Matthew case Response 1 (Teena Whitehead) Some great piece of work right there, I find the analysis comprehensive

especially the fact that it quotes various authorities to back the reasoning behind it. For instance, the writer alludes to the equal rights commission and civil rights act of 1964 to illustrate how absurd it would be to hire people from the same religious faiths. According to the article, this might even affect the company productivity. I find this reasoning valid and indeed, it adequately addresses the main issue raised by the Matthew case. However, I feel that the argument would have been further buttressed by giving case laws to illustrate how a similar case in the past was decided in a court of law. Response 2 (Sarah Kendrick) Well, in spite of the fact that the discussion captures the main issues raised in Matthews case; discrimination on religious grounds, I find it too short and shallow for that matter. Somebody would have expected something longer and elaborate illustrating the principles being tested and their application. Given this is a law subject; I expected to see some decided case laws, their arguments of course from both sides and the court decision accompanied by the reasoning behind it. There are also some grammatical mistakes in the discussion! I hope next time you will be able to check on those few mistakes and make corrections otherwise the main issues is well grasped. Response 3 (Garreth Roberts) Did I expect some kind of a short essay as the response as opposed to the question answer thing? I think this would have been better in the sense that the response would be coherent and better organized. Discussions to some questions are unnecessarily long, for instance, question one response is kind of copying word for word from the case, which is not acceptable. The idea is to do it in your own words so that you can exhibit how well you can synthesize information and reproduce ideas. This would then b e an indication of issues and facts raised in the case. The rest of the questions are responded to adequately including citing of case laws, which is excellent. Response 4 (micky gowdy) Well done, some nice responses in there! However, I would have expected the work to be more organized. Probably some formatting and responding it to it in some kind of prose would have given it some decency. Given that it is law, a case law here and there would be bad to illustrate the issues arising from the case. For instance a case showing breach of contract on basis of it being too biased to be executed, the court presentations and the ruling of the judges. This would have gone a long way to illustrate the concept hence giving your responses some authority.

Response 5 (Jennifer cinorses) Well done, your work has some formatting, which gives it some degree of neatness and hence it makes it easier for one to go through it. Your work also has some references in the form of case law, which gives your discussions some kind of academic authority. However, it would have been better if the discussions were done in one prose thing to give it some coherence. Overall, all issues raised in the case have been addressed properly . Next time try to add some more words in your response because this will be expected to explain the issues in a better way. Response 6 (Robert balcom) Some nice work in there because as I think it exceeds expectations. The answers given are a clear indication of good research. However, I recommend that next time you should present the work in prose. Try to put in it some case laws especially in this case, which is a law subject. It gives your work academic authority apart from a better way to illustrate your points in a real life situation. If possible again try to give some references within and the end of your discussion. All in all I must once again commend this is a good piece of work safe for a few issues here and there, which I have highlighted already.

Professor comments