What’s the first thing most law students do when they get to the a “hard” part of a law school exam? No, not cry (most people do that after the exam). The average law student starts drawing conclusions.
If you think about it dispassionately, this doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Why would you jump right to a conclusion, when you know the analysis is difficult? Um, there’s your answer. If it’s hard to do the analysis, it’s tempting to skip it! (Who really likes doing hard things?)
Why This is a Bad Idea
Writing conclusory answers to hard questions is a bad idea for several reasons:
- Professors really hate it. Put yourself in the shoes of your professor. You’ve spent a lot of time writing a fiendishly difficult exam, and you’re feeling pretty proud of it. You read the first answer, which is going okay on the warm-up issues, then it gets to the really hard stuff — the stuff you’re particularly pleased with — and says “Clearly Plaintiff has no claim here.” WTF?!? Seriously? You’re going to skip the good stuff and tell me that “clearly” the potential plaintiff has no claim. I hate you! C+. Next!
- You don’t get very many points for drawing the right conclusions. The point of a law school exam isn’t to get the “right” answer. At best, that gets you maybe 10% of the points. Two students can both get As, and end up with different conclusions on close questions (trust me — happened with two TAs I know). The points are mostly in the analysis. If you want to break it down, it’s probably something like this: issue (10%), rule (10%), conclusion (10%), analysis (70%). If you skip the analysis and jump to the conclusion, you’re leaving A LOT of points on the table.
- It’s more obvious than you think. There’s something odd about an unsupported conclusion — it really attracts attention. If you’re reading an answer, and someone says “Clearly plaintiff has no claim,” what’s your first reaction? Mine’s to ask “Why?” If there’s no answer to that Why?, it’s very, very obvious that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Not a great impression to leave!
So, the next time you find yourself on an exam writing that something is “obvious” or “clearly” the case, STOP and ask a question: Is this really so clear cut?
If not, deal with the ambiguity, and your grades will improve markedly.
A Template for What to Do Instead
Here’s a template for one way to approach difficult issues. It’s in IRAC format, because lots of professors like that, but you can modify at will.
Steps to go through for a “hard” question:
- Identify the issue (The key fact is…)
- State the rule and how this scenario is different (Because Plaintiff wasn’t touching the briefcase, Case X doesn’t apply directly.)
- Analyze each side of the argument (Defendant will argue… Plaintiff will argue…)
- Decide who wins AND explain why (X is likely to win because…)
Pretty simple, right?
Any time you’re feeling panicked, you can fall back on this template. The most important element is #3: “Defendant will argue…” then “Plaintiff will argue….”
If you can make both sides of the argument clearly, with reference to the appropriate legal and factual ambiguities, your conclusion hardly matters. (Yes, you still want to draw a conclusion, and give a good reason after the “because,” but if the question is legitimately difficult, it’s probably a close judgment call about which way the case will come out, so either way is okay.)
— – —
If you found this helpful, why not sign up for our mailing list, and get similar stuff sent right to your inbox! Just ’cause we like you, we’ll also send you our Top 10 exam tips, for free!
Got questions? Leave them in the comments!