Professor said I should include more analysis...how?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
victortsoi
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:51 pm

Professor said I should include more analysis...how?

Postby victortsoi » Fri Nov 21, 2014 2:30 pm

So went over an old exam from last semester with my professor. I did median. He said I basically got most issues, but spent too much time rule restating and not enough on analysis. I try to apply IRAC, but I guess i just did it wrong.
How do I improve on this? For example, lets take a simple example, A walks towards B, curses at him, punches him in his face: Issue: A assaulted and battered B-define assault and battery, what the requirements are, and then discuss how the rule applies to these facts. A assaulted and battered B because....maybe I'm missing something. IF someone could give an example of a good vs a "weak" analysis, I'd be grateful. Thanks.

User avatar
banjo
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:00 pm

Re: Professor said I should include more analysis...how?

Postby banjo » Fri Nov 21, 2014 2:59 pm

In the fact pattern, John walked into the dry cleaning shop during business hours on a weekday, placed a suit (enclosed in a garment bag) on the table near the cash register, and nodded several times when Tim, the owner, asked, "Same deal as last time?" Although the facts aren't perfectly clear on the next part, it appears that John silently waited for Tim to take the suit to the back of the store and return to the register. He then smiled, waved, and walked out of the store.

A reasonable person would understand by these actions that John intended to have his suit dry-cleaned for the customary price of $10. People often drop off dry-cleaning before running to work or between errands--parties rarely sit down and negotiate routine dry cleaning services, especially when they've worked together before. Applying Lucy v. Zehmer and R2d of Contracts 19, John cannot now claim that he was only joking, and that the joke should be obvious to Tim because they never discussed any terms.

On the other the hand, the facts also suggest that blah blah blah...


I completely made this up right now, so it's probably not perfect. But notice that I didn't really spend time writing at length about the law in the abstract. You can tell that I see the issue and the rule from the analysis alone.

victortsoi
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:51 pm

Re: Professor said I should include more analysis...how?

Postby victortsoi » Fri Nov 21, 2014 4:14 pm

Thanks. Its hard to know because some professors just want an outline dump. i guess i should just devote more time in future exams to the particular fact pattern? ugh....

User avatar
Avian
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Professor said I should include more analysis...how?

Postby Avian » Fri Nov 21, 2014 8:05 pm

In most exam questions that I've seen there is usually some ambiguity in every problem. Usually professors want you to explore the facts more and look for possible arguments each side could make and then come to a final conclusion explaining why a particular argument will be likely to prevail.

If all you're doing for each question is just identifying the issues and saying "it's battery because the elements were satisfied by x,y,z," you're probably missing some nuance. It's possible that the correct answer is that it's a battery but your professor probably wants you to show him/her that you can see identify the subtleties.

Remember, even if the question is "Bob came in, described what happened and wants you to him what claims and defenses he has," the point of the exam is to show your professor that you can conduct an accurate and thorough analysis. It is technically correct to answer the explicit question by just listing and defining the claims and defenses, but that's a sure way to end up at median.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests