I really can't sit still long enough to read this thing, even as I plow through chemerinsky, chirelstein or glannon...Is there anything to take from this book, other than :
1) IRAC is ill-equipped to deal with the tricky stuff law profs use in exams
2) this is because most rules are really factor/element tests, and law school fact patterns are deliberately ambiguous, so
3) being conclusory and saying a factor is met misses the point and instead
4) you should have an extended irac for the rule/analysis part where you point out that facts determine whether or not the rule is applied.
What does the policy stuff talk about?