Extended responses are where many VCE Legal Studies students expect to gain marks and where they most often lose them. These questions feel familiar, they resemble SAC tasks students have practised, and they appear to reward depth. Despite this, the 2024 Examiner’s Report shows that extended responses were a consistent site of underperformance.
The issue was rarely content knowledge. Students generally understood the areas of study being assessed. What limited performance was how that knowledge was applied to the specific demands of the question.
Extended responses in VCE Legal Studies assess judgement under constraint.
Writing to the topic instead of the question
One of the clearest patterns in the Examiner’s Report was students writing to the topic area rather than to the question set.
This was particularly evident in extended questions that required evaluation of the ability of the justice system to achieve the principles of justice, such as those modelled in the Sample Questions and reflected in the 2024 exam. Many students correctly explained the principles of justice and described features of the system, but failed to evaluate how effectively those principles were achieved in the context provided.
These responses were often detailed and confident, yet they remained explanatory. The task required judgement about effectiveness, supported by reasoning. Explaining the system, even accurately, did not satisfy that requirement.
The Examiner’s Report makes clear that extended responses stalled when students failed to shift from explanation into evaluative reasoning early enough.
Losing marks through poor control of scope
Scope control was another major issue in extended responses.
In both the Sample Questions and the 2024 exam, several extended questions deliberately restricted the response. For example, students were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of a specific institution, assess the role of a particular body, or discuss the achievement of justice with reference to a given scenario.
The Examiner’s Report indicates that many students exceeded these limits. Where a question required focus on one institution, students often wrote about several. Where a question required analysis of a particular factor, students discussed multiple factors broadly. In these cases, only material relevant to the specified scope was credited.
Extended responses reward depth within limits. Broad coverage beyond the limits of the question does not increase marks and often weakens the response.
Extended evaluation treated as a conclusion
Evaluation was a recurring weakness in extended responses.
In questions that required students to discuss or evaluate issues such as the effectiveness of law reform bodies or the ability of mechanisms to bring about change, many students included a short judgement at the end of an otherwise descriptive response. The Examiner’s Report repeatedly notes that this approach limited access to higher marks.
Higher-scoring responses embedded evaluation throughout. Each paragraph contributed to assessing effectiveness, extent or significance, rather than postponing judgement until the final lines. Conclusions summarised reasoning that had already been developed, rather than introducing it for the first time.
This distinction is especially important in 8- and 10-mark questions, which appear regularly in both the Sample Questions and the end-of-year exam.
Structure and paragraphing issues
Extended responses are not marked impressionistically. Assessors look for developed points that address the task.
The Examiner’s Report highlights that stronger extended responses were structured around clear ideas, each aligned with the command term. Paragraphs were purposeful and focused. Weaker responses often blended multiple ideas together, making it difficult to identify how many relevant points had been made or how they addressed the question.
Length alone did not improve performance. Some of the longest responses struggled to access higher marks because ideas were not clearly developed or clearly tied back to the task.
Use of examples in extended responses
Examples played a decisive role in extended responses, particularly in questions requiring evaluation of systems, institutions or reforms.
The Examiner’s Report notes that many students included examples simply to demonstrate recall. These examples were often accurate but insufficiently linked to the question’s focus. In contrast, stronger responses used examples to justify claims about effectiveness, impact or limitation.
For instance, in extended questions involving civil justice or law reform, higher-scoring responses explicitly connected examples to the principle or criterion being assessed. The example was used as evidence within reasoning, not as an isolated detail.
Time management and extended responses
Extended responses were also where time mismanagement became most visible.
The Examiner’s Report refers to incomplete answers, rushed final paragraphs and missing conclusions, particularly in later extended questions. In many cases, this was linked to students spending disproportionate time on lower-mark questions earlier in the paper.
Stronger students regulated their time carefully, allowing sufficient space to develop extended responses in line with their mark value.
What strong extended responses had in common
Across the Sample Questions, the 2024 exam and the Examiner’s Report, a consistent picture emerges. Strong extended responses were tightly focused on the task, controlled in scope, structured around clear reasoning and evaluative throughout where required.
These responses did not attempt to demonstrate everything the student knew about the topic. They demonstrated exactly what the question required.
The takeaway
Extended responses in VCE Legal Studies reward precision, structure and sustained alignment with the task. Students who struggle with these questions rarely need to revise more content. They need to practise making better decisions about relevance, depth and judgement under exam conditions.
For students who understand the course but are disappointed by extended response marks, this is where improvement is found.
Where ATAR STAR can help
Extended responses are rarely lost on content alone. As the Examiner’s Report consistently shows, marks are lost through misjudged scope, weak structure, limited evaluation and poor regulation of depth under exam conditions.
ATAR STAR works with students precisely at this point of breakdown. Our Legal Studies support focuses on how extended responses are read and rewarded by assessors, how to control scope and structure under time pressure, and how to embed evaluative reasoning throughout a response rather than appending it at the end.
We meet students where they are. Whether a student has strong content knowledge that needs sharper execution, or uneven understanding that requires consolidation alongside skill development, our approach is tailored to building control and confidence in extended responses.
For students who feel capable in Legal Studies but consistently fall short in high-mark questions, this is often the difference between effort and results. ATAR STAR helps students close that gap deliberately, so understanding is translated into marks when it matters most.