The book is helpful, I found, in helping you to spot the issues that others are likely to miss. While it's not necessary to do well on law school exams, some of the considerations the authors point to (i.e., parsing ambiguities in the facts or the law, thinking about policy considerations, the purposes of the rules, etc.) can make the difference between a stellar answer and a good one. But above all, as the authors note, you should follow whatever advice your professors give you regarding what they expect from you above all. THe book just has ways for you to generate answers that are more nuanced and sophisticated than those your average law student will typically come up with, which can certainly help to put you above the curve.
So maybe it would work well in the context of IRAC by helping you spot the issues and navigate rules to the point that you can make brief of what the argument in the case could look like. Here, you would be able to find out what is likely to happen or what the conclusion is in terms of the main issues.
i read it 1st sem. and I found it somewhat helpful, but much like many "how to do law school exam" books, it leaves out the fact that 80% of your profs. will want you to IRAC or CRUPACKISS man, KEEP IT SIMPLY STATED. Give your rule, apply it to the facts, and if you want bonus points, pop off with some precedent case law. I think that my torts grade last semester was a result of case quoting as well as iracing. Even if you dont know the case name, give a brief facts synopsis.. and if you do it right, youll be rewarded.
I guess maybe this varies by school and professor; I don't know.
Page created in 0.405 seconds with 17 queries.