Top Law Schools

• If you changed this element or that element, how does that affect your analysis?
  How would you defend your client or eviscerate opposition by finding holes in their arguments?
  Are there cases that you have read which provided a legal rule you could cite to and mention to ground your argument in legally relevant support?

thesealocust wrote:Basically every convincing argument you make is worth a point. If you spot an issue and throw a conclusion out, you'll kind of get a point and your prof will be sad. If you extensively analyze how and whether the various elements will or will not be met based on the facts presented, you'll get a ton of points for each "issue" relative to people who similarly spotted them but were conclusory in their analysis.

I wrote out a long set of examples to this effect once:

thesealocust wrote:
Sample Question:

A park has a sign which states "no vehicles are allowed in the park." John enters the park with a tricycle. Discuss whether John has violated the statute.

- - - - - - - - - -

Crappy answer:

The issue is whether or not a tricycle will qualify as a vehicle for purposes of the sign. The sign states that no vehicles are allowed in the park. John entered the park on a tricycle, which is a vehicle. Therefore John has violated the park's rule.

Note the lovely IRAC, the conclusory analysis that goes where the analysis should be, and the number of words wasted without doing any analysis. This answer might be worth a point.

- - - - - - - - - -

Decent answer:

The issue is whether or not a tricycle will qualify as a vehicle for purposes of the sign. The sign states that no vehicles are allowed in the park. John entered the park on a tricycle, which is designed to transport a human rider, and thus likely a vehicle. Therefore John has probably violated the park's rule because the sign clearly forbids entry of any vehicles, and under nearly any standard definition a tricycle would constitute a vehicle.

This comes much closer to real analysis. It's still a little conclusory and still not getting as deep into policy and counterarguments as it could, but it's accomplished - at a minimum level - what an exam needs to accomplish, and will get at least a point or two.

- - - - - - - - - -

Good answer:

An issue will be whether a tricycle counts as a vehicle. John will argue that it does not, at least not within the meaning of the sign, because the sign is probably designed to keep dangerous vehicles out of a park filled with pedestrians. A tricycle, on the other hand, is small and incapable of great speed, meaning it likely isn't the kind of "vehicle" the sign-makers anticipated. On the other hand, it is clearly a means of transportation for John, and so by the sign's plain meaning his tricycle is probably prohibited. Additionally, if a tricycle didn't count as a vehicle for purposes of the sign, then it might leave ambiguity about what vehicles counted if the plain meaning couldn't be used, which could lead to people being confused on other fringe cases. And while tricycles are smaller than cars, they do still pose danger relative to pedestrians. in fact, because they are quieter than cars or other motorized vehicles, they may present even greater danger to pedestrians who can't hear well or who might not be paying attention. They also tend to be operated by children who may pose a greater danger to them than adults and the vehicles they tend to operate.

John may argue that because it's a park, a tricycle and other recreational vehicles are actually the kind of things designed to be in the park -- and protected from other, large vehicles. Parks are traditionally places where children gather to play and tricycles are traditionally viewed as toys and not as vehicles. Much like a matchbox car might bear many of the attributes of a car, most wouldn't consider a vehicle or subject to regulations regarding larger and more standard means of transportation.

Finally, the facts state that John entered the park with the tricycle but not on it. If he's only pushing it or carrying it, there's a much better argument to be made that it's not being used as a vehicle and thus does not violate the sign. Much as a person could walk through the park with a boxed bicycle under their arm, being in possession of something that could be used as a vehicle likely isn't the same thing as operating one. The park owners are likely more concerned with the uses of vehicles being operated than with their presence for any reason.

This is probably overkill, but you could likely write more if you wanted to. You need to use judgement to figure out when to move on, but being thorough and fleshing things out are how you spot the same issues as your classmates but wind up with more points.

Notice that it doesn't really look like IRAC and never even really comes to a conclusion. Professor styles and desires vary, but usually all of the points are in the analysis.

- - - - - - - - - -

First observation - the law here is literally one sentence, but you can still see a lot of variation. Second, all three answers spotted the issue, but one is getting way more points for it than the others. Lastly, there is no need to spend time restating the law or the facts when you're actively applying them.

But do you see how much you can come up with to say while forming arguments and counter arguments even when the law is simple? That's how you get points on exams. You muck around in the gray areas, and you show that you're capable of marshaling the facts given and the policies behind the rules to show how things could turn out. The exam will certainly have far more facts, and you should do your best to come up with some way for each fact to be legally operative. If you had facts about the nature of the park, the nature of the tricycle, the purpose behind the sign, etc. that could all go into fleshing it out even further.

Good luck, and remember that what you do on the exam is going to matter much more than how furiously you study the laws, so long as you do enough studying of the law