Making IRAC Analysis in Exam Concise = Better Grade + Saves Time? (please help)

[johnd204]

I am curious about this in approaching my exams – whether making my IRAC analysis shorter and more to the point instead of going through all of the details would be a better tactic as it would seemingly save me a lot of time and allow me to discuss more issues.

Here is what I am talking about with a Constitutional Law example:


1. MORE DETAILED/MORE TIME CONSUMING RESPONSE:

JUSTICIABILITY

P must first satisfy all 3 of the requirements under standing. First, she must have suffered an injury or will imminently suffer an injury. Here, this is met as she has suffered the injury of not being able choose whether or not to use contraceptives (a violation of her reproductive autonomy right). Next, the D must have caused the injury (causal connection). This is met here as S has caused the injury to P in enacting its law. Finally, P must meet the redressability requirement. Here, P satisfies this requirement as well because the remedy the court gives will likely redress the injury she has suffered – i.e. invalidating the law would effectively cease P from being injured.

Next, P must meet the ripeness requirement. In order to satisfy this requirement, there must be a full-fledged controversy that is apparent and the record must be complete enough for the court to review it. Here, P satisfies this requirement as there is an actual full-fledged (developed) controversy between adverse litigants that is ready to be resolved by the court now.

v.

2. MORE CONSICE RESPONSE/SAVES A LOT OF TIME:

JUSTICIABILITY

The first issue is if L has standing. Here, it arguably satisfies all of the requirements to have standing as it has suffered an injury that will recur because of South enacting the FRA, which virtually ceases all of its in-state sales; the defendant (here South) caused the injury (causation) as South’s enactment of the FRA has directly caused the injury to L; and finally, the redressability requirement is satisfied as the court holding the FRA is void/unconstitutional would redress the injury L has suffered.

Next, the ripeness requirement is satisfied as a full-fledged controversy is apparent (L is losing sales every day as it stands) and the record is complete enough for the court to review it.
--

Traditionally, I have used the approach in #1 in my exams, but now I am thinking approach #2 might be a better tactic as it would likely save me a good amount of time and will allow me to hit + discuss more issues overall. Would that likely get me a better grade or do Professors’ tend to value more ELABORATE/DETAILED responses even if a student ends up touching on less issues because of the time consuming issue?

I am getting really nervous with exams coming up!! I would really appreciate any help!

[jimmyjohn]

The first response sounds better to me and doesn't seem too time consuming or detailed.  In fact, it looks like how a law school final is supposed to be answered.  The second response reads like it assumes too much without explaning your conclusions.  Assumption of knowlege isn't good on a law school final because the professor can't give you points unless you actually write out what you are thinking. 

[vap]

It seems like you are basically collapsing the rule explanation and rule application into one concise answer.  I've thought about doing this myself but decided against it.  I think collapsing the sections makes it more difficult for the professor to check off that you know the rule.    Regardless of what my profs have said (most important thing is analysis), I've found that a clear and concise answer that allows the prof to easily count your points is key.  I greatly favor very brief rule explanation sections that just give the skeletal outline of what the rule is.

You might be able to save time/words by replacing the issue statement with a simple subheading.  I'm just going to write "Standing" instead "The first issue is whether P has standing to sue."

[thorc954]

also, to save time, try and create decent headings so you can refer back to previous sections if the rules are the same and you dont have to write that again.

I also right my exams in colored crayons cause professors like bright colors.

[Astro]

also, to save time, try and create decent headings so you can refer back to previous sections if the rules are the same and you dont have to write that again.

I also right my exams in colored crayons cause professors like bright colors.

I drew pictures.

[resipsaloquitur]

I think it's just going to vary by prof.  Look at the model answers to prior exams to see what the profs liked, or just ask your profs each whether they have a preference.  I have one prof who doesn't care about R or C.  Just state the issue and do straight analysis and he can tell from that if you understand the rule based on that.

[thorc954]

also, to save time, try and create decent headings so you can refer back to previous sections if the rules are the same and you dont have to write that again.

I also right my exams in colored crayons cause professors like bright colors.

I drew pictures.

gunner  jk.  pictures are a much better idea.  did you do law related pictures or other pictures?  I might draw pandas all over my next exam.

[themanwithnoname]

brevity is good, but 2 in that case was extremely hard to read.

[jacy85]

I think the longer one is better.  That being said, I actually don't think either one is in the proper format for an A answer.  You're making very conclusory statements and labeling it "application."

Saying, plaintiff likely has standing b/c _____ gives no argument at all.  I would approach this as an argument/counterargument.  Say, for example, you have a plaintiff suing a defendant for pollution/global warming and destroying bird habitat.

"The defendant will argue the Plaintiff does not have standing to bring this suit because he has not alleged injury in fact.  Defendant will argue that plaintiff has not shown an injury in fact because global warming is a generalized grievance, and mere desire to see birds is not sufficient for injury in fact under Lujan.  The plaintiff will counter that unlike the plaintiffs in Lujan who had no concrete plans to go see animals, plaintiff goes to see the birds in this forest every weekend. The court will likely agree with the plaintiff and distinguish Lujan, and find that this plaintiff has shown an injury in fact."

With the back and forth, you get a more complete application of the issues to the facts in the hypo, and you're less likely to miss something by just concluding the plaintiff has standing.

FWIW, I got an A in conlaw using this approach (and yes, this is, essentially, the LEEWS approach, and an example of why I don't buy the "it doesn't work in classes like Conlaw" argument).

[themanwithnoname]

what is the "LEEWS does not work in classes like Con Law" argument?

In any case I agree that an answer should look more like jacy's.