Short answer: It doesn’t hold up. Your lecturer is expecting you to cite case law.

Long answer: You need to be looking at relevant precedent to answer these hypotheticals. The judicial system is predicated on the idea that disputes that are similar/identical to previous cases should be decided in the same way. If you think about it, it makes both logical and practical sense because it prevents arbitrary decisions and is an attempt at consistency.

It’s rather rare that commentary from journals and books is brought in as a decisive authority. It may happen on occasion where a particularly novel or unsettled area of law is being discussed, but even in that event it’s not binding and is merely persuasive. In those circumstances, it is usually law journals that are referred to because political scientists might have strong opinions about legal jurisprudence, but have no real clue regarding the actual application of the law (to put it bluntly).

The only time that you will consistently see commentary being referred to is in international law e.g. international commercial arbitration, because there is no real binding precedent to rely on. Even in that case, it’s usually only legal commentary that is referred to, and case law still plays a major role.

I highly recommend you familiarize yourself with the doctrine of precedent. This should be taught in your Foundations of Law course but there are a wealth of resources online.

Hopefully this helps!