written exams Forum

[Extension_Cord]

Would it be a waste of time to write out a sentence or parenthetical containing the facts of a case in an IRAC?

Issue: What A's advertisement an offer to B?
Rule: Advertisements are generally considered invitations to receive offers rather than offers, but if an advertisement is specifies a quantity and who can accept then a court can find its a offer. Izadi v. Machado (Determining a misleading car sales advertisement that is an offer when a reasonable person would interpret it as an offer).

DISCLAIMER: I just picked a random case when I did that above, it may be an inacurrate description of the rule or case.

Or would it be best to to just leave out the parenthetical? I was thinking its probably best to leave it out because its IRAC and doesn't include an E for explanation, but then again in the application its good to compare and distinguish cases and you need facts of the case in order to distinguish them.

Also, Ive seen some of my classmates IRACs for an ungraded midterm, we exchanged them in class. Some of them included a facts section before the issue. I thought that was kind of dumb, am I totally missing something? I was under the impression its best to talk about facts only as you apply the law.

[shock259]

I'm confused. Are you talking about exam writing here?

If so, I think it would be much better to just compare it to the case in a sentence than using weird bluebook-esque parentheticals.

Like: This case is similar to Izadi (for these reasons). In Izadi, the court determined a misleading car sales advertisement that is an offer when a reasonable person would interpret it as an offer. The court would likely take the same route here because (analaysis).

Does your professor want you to cite cases? Most of mine have told me that it is not necessary. I think dropping an occasional analogy from a case if the facts are substantially similar could bolster your argument, but it can be dangerous to just compare them, because I'm sure the prof won't use a fact pattern that is the exact same as the case.

So, back to your hypo, I would probably structure it more like:

Advertisements are generally considered invitations to receive offers rather than offers, but if an advertisement is specifies a quantity and who can accept then a court can find its a offer. Here, A would argue that the ad was an offer because it referred to a "few" widgets, which most people understand as a measure of quantity, and the ad was directly addressed to B. B would counter that a few is not a specific quantity and can refer to a number of different quantities, thus is not specific enough. A would mention the case of Izadi, where (facts) and the court held that (holding). (B's counter arguments or differentiating of case). (more arguments). (iffy conclusion).

Dunno if that makes sense. Just made up some facts. But yeah. 1L here, so take it for what it is worth.

[Extension_Cord]

I'm confused. Are you talking about exam writing here?

If so, I think it would be much better to just compare it to the case in a sentence than using weird bluebook-esque parentheticals.

Like: This case is similar to Izadi (for these reasons). In Izadi, the court determined a misleading car sales advertisement that is an offer when a reasonable person would interpret it as an offer. The court would likely take the same route here because (analaysis).

Does your professor want you to cite cases? Most of mine have told me that it is not necessary. I think dropping an occasional analogy from a case if the facts are substantially similar could bolster your argument, but it can be dangerous to just compare them, because I'm sure the prof won't use a fact pattern that is the exact same as the case.

So, back to your hypo, I would probably structure it more like:

Advertisements are generally considered invitations to receive offers rather than offers, but if an advertisement is specifies a quantity and who can accept then a court can find its a offer. Here, A would argue that the ad was an offer because it referred to a "few" widgets, which most people understand as a measure of quantity, and the ad was directly addressed to B. B would counter that a few is not a specific quantity and can refer to a number of different quantities, thus is not specific enough. A would mention the case of Izadi, where (facts) and the court held that (holding). (B's counter arguments or differentiating of case). (more arguments). (iffy conclusion).

Dunno if that makes sense. Just made up some facts. But yeah. 1L here, so take it for what it is worth.

We were told citing isnt required, but recommended because it makes the reader more confident in your analysis.

[dood]

not doing so well in LRW i see.

[Extension_Cord]

not doing so well in LRW i see.

I did very well in LRW. CREAC is different from IRAC and my purpose here is to learn exactly what is expected of me in the exam because I do have questions.

[dood]

not doing so well in LRW i see.

I did very well in LRW. CREAC is different from IRAC and my purpose here is to learn exactly what is expected of me in the exam because I do have questions.

a) how would u know how well u did in LRW?

b) assuming u did, then u should know when its appropriate to use a parenthetical and when its a fucking waste of time.

c) "exactly what is expected of in an exam" can only be found out by speaking to ur prof. "when to use a parenthetical" (which was ur original question) - see b) above.

[forty-two]

not doing so well in LRW i see.

I did very well in LRW. CREAC is different from IRAC and my purpose here is to learn exactly what is expected of me in the exam because I do have questions.

Well, shock gave you a pretty good example. I think the problem is that you're thinking of the IRAC structure as too regimented. Yes, you do need to spot the issue, analyze whether the rule should apply here, and find a conclusion, but it doesn't need to look like: The issue is this. The rule is that. This is an explanation of what the rule means. This is how the rule applies on these facts. Here is the conclusion.

I don't use the above structure on exams because it simply takes too long for me to write out, and I don't want to waste my time on things that won't get me any points. You'll get points for spotting issues and providing analysis. You also need to give a conclusion, but most professors don't care what you conclude as long as your analysis is sound. Also, in my experience, profs typically don't give points for rule statements. So instead of taking the time to write out the rule, I usually just apply the rule to the facts. Writing out the rule is totally fine though if you're a fast enough typist/have the time.

My exam answers tend to look something like this: A will bring up X issue. [You can state the rule here if you want to]. A will argue that it applies in this case for 1, 2, and 3 reasons/that it satisfies 1 element because of [insert facts and analysis here]... B, however, will argue that it doesn't apply for 4, 5, and 6 reasons/that it doesn't satisfy this other element because of [reasoning]. I think think the court would agree with A that X issue applies because the facts are similar to [insert case here] where the court found that the issue applied. I also think the court would find that X issue applies here because [insert policy argument here].

You should definitely talk to your profs though to see how they want things answered though. For example, some profs want fewer issues and more analysis, some want more issues and less analysis, some want case analogies and some don't care, some want to you write rule statements and others don't care...

[Extension_Cord]

not doing so well in LRW i see.

I did very well in LRW. CREAC is different from IRAC and my purpose here is to learn exactly what is expected of me in the exam because I do have questions.

a) how would u know how well u did in LRW?

b) assuming u did, then u should know when its appropriate to use a parenthetical and when its a fucking waste of time.

c) "exactly what is expected of in an exam" can only be found out by speaking to ur prof. "when to use a parenthetical" (which was ur original question) - see b) above.

a) we received our first memo back and graded section from final memo. I was the high score on both.
b) IRAC is different, we didnt have a lecture on IRAC. My professor just told us to write in IRAC. Im doing research to figure out the best way to write IRAC.
c) My last class is friday, I will ask my professor then. I have begun practice questions and was hoping I could get some insight from the TLS community.