimulus questions often involve familiar areas of study, such as access to justice, law reform, or the role of institutions, but they are presented through unfamiliar scenarios. Some students responded by reshaping a memorised paragraph to fit the topic area, rather than engaging directly with the scenario. While the content was often accurate, it lacked specificity.
For example, in questions that required students to analyse the need for legal representation or evaluate the contribution of support services using stimulus material, weaker responses explained the general role of legal practitioners or assistance bodies without linking that explanation to the circumstances described. Assessors were unable to reward application marks where the scenario itself was not meaningfully used.
Misjudging what the question is actually testing
Stimulus-based questions often combine multiple demands. Students must interpret the scenario, identify the relevant legal issue, and then apply the correct skill specified by the command term.
The Examiner’s Report highlights that many students focused heavily on one aspect of this process at the expense of others. Some responses summarised the stimulus accurately but did not progress into analysis or evaluation. Others ignored key details in the stimulus and responded as though the question were purely theoretical.
In higher-mark stimulus questions, particularly those requiring discussion or evaluation, marks were awarded for how well students used the scenario to support their reasoning. Responses that treated the stimulus as background information rather than evidence struggled to access higher mark ranges.
Scope control within scenarios
Stimulus questions often impose additional scope limits.
In both the Sample Questions and the 2024 exam, students were asked to respond from a particular perspective, focus on a specific institution, or assess a defined issue within the scenario. The Examiner’s Report notes that many students exceeded these limits, introducing content that was accurate but irrelevant to the task.
Stronger responses demonstrated restraint. They selected details from the stimulus that were relevant to the question and ignored those that were not. This selectivity signalled judgement and helped keep the response aligned with the task.
The role of examples in stimulus responses
Stimulus questions reduce the need for external examples, yet many students continued to insert memorised cases or reforms unnecessarily.
The Examiner’s Report indicates that higher-scoring responses often relied primarily on the stimulus itself as the example, using its details to illustrate points about effectiveness, fairness or impact. Where external examples were used, they were clearly linked to the scenario and used to deepen the analysis rather than replace it.
Responses that defaulted to familiar examples without integrating the stimulus tended to lose marks for relevance.
What strong stimulus responses had in common
Across the 2024 exam and the Sample Questions, strong stimulus responses shared several features. They engaged closely with the facts provided, used the language of the scenario deliberately, and allowed the stimulus to shape the direction of the response.
These students did not summarise the stimulus unnecessarily. They used it selectively, as evidence. Their responses showed that they had read carefully, identified what mattered, and applied their knowledge accordingly.
The takeaway
Stimulus and scenario questions in VCE Legal Studies are not designed to disadvantage students. They are designed to reveal how well students can adapt their knowledge to specific circumstances.
Students who struggle with these questions rarely lack understanding of the course. They struggle because they treat stimulus material as optional rather than directive. Improvement comes from practising how to read scenarios carefully, identify what the question is really testing, and use the stimulus as the foundation of the response.
For students who feel confident with Legal Studies content but inconsistent in Section B performance, this is the skill that most often needs attention.
Where ATAR STAR can help
Stimulus and scenario questions expose how well students can apply Legal Studies knowledge under constraint. As the Examiner’s Report shows, marks are most often lost when students fail to use the scenario as the foundation of their reasoning, misjudge scope, or revert to generic explanations that do not engage with the material provided.
ATAR STAR works with students at this exact point of difficulty. Our Legal Studies support focuses on how stimulus questions are constructed, how assessors reward application and relevance, and how students can use scenario material deliberately to support analysis and evaluation.
We work with students across a range of starting points. Some need help breaking the habit of relying on memorised responses. Others need guidance on reading scenarios more strategically and identifying what the question is actually testing. In both cases, the goal is the same: stronger application, clearer judgement, and responses that remain anchored to the stimulus throughout.
For students who understand the course but feel inconsistent in Section B performance, this is often the most effective area for improvement. ATAR STAR helps students develop the habits and decision-making skills needed to turn scenario-based questions from a weakness into a source of marks when it matters most.