Writing exam answers Forum

[iliketurtles123]

Can someone who's gotten mostly A's clear this up for me?

For exams (mostly issue spotters) how do I write a great answer?

Problem: Find all the potential conflicts between X and Y.
Answer: One potential conflict would be lack of consideration in the contract between X and Y. For there to be consideration, there must be [explain the black letter law]. Hence, X would argue that [why there is no consideration]. Y would argue [why there is consideration]. Based on the court in Z, it would seem like X is correct since [give some sort of analysis- probably comparing X's argument to the the black letter or court Z's ruling, but highlighting differences that may strengthen or weaken X's point]

is this correct?
Last semester I read Getting to Maybe, did a ton of PTs, and went over them with my professors. However, my grades all over the place, even though my approach was somewhat the same. My professors have not been helpful at all except saying "your answer was good but not great. You need to go the extra mile". I'm not sure what this "extra mile" is.

Just wondering if I'm missing anything in terms of format

[transferror]

It's all really subjective. Have you tried LEEWS? Most of it is common sense, but it has some useful tips. In my experience, when a professor says something like "go the extra mile," it means s/he wanted more critical analysis (nuance) on the "hinge" points of the problem rather than a broad brush over everything. Quickly and firmly dismiss red herrings and easily resolved legal issues and focus on the element or finding that will be outcome-determinative. I know it sounds simple, but when I read back over my writing, I realize I spend way too much time on easy stuff because it's so easy and straightforward to write out. It feels like I'm feeling the page with correct analysis, but it ends up being pointless and scoring minimal points.

[jarofsoup]

Just IRAC.

[lawhopeful10]

Just IRAC.

I wouldn't do this but that's just my opinion.

As others have said there can definitely be a lot of variety between teachers as to what they are looking for so part of doing well is finding out how your teacher grades and modifying your approach to fit that. More generally you seem to be on the right track. All most law exams are, are you making creative arguments for why one side should win with some rule or case as the back drop. Then if that hurts one side you say "we can differentiate for X, Y, and Z reasons" or say the point of that rule is X and that really helps the other side or something like that. Really just view exam taking as trying to come up with as many good, clear, legal arguments as possible and use the class material to help. Sorry if that isn't clear.

Edit: Also very important make sure you don't spend much time talking about the law without the facts and vice versa. You should constantly be alternating between the two.

[WhiskeynCoke]

Can someone who's gotten mostly A's clear this up for me?

For exams (mostly issue spotters) how do I write a great answer?

Problem: Find all the potential conflicts between X and Y.
Answer: One potential conflict would be lack of consideration in the contract between X and Y. For there to be consideration, there must be [explain the black letter law]. Hence, X would argue that [why there is no consideration]. Y would argue [why there is consideration]. Based on the court in Z, it would seem like X is correct since [give some sort of analysis- probably comparing X's argument to the the black letter or court Z's ruling, but highlighting differences that may strengthen or weaken X's point]

is this correct?
Last semester I read Getting to Maybe, did a ton of PTs, and went over them with my professors. However, my grades all over the place, even though my approach was somewhat the same. My professors have not been helpful at all except saying "your answer was good but not great. You need to go the extra mile". I'm not sure what this "extra mile" is.

Just wondering if I'm missing anything in terms of format

Check your professors' model answers to figure out what each of them is looking for. While a few may prefer a more a more formalistic "IRAC" structure, in my experience most top exam answers tend to follow a more "CAAAC" (analysis, analysis, analysis = more points). If you start with your conclusion, its a lot easier for a grader to follow your reasoning, and give you points. (hint: it doesn't matter if it's "wrong")

What does this mean? start with a quick conclusion, ditch your issue and rule statement, jam-pack more back and forth analysis (case/§ dropping if you can) and wrap up by repeating your short conclusion. If you look over your example, you've wasted a lot of words on things that aren't getting you many points and your answer sounds very robotic. Also, I don't know where you're going yet. You read getting to maybe, so you know what I'm talking about. If you're applying the rule properly, and have decently organized your answer (use headings) the professor knows you get the rule and what issue you're talking about. The kid who wasted 2 sentences on a issue/rule statement now has 2 less sentences of analysis (and less points).

[ph14]

I IRAC, but I also type fast, especially on exams. It doesn't cost me any words that could be spent on analysis.

[Seminole_305]

I tend to use the word "because" a lot and write clear and simple.

[emciosn]

I probably do something close to IRAC (although I don't necessarily consciously adhere to IRAC, if that makes any sense). I had a professor tell me once that the best essays show that the writer really "struggled" with the question/answer. Not struggle in the sense that poor schmuck had no idea what the answer was but that every aspect of the analysis was teased out as much as possible. A lot of times you could come down either way on a question (or one the several issues that make up the question). You just have to know the law really well and be able to understand both sides of the argument. Then show that you get both sides in the analysis. I think some law students pick an answer and are so confident in themselves that their analysis is fairly one-sided. I think a lot professors don't care what you think the answer is. They care more about your depth of understanding on the issue/question. So really fleshing arguments, counterarguments, etc. in your analysis and giving the sense that you really "struggled" to come to what in the end is a very thoughtful answer helps a lot (my grades really shot up after my first semester once I came to understand this).

ETA: also, being able to type fast is important (for most professors).

[BVest]

I try to stick to IRAC as much as the question allows it.

I also tend to outline, but the latter is more related to my concern that I don't type fast enough. My outlining more like me just spitting out one to five word reminders of things for me to talk about, which I then go and turn into sentences. My theory is that if I run out of time, the prof will see that I didn't just miss an issue altogether.

[Virindi]

LEEWS probably the best, but you only have time to learn how to IRAC. Just don't stick to IRAC like it's the word of god, sometimes you're going to have to leave it for complex causation issues and the sort that ping off a variety of other issues.