去英国读书，大家必须要确认自己的材料能够准备齐全，其中比较重要的就是文书。和出国留学网的小编来看看英国华威大学留学essay写作指南。
书写技巧
一、做到语言规范。
1、英文论文的语言使用规范可以用来检测学生在各个学历阶段英语学习的情况。单词拼写错误是否明显，用词的选择是否恰当，句式上是否仍带有Chinglish的痕迹，从整个语篇来看是否具有英式思维。
2、英文论文的语言使用规范可以用来检测学生在撰写论文时的思路逻辑。语言使用规范不仅包括字词句的使用，还有句段和逻辑，以及文体文风。不同的论文能看出不同的写作思路、论证方法，有的是先提出问题，最后下结论，有的是在文章开头就给出自己要论证的观点，然后铺开陈述和论证。
3、英文论文的语言使用规范可以用来检测学生上课是否有听导师的要求和标准。有的导师在上课时已给出了模板，和相应的要求，如果使用不规范，导师会生气的。
二、语言规范写作技巧。
1、基础层面。如果将毕业论文比作宏伟大厦，字词句就是奠基石，是基础了，所以强烈建议学生在平常上课和学习，甚至生活中都要不断地积累学习英语，摆脱母语思维的方式，在与人交流、思考问题、论文写作的时候不要再讲汉语作为过渡了。平时多看英文文献，要记得做笔记积累，多学多思多练笔。
2、搭建结构。在开题报告和提纲的帮助下，将要用的资料，包括文献和自己整理的笔记按照提纲上的顺序放好。写之前和写作中都要理清头绪，想好论证的结构，中心明确，详略得当。
3、形成文风。根据课程的性质和选题来体现自己的风格，也体现文章的风格，这一层是相当难的，也可称作修改润色阶段，力求专业。
书写误区
切记不能撒谎！
注意前后语境与逻辑要对的上号。招考官都不是傻子，如果你Essay上写着自己小时候家里很穷，而简历上的高中却是一所贵族学校，你觉得招生老师会怎么想？如果你的写作能力够厉害，完全可以把普通的经历写的活色生香。所以，提高自己的写作能力才是王道！
切忌词藻过于华丽
把Essay 写的漂亮点本无可厚非，但是如果你用的词太生僻，以至于招生老师还要去查字典才知道是什么意思的话，就不太好了。生僻词不一定显得高级，合适的就是最好的。
英国有位新闻学教授就曾公开表示他十分讨厌“utilize”这个词，明明“use”就能表达的，何必要用“utilize”呢。
写文章的时候永远都要记住：“Don’t use a 10-cent word when a five-cent word will do.”
不要打官腔
很多留学生朋友可能都有这样的感受，写Essay时的自己和平常的自己似乎不太一样，常常不自觉的就打起了官腔。比如在Essay里你可能会写：“The indication of her rhetorical strategy…”，而在现实生活中，你会直接说：“Her style of persuasion…”哪一种看起来更像是一名20岁的年轻人会说的话？招生老师希望听到的是你的声音，你的表达，not someone else.不让你打官腔，不是说你可以在自己的essay里随意使用网络语言，这点也要注意。
不要用鸡毛蒜皮的例子证明大道理
从小事入手，但不要写鸡毛蒜皮的事儿。
不要罗列自己的成就
在Essay中罗列自己的成就是非常危险的行为。一篇Essay的字数限制只有500+，并不算多。如果你把这些宝贵的字数用来写枯燥的成就，无疑等于降低自己被录取的胜算。你的GPA成绩和课外活动情况都在简历上写明了，无需在Essay上重复说明。如果说简历是一副简笔画的话，那么Essay就是上色的过程。Essay的目的是让招生老师更深入的了解你，可千万不要絮絮叨叨没完没了，要节约资源又能表现完全。机会不可浪费哦。
参考范文
In English law the law making power lies with the parliament. However judges also make law by way of judicial pronouncement. Under the English legal system it is deemed that the decisions given by higher courts are binding on the lower courts. This principle is famously known as ＇stare decisis＇ which means to stand by previously decided cases. The importance of this principle is that courts are bound to follow previously decided cases specially if the decision is given by a higher court. For e.g. the Court of Appeal is bound to follow the decision given by the UK Supreme Court （previously House of Lords）.
It can also be said that nowadays judicial precedent has been laid down in such a manner that it will be more easier for judges to interpret the law and also to stay on the path of precedent which is now flexible enough to give judges the room to give fair and just judgment according to the demand of time.
All decisions at least create a persuasive precedent， the degree of persuasiveness depends on the position of the court in the legal hierarchy. For e.g. precedents from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is not binding since the Committee is not part of the normal hierarchy of courts in UK （because the Committee is comprised of up to 9 of the most senior judges， Lords of Appeal in Ordinary （or Law Lords）） r sources of persuasive precedents include courts in foreign countries， for example， the decision in （Eliason v. Henshaw）.
Obiter dicta have formed law in many cases for example， in （Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd） and Pinnel＇s Case.
There are three main reasons why persuasive precedents are not binding：
The first is that the doctrine of precedent in similar cases should be treated in the same way. This restriction does not apply with persuasive precedents.
The second is that there are a huge bulk of persuasive precedents， and it would be impracticable to follow them.
The third is that persuasive precedents are frequently not considered per curiam as ratio decidendi and even when they are， they are not usually considered. Therefore there is a greater risk that they will be considered ill and thus may be bad law.
Only points of law are binding. For example， in （Qualcast v. Haynes）， it was decided that the ＇precedent＇ that employers who failed to give instructions on the use of protective clothing were de facto negligent， was a question of fact and therefore not binding.
There are two main theories of precedent. The first of these is the declaratory theory， which states that the common law does not change - in each case the law is merely re-stated but not added to - the judges are declaring the law on the basis of past decisions.
The realistic theory is that they do - all principles must originally come from somewhere， and the abstraction of old principles is the creation of ne.
