Mastering the IRAC Method for Law School Success | Camilla Barker-DeStefano | Skillshare

Playback Speed

  • 0.5x
  • 1x (Normal)
  • 1.25x
  • 1.5x
  • 2x

Mastering the IRAC Method for Law School Success

teacher avatar Camilla Barker-DeStefano, Excited to be teaching on Skillshare!

Watch this class and thousands more

Get unlimited access to every class
Taught by industry leaders & working professionals
Topics include illustration, design, photography, and more

Watch this class and thousands more

Get unlimited access to every class
Taught by industry leaders & working professionals
Topics include illustration, design, photography, and more

Lessons in This Class

22 Lessons (1h 59m)
    • 1. Welcome you're enrolled!

    • 2. What is IRAC?

    • 3. IRAC Benefits and Potential Drawbacks

    • 4. Introduction to [I] Issue

    • 5. Identification 1

    • 6. Identification 2

    • 7. Articulation

    • 8. Example (Issue)

    • 9. Introduction to [R] Rule

    • 10. Finding the Relevant Rule

    • 11. State the Rule(s) Implicitly

    • 12. Level of Detail to Include

    • 13. Example (Rule)

    • 14. Introduction to [A] Application

    • 15. Demystifying Application

    • 16. Top Tips

    • 17. Conclusion

    • 18. Introduction to Tying It All Together

    • 19. Multiple Issues/Parties

    • 20. Uncertainty

    • 21. Final Checks

    • 22. Final Assignment and Thank You

  • --
  • Beginner level
  • Intermediate level
  • Advanced level
  • All levels

Community Generated

The level is determined by a majority opinion of students who have reviewed this class. The teacher's recommendation is shown until at least 5 student responses are collected.





About This Class

The IRAC (Issue - Rule - Application - Conclusion) method is a critically important skill used in answering problem questions in law school examinations. It provides students with a clear and logical structure for answering problem questions. Yet the majority of students are not wholly comfortable with what this skill requires of them and that leads to underperformance in examinations.

If you are interested in learning how to master the IRAC method so that you can tackle problem questions with confidence and score higher grades in examinations, you've come to the right place!

Meet Your Teacher

Teacher Profile Image

Camilla Barker-DeStefano

Excited to be teaching on Skillshare!


I'm an international lawyer and founder of a consulting and training company that specialises in disaster response. I've also been a law teacher for over ten years and I love learning new things and sharing knowledge with like-minded people, so here I am launching an online teaching career!

I hold law degrees from the universities of London (LLB), Harvard (LLM), and Oxford (DPhil), and have taught at summer schools and universities in the UK and the USA, including Birmingham, Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford and Warwick, as well as online through the Open University.

See full profile

Related Skills

Lifestyle Law Other

Class Ratings

Expectations Met?
  • 0%
  • Yes
  • 0%
  • Somewhat
  • 0%
  • Not really
  • 0%
Reviews Archive

In October 2018, we updated our review system to improve the way we collect feedback. Below are the reviews written before that update.

Why Join Skillshare?

Take award-winning Skillshare Original Classes

Each class has short lessons, hands-on projects

Your membership supports Skillshare teachers

Learn From Anywhere

Take classes on the go with the Skillshare app. Stream or download to watch on the plane, the subway, or wherever you learn best.


1. Welcome you're enrolled!: hello and welcome to my course. Mastering the Iraq method for law school success. I'm really grateful to have you join me. My name is Dr Camilla Barker Distephano, and I'm gonna be teaching you on this course in my other life. I'm an international lawyer and consultant, but I love learning and I love sharing knowledge. So I'm setting out to create online courses that I think will be helpful to people in some way. Now, this particular course is all about the Iraq or issue Rule application conclusion method for answering problems in law school examinations. This is a critically important skill for succeeding in law school. Yet in my view, it's not really talked extensively enough. So here I am, trying to make up a bit of that difference. Now, this section of the course is intended to introduce you to the Iraq method. We're not going to get into the details of the method just yet. Instead, we are focusing on when it would be appropriate to use the method on what it actually means . For this to be a method in the first place. By the end of this section, you should understand the function of Iraq as a methodology for legal analysis, and you should feel confident about how, when and why to apply the method. Now, before you turn to the first instructional lecture, please note that I have uploaded slides that I use with each of these lectures to make it easier for you to take notes as I am talking and confined those in the downloadable material section for each lecture. Okay, that's what you need from me. For now. I hope you enjoy the course. 2. What is IRAC?: Iraq is a methodology for legal analysis that is used extensively in law schools around the world. The method is used for answering a particular type of question that you get in law school examinations, and that is the problem. Question. Now, if you already enrolled in a low degree, you will know that there are two or three types of examine question. The problem question and the essay question are the two most common on in some schools? You've also got the multiple choice question in this course, we only focus on problem questions. Now, before we dig into what the Iraq methods stands for and what it means for this to be eight methods in the first place, let's take a look a problem questions so that everybody taken this course is 100% sure about the types of questions for which the Iran method can actually be used. Just a quick aside, if you are interested in learning how to write exceptional answers to essay questions, please keep a look out for my upcoming course on that topic because I think you're gonna find it really useful. Okay, Back to problem questions in the 19 eighties, There was a really great book on the study of law written by Christopher and right. Unfortunately, that book is now out of print, but you might be able to get it in a library. So include the full publication details in the additional resource is hand out just in case you want to find it now in that book at Page 347 if you're interested, Enright gives us a really great explanation of what a problem question actually is. Now we all tend to know what a problem question looks like compared to, say, essay questions that generally or a lot shorter. But Enright spells out what problem questions actually require of law students, and I think this is especially helpful. So let's take a look at a quote from that book. Enright defines a problem question as a question or exercise where a student is asked to discuss the legal consequences off a set off fax. Now he goes on to say that normally these consequences are expressed in terms off the availability off some remedy. So a problem question is asking you ultimately to discuss the legal consequences of a set of facts Obviously, those facts are the ones given to you in the question itself on the consequences that are relevant are to be found in the instruction part of the question which will come back to in a minute or two. And I also tells us that the consequences are expressed in terms of in terms of the availability off, some remedy. Now, another way of putting this is saying that you, as a law student are expected not only to discuss the consequences off a set of facts, but at the end of your answer, your also expected to indirect to address the implied question. So what? What do those consequences actually mean now, To give you a very quick example, your facts might relate Teoh a a knife crime related murder that took place in England unless just assume that you're taking an llB degree in England or Wales. Now, the fact state that Joe Blog's is accused of that murder and you conclude in your answer that yes, it is highly likely that Joe will be found guilty off murder. Now, through your full answer, you have discussed the legal consequences off a set off facts. But what you then go on to do is to say that if found guilty, Joe faces a mandatory life sentence with a tariff i e. A minimum term of 25 years, because the facts say that he committed the murder with a knife, and sentencing guidelines require a 25 year tariff in those circumstances. Now here you've discussed the legal consequences of the facts. You've said he's highly likely to be found guilty of murder, and you have expressed those consequences like Enright says, in terms of some available remedy. So in this case, the remedy is the available sentence that a judge could impose on Joe. That's the first important point now. The second relates to why these questions are written the way they are in the first place. Now we don't often think about this on to our detriment. We don't wander. What are Professor was thinking when she or he wrote the problem question, but Enright actually tells us so. He says it is common practice, and he means for professors to construct a problem so that the legal consequences off the facts are not immediately clear is a really important lesson here. Problem questions are not meant to be obvious to answer even to the very best of students. You're not meant to scan the question and immediately know the answer. And in fact, if you ever think that you do know the answer right away, please look again because you probably missed something now. Fundamentally, problem questions involve problem solving, and in the in a way, it's useful to think of yourself as a practicing lawyer at this point. Now imagine that somebody comes into your office and they need help with a legal problem. Now you don't take a quick scan of them, suspect it's a family related problem and then immediately advise them on how to get divorce. Rather, you sit down and you listen to what the kind has to say, and you let your brain start to put the pieces of the puzzle together. Now, in the same way, you don't scan read a problem. Question identified that contractors involved and then immediately start writing about the elements off a contract claim. It's just not how it works. Clients don't present their issues to lawyers in a way that immediately makes it obvious what the lawyer has to do and it's exactly the same with problem questions. You're not meant to know the answer straight off the bat. Instead, you're meant to read through the information that you're given and engage your brain in problem solving so that you can write an accurate on a cohesive answer to the question. Now again, think of yourself as a practicing lawyer. Your answer is like a legal memo or a lesser that you could write to the kind to give them advice on the problem that they came to see you with. Okay, so let's just confirm what these questions actually look like in practice. Now here is a short problem question from the Open University. Ernest was rushing to work this morning. He was driving too close to the car in front, which was driven by Isabella. Isabella had to break hard with a child, stepped out in front of her car. Anise was slow to react as he was on his mobile phone, and he drove straight into the back off Isabella's car. Explain whether Ernest is likely to be held civilly liable for the damage to Isabella's car . Now it's a really short problem question on most of the ones that you will deal with it nor school. And actually the ones that we deal with later in this course are much longer. But it's nonetheless a good question to highlight that there are two components to every problem. Question. This actually helps you to identify those questions as problem questions. Now the first is the facts, and the second is the instruction. Now, in this example, the first paragraph is the facts on the second paragraph is the instruction. Now make sure to pay a especially close attention to the question word that you've been asked to deal with. So in this case, it's explain. I'm not gonna cover question words in this course, but I will in the future one. So if you struggle with this, please keep an eye out for that course. Okay, we've now made it clear, I hope what type of questions were actually concerned with when we're learning about the Iraq method. Now let's take a look at what that what that method actually entails. The Iraq method is so named because it has four components I sense for issue rule Oh, a stands for application and C stands for conclusion in the remainder of this course, we're gonna look in detail or watch each of these four components and tails. For now, we just need to focus on the core function of Iraq as a method for legal analysis. Now, to do that, we need to look closer. I want a method for legal analysis actually is. So I've mentioned several times now that Iraq is a method or methodology for illegal analysis. Now, methodology itself is just a system of methods rights. A group of these methods, one for I want for our one for a one for see that work together. So let's look first. Or what method actually means. A method is a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something especially of systematic or established one. Okay, so it was a particular procedure for for accomplishing something. Now let's do the same for legal analysis. Legal, of course, means that the analysis pertains to law. But more importantly, here is analysis. Analysis is a detailed examination off the elements or the structure of something. Now we can get in definition loops all day. But if we just pull it back to the question of Iraq, the bottom line is this. The Iraq method is an established system asset procedure for examining in detail the elements off a legal problem. It is established because law schools, all of the wells, have been using it for decades. It is systematic because you go through each stage in a fixed way, starting with issue, then rule, then application, then conclusion you don't do in a random order. That it is a procedure indicates that the same indicates that same fixed process that we already mentioned. And what is it? A procedure for its for examining, you know, investigating, looking at in detail, the elements, facts, rules, other vehicle problem i e. The problem that is presented by the facts that you've been given in the question. That's all it is, right? That's all that the Iraq method actually is. Now. The last thing I will say for now is that you should notice here that I haven't said anything at all about Iraq giving us the answer to that legal problem. That part is all on you. It requires bringing your brain. The Iraq method is not gonna help you with that pot, But this in and of itself raises a really important question, and that relates to what you, as law students, can reasonably expect the Iraq method to actually do for you. Now that's the subject of the next video, so I'll see you there. 3. IRAC Benefits and Potential Drawbacks: in the last video, I explained that the Iraq method stands for issue rule application conclusion on that it is an established, systematic procedure for examining in detail the elements off a legal problem. I also mentioned in the last video that the Iraq method does not answer the question. Four year. It gives you the structure, and it gives you a process for answering problem questions, but it cannot actually fill in the blanks for you. It cannot answer the question in a substantive, full way. For that, you require your own brain. Now this raises an issue about expectations. What can you reasonably expect this method to do for you and maybe import? More importantly, what can you expect it not to dio for you? Now that is the subject of this video. So let's get into some functions, benefits and potential drawbacks of the method so that you could set. But these expectations for yourself okay, so let's turn to some cool functions off Iraq. Iraq is a method that engages intellectual skills. Okay, it is critical for writing authoritative, confident and cohesive answers to law school examinations. I've mentioned already it cannot answer substantively the question for you. Okay. Substances all of that Good legal knowledge that you've been collecting over the course of your degree. You need to keep that in your brain. You need to use it when you get the problem question in front of you. But Iraq is not gonna help you do that. Okay? Iraq is going to tell you how to organize your answer. It's not gonna tell you what to put into your answer. Okay? Substance is not structure, but what Iraq does required to dio is Teoh identify relevant information to articulate pertinent issues to locate relevant rules. To apply those rules to the scenario that you've been given Andi finally to come to a clear and logical conclusion about the original issues articulated now, ultimately, Iraq gives you a step by step approach to follow. You should only move onto the next step once you've completed the previous step. It's meant to be a guide that leads you to a logical conclusion that is well supported, right at the end of your answer by everything else that goes above it. Okay, so that sounds pretty good to me. So let's look at some of the other benefits off Iraq. Okay, so Iraq helps you to avoid repeating yourself over and over. Okay, This is because there's only one opportunity to state the issue. There's only one opportunity to state the applicable rules. If you're sticking to the process correctly, you will find that you fill in all of the necessary information in those sections, and you don't kind of mix and match an overlap throughout the rest of your answer. And ultimately, that is a really good thing. Now Iraq also helps you to plan your answer in a very easy and straightforward way. Okay, so that you have a structure to follow and so that you are less likely to panic about not knowing what to write next, or about having to rearrange your answer wants. You figured something out later on. A lot of people get sort of halfway or 3/4 of the way through it, and then they go, Oh, you know, need to need to redo that part. Andi, I've been in that situation. I think we all have, and it's not right, so Iraq can help you avoid that in the first place. And that, I think, is a major benefit Iraq is also going Teoh, introduce cohesion and a natural flow into your argument and into your answer. This, in turn, makes it easier for the Examiner to read, which in turn makes it easier for an examiner to understand your argument, which in turn makes it a lot easier for the Examiner to award you higher grades. You can scope your paragraphs better, and you can guide the reed Oh, the Examiner through to the next paragraph much more easily when you use the Iraq method. Now, finally, Iraq helps to prevent what I think is a really big problem. And that is students reciting or regurgitating all of the facts of the questions or even just some of the facts of the of the question at the beginning of their answer. Now students do this because they panic and they don't know what to write first. Okay, they rewrite the facts in the hope that it will get their creative juices flowing and that it will avoid the blank page issue in front of them. But there's no point in doing it. Okay, don't recite the facts. The examiners know what the facts are. They know what's going on eso You are literally wasting time and energy Bond re sizing those facts in the beginning, you just gotta get straight into the issue. Okay, so those are some of the benefits. Now, let's consider some of the potential drawbacks. Some people claim that the Iraq method oversimplifies legal analysis. Another concern here is that by breaking down the very complex task off legal analysis that critical pieces of information could be missed or they could be left out by students trying to get everything into this four part rubric. Now, good legal analysis has to be completed holistically. Okay, you have to take everything into account. And some people fear the Iraq kind of misses out some aspects off that I think there could be some truth to this concern. If you stick so rigidly to the Iraq method and the formula that you treat it a bit like a plug and play, you might miss out important details because you're trying to be so exact. In sticking to that formula, you restrict your ability to properly analyse the legal problem at hand. Now, to overcome this, you need to remember to take that bigger picture into account you need to remember to think carefully about how the analysis OK, Your answer, in other words, reads as one piece rather than just on that one sentence or that one paragraph. Iraq really focuses you in on a process, and it focuses you in on the finer details, which is great in certain circumstances. But it's not great. If that's all you're doing, you need to remember that bigger picture. Now. Some people also perceive Iraq to be overly restrictive on creativity. Okay, some people think that it restricts students in answering questions in the way that they think is most logical. I recognize that, and I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing. The fact is, in grading problem questions, professors are not looking for brilliantly creative lawyers, and they're especially not looking for them in the first year or two of a law degree. Um, what professors are looking for our students that do the analysis correctly according to the method prescribed I e. Iraq and the professors looked to reward with high grades people who follow instructions Well, okay, this is not the place problem. Questions are not the place to demonstrate your flair for rising. OK, you just need to get straight to the point. Okay? The last concern that people have about Iraq is that weaker students will rely on the method too heavily. It leads to students panicking when they aren't sure what to say substantively about you know the actual problem in front of them. Now, this, you know, encourages Iraq encourages students to think really formula includes which, as I mentioned, is great in some respects. But if you are only thinking, formulate Klay and you're a week a student. You tend to rely on that to the point where you just don't know what to write next. Because the Iraq gives you issue rule application conclusion, it doesn't give you any of the substance. So if you rely on it too much, you're missing out on all of that other good legal analysis that should be in there. Now you can probably tell, but I do think that this is a very legitimate concern about Iraq in the first place. But it's also more legitimate in a broader broader, I should say, not more legitimate that were brought a concern about students who rely too heavily on methods like this in the first place. They don't rely on their own intellect in their own knowledge. They rely on some formula. It's a week. That's what week students dio and it shows in exam questions. If one examines is now, I've seen this over and over with weak students. They rely on what comes next. They forget that the questions are often very, very complex and that it's not gonna be an easy sort of checklist style Answer. Now we'll explore. I'll explain more about what I mean when we get into the details of Iraq in the coming sections. But for now, I want to encourage you to just avoid reliance on Iraq for absolutely everything. It's a guideline about how to answer problem. Questions logically cannot give you the actual substance off. The answer that been said can help you figure out if you follow it logically, because it will help you to problem solve. Okay, let's summarize this very short lecture. The most important thing to acknowledge from the very answer is that the IROC method is a process with benefits and drawbacks. I say potential drawbacks because I've given you three ways of making sure that you overcome those potential draw bags in this lecture. Now, you, as the law student, are responsible for understanding these benefits and these potential drawbacks Andi, for setting realistic expectations for yourself about how you're going to use Iraq. And you've also got to be responsible for making sure that you implement the process properly critically so that you avoid those potential drawbacks. There's potential pitfalls. Okay, Now that we've got these key points down, it's time to take a quick recap test. If you look in the course materials you find, that is, there is a very short five part quiz. Please complete that quiz. Make sure that you comfortable with the basics before we move on to the next seconds to the next section. Okay, when you're ready, I'll see you over there. 4. Introduction to [I] Issue: the issue is the first thing that you were going to write about in your answer to a law school problem. Question. It's imperative that you start with issue because, as you'll see later in this section, the issue paragraph is what sets up a really strongly question that you can then answer in your legal analysis. The learning outcome for this section is to be able to identify the relevant ambiguity in the facts presented on articulate. Clearly the legal question to be answered. There are two separate skills identified here. The first skill, which we will call identification, is something that you do before you start writing, You know, actually going to write down this particular part of the problem solving process in your answer or in the answer itself. But you will use the results of the process when it comes to the second part of the Issues section, which is articulation. Articulation to confirm is the part that you're going to write down in your answer now. The identification skill is the complex part of the issue section, so there are two identification videos in this section, followed by one on articulation, which in most cases is gonna be a little bit more straightforward. Once you've watched those videos, you can see me piece it all together in an example. And when you ready section concludes with three real life problem questions that you can try yourself on later of you against my answers. Now the issue paragraph is where you really get to shine right from the outset. You get to shine. And so it's important to make a great impression on The Examiner with your issue section. There's really a lot to be gained here, so I hope you enjoy this section. 5. Identification 1: welcome to the first of two videos in which we look at what the identification skill is in more detail. So what does it mean to actually identify something? Another? Another way of identifying something is to say that you are recognizing something, that you are singling out something, or maybe even that you are spotting something. This is exactly what you need to do with ambiguity in the facts that are presented in front of you. Now in the problem question. You have a set of facts, your job. But this identification stage is to look at all of those facts and figure out what in those facts is ambiguous Now. Another way of putting this, of course, is to say that you are looking for the legal question that needs to be answered. So how do you figure out what is ambiguous? Well, there are two possibilities. I think one is that the ambiguity on the question to be answered will be presented to you in the question, which is what we address in this video on. The more complicated possibility is that you have to figure out what is ambiguous yourself , and we'll address that in the next video. So let's look at what you have to do if the ambiguity is actually presented to you now, if you are given the legal issue in the problem itself, then that's great news. It means the examiners have done some off the work for you. Now we've seen an example of this in this course already, believe it or not, if you remember election to what is the Iraq method? I showed you an example of a very short question. That short problem question from the Open University Now. In that example, the basic legal question to be answered. What's stated at the end of the problem itself after the facts explain whether Ernest is likely to be held civilly liable for the damage to Isabella's car. Now, in this example, you know that the legal question to be answered, therefore is is earnest, likely to be held civilly liable for the damage to Isabella's car on especially good Student, however, will not just repeat the question in the exact same way that it was presented in the question, she or he will actually go further, and they will articulate in more precise language the question to be answered. So in this case, for example, on especially good student might say, Is it likely that the defendant aren't Ernest will be held civilly liable in the law of negligence for the harm courts to the claimant Isabella. And you can see already that is much, much stronger. Just remember, of course, that if you're in a jurisdiction that uses plaintiff, you might say that instead of claimant. Now, if you remember what I said earlier on in this course about how examiners get an impression of a student on the very first line of an answer, you'll see how important this is. The second version off the articulation of the issue is so much more likely to convince an examiner that she or he is dealing with a higher caliber student with someone who does not really repeat the issue, as it was indicated in a question, but actually thinks about it and adds in some more critical details. Now, I will just give you one final related tip for this section. If you are confident enough to articulate the issue in a more sophisticated manner, then please make sure to double check that you have got the claimant and the defendant the right way round on. Make sure that you haven't introduced any other facts that would affect the situation presented in the question itself. I've seen it time and time again, and it doesn't really do anything for you. In fact, it can even home you the impression that you're trying to give the Examiner. So please don't do that. Okay? In the next video, we'll take a look at the more complex scenario of having to figure out the ambiguity yourself. 6. Identification 2: as I mentioned in the last video possibility to in respect of identification is that you have to figure out the ambiguity yourself. Now, there are no hard and fast rules for this process overall, but you do in a way have to set yourself up for success. To an extent. The absolute first thing that you have to do is to skim read through the entire question without making any notes or any decisions about what your answer might be. After you've done that, you should have a pretty good idea about what the questions about that is. Assuming that you've done the work in the first place in revising for your exam on that in term will help you to start to figure out the ambiguity. Now you should, for example, easily be able to recognize that a question is about contract law or that it's about criminal. Now, if the exam that you are sitting is only about contract, lower is only about criminal law. Then, of course, you already know that the broad So you know that broad subject and so you can skip ahead and you could dig down a little bit deeper and figure out exactly what it is that you are dealing with. So, for example, when you read the question in your contract law exam, you should be able to know whether you are dealing with a question about the elements of a contract or a question about misrepresentation. Those topics should kind of just come to you. They should jump out of the page at you. Now Iraq cannot help you with this. Okay, this is this. Awareness of the issues falls into the substance that, as I've mentioned before, should already be in your brain. Now, once you've identified the broad topic airier contract law on, then misrepresentation say you can then set to work in identifying what the ambiguity might be. Now, at this stage, I just want to point out that there could be one or several issues in the question. Now most examine questions that will be several areas of ambiguity that you have to deal with. Now. You need to decide whether the ambiguity that you just identified that one you just found represents a completely separate issue or whether it's a sub issue off some other issue that you identifies earlier. Now, if it's the former. If it's a separate issue, then you need to state that as a separate issue in your first issue. Paragraph. If it's the latter. If it's a sob issue right underneath your main issue, then you need to bear in mind that this is a narrower issue, but you still need to address it in the remainder off your question. And so it should still appear in your first issue paragraph. Now, right at the end of this course in the tiny old together section, we will address the question of how Teoh tackle multiple issues or tackle multiple parties in the same problem question. For now, I just want to keep it simple. So let's just assume that were expected to identify just one area of ambiguity. So how do we actually do that? Excuse me? There are three ways I think of doing this or three main ways. In any case, the first is to rely on your existing substances knowledge now to go back to our example, the contract law and the elements of the contract example. You just need to rely on your existing knowledge off, say the elements of a contract, and you need to compare your knowledge off what those elements should be with the situation that you are presented with in the problem question. Now let's say that you are training as a lawyer in the US It's likely that you've learned that there are five potentially six elements of a contract you got offer acceptance, consideration, mutuality, off obligation, competency and capacity. And in certain circumstances, there is a requirement off a written instrument. Okay, so that she'll knowledge right pocket package duffel nicely in your head. Now look at the question. Okay, I'm relying on those knowledge on that knowledge off those elements. You might notice that while there are several elements of the contract present in the in the exam question, it appears to be the case that there's some doubt over the competency in the capacity of the person who signed the contract. Now that they're that recognition, that's the requisite ambiguity that you really need to get stuck into. Okay, you've spotted the thing. There's problematic now. The second way that you might be able to find out what the ambiguity is is that you might recognize the facts in your exam question recognized the facts from a real life case that's been put into that exam question. Usually professors right exam questions in such a way that they are based on existing cases . They write them because they've got some inspiration there, and they also write them because they know that students will recognize the patterns. So, say, for example, you might have in front of you in the exam a fact pattern about man swallowing a fly in his stubble soup. And he gets really ill now That might make you think about the very famous case of Donahue and Stevenson, whereby a woman swallowed a decomposed snail that had gone into a drink that she had. Now that, in turn, will make you think about total. It will make you think about negligence. It will make you think about manufacturers liability professors like I say, they used these existing cases as inspiration for problem questions. Now, in this case, and assuming you've done your revision well, you should be able to recognize that the legal issues that were presented by the real life case can be modified accordingly, and you can articulate the legal question in your examines are based on those real life issues. Okay, so that's the second way that you can identify ambiguity. Not the third is that you can recognize keywords or buzzwords. Um, no. I think this is a really good way off figuring out ambiguity as well, because it's a pretty easy one. Certain keywords. Certain buzzwords will make it immediately obvious what the topic area is, and you may even be able to kind of preempt the typical issues that are faced in cases in that topic area. So let's use contract law again. As an example, you might have a fact pattern about someone buying a car. Now, if it is suggested in the question that the sales person lied to the purchaser about the quality of the car, then you might immediately recognize the kind of keyword or buzzword around lying in the context off a contract is raising an issue with misrepresentation. Okay, it's often the case that, you know, in Mr Representation, the purchaser, whoever was the person in the contract was like Teoh. Okay, so lying can equate in some way in your head to misrepresentation. And that's another way that you're gonna recognize ambiguity now, once you've kind of triggered that thought you can then look in more detail at the facts to see whether it might be a case of intentional or unintentional lying. And that, in turn, will help you to narrow it down even further, to one off saying negligent misrepresentation. For example. So you see the point. You can use those keywords to kind of trigger a set of questions in your head, and that again is gonna help you to recognize ambiguity, so that one was a bit more complicated. So let's just summarise. It is important to realize that there is no set guaranteed process for identifying ambiguity in every law problem. Question. Little problem. Question. But what you can do is you can train yourself to ask certain questions. You can train yourself to follow a series of steps that will help you until you find the process to be a bit more intuitive. So that's like a look at those Step one. You need to identify the broad subject area, not topic subject area, so it could be, for example, contract law. Step two. You're going to identify the broad topic area within that subject, so it could be, for example, the elements of a contract. Step three is that you're going to compare your knowledge of the topic with the faxed spot areas that are well, that could be missing. Confused, contradictory, etcetera before is that you're going to take a top down look at the whole of the question again, and you're gonna use your intuition on your initiative right that you've gleaned from your legal study and training to make a judgment as to whether this is a main issue that should be articulated at the outset or if it's a sub issue. Now, bear in mind, as you go on to the next step, you need to kind of remember about main issues and sub issues and how you can actually articulate them. Now, a good thing to think about as well in terms of your intuition around this question is whether it is what I call a sensible issue. Okay, So have you spent time on this topic in class? You know, have professors kind of really focused a lot on this particular issue? Have you read a lot of cases about this? If so, it's likely to be a main issue that you are gonna be examined on. If not, it might be to kind of obscure. And you should. You should really check to make sure that you have missed something else in the questions or re read it again at the last step. Isa Pretty simple one. And that is to list the ambiguity as keywords. You could do that mentally, weakened it on paper that you can use when you Arctic when you are articulating the legal question, which, of course, we're going to come back to Okay, that's the approach for identifying ambiguity by yourself, and I hope that you found it useful to have a kind of short, step by step guide to help start you off each time. You shouldn't always have to remember that it's not an additional thing you need to kind of remember in your exam, but you should practice it enough so that that process just becomes like intuition to you, right? Once you've either been told or you've identified your ambiguity, it's time to turn to the articulation off the legal issue. That's all in the next video 7. Articulation: Once you have identified the ambiguity in the question, your next task in your short issue paragraph is to articulate very clearly the legal question to be answered. Now, this is a really important part of the process, because it is the question that you'll be coming back to at the end of your answer. In your conclusion. If the question is not clear at the outset, it's gonna be really hard for you to analyze the problem logically in the rest of your answer. So for that reason, it's worth spending some time looking at good legal questions to figure out typical patterns for articulation. Again, it's impossible to come up with a one size fits all blueprint, but you can certainly get to grips with the basics of what most questions look like, and that should provide you with some inspiration for your own questions. Now you can use the examples I'm about to give you, give you either to articulate a question. If you haven't been given it in the problem itself or if you have, you can use the examples to improve the articulation that you've been given. Add to it change a bit, add some more details. You know, you figure it out. However, you do use these examples. The core requirement is that you consider very carefully what it is that you've been asked to do in fact pattern, or what it is that you suspect the professor is implying you should do, by the way that they formulated the ambiguity in that in fact pattern, for instance, sometimes a specific legal issue will not be identified, but it may. But the question may say something like. Consider the liability off the parties now. In that situation, you might be looking to make a sort of yes or no determination about the liability off the various parties it could also relate to. The question could also relate more Teoh the extent to which somebody might be liable. Or it might relate to the availability off some defense in each of the circumstances, and there are tens more of them. The precise way in which you articulate the issue will vary. You may require more details or fewer details. In certain circumstances, you may require ah hint at the rule that you are considering you may not. Now, as I mentioned earlier, it's really is impossible to find a one size fits all blueprint formula for this for this task. Instead, what you need to do is you need to look at the following question structures. You need to commit their basic format to memory so that you can use them when you're coming up with your own articulations. Okay, so let's look first at issue questions. So that might be something like. Is Jim liable in the law of contracts for the apparent misrepresentation made to Judy when she bought her car? Does David have available to him the defense off dress? Will a corporation be able to enforce the agreement with B Group? Does Sally's claim of self defense meet the standard required by law? Is Ramesh likely to be able to claim financial compensation for the damage caused by Joan's apparent error in fixing his kitchen taps? Okay, you should get a good example there off how you would identify parties, link it in some way to the basic facts of what happened of what's happened. Remember, you don't want to kind of specify everything, um, and you get a really good kind of impression. I think, from those questions about the types off issues, the types of articulations that examiners are actually looking for now. As I said, those are question articulations. You can also articulates issues as weather statements and some jurisdictions. That is pretty common. So let's look at those, uh, the issue is whether Claire had the authority to enter into a contract with Timber Co. The issue is what the Bow Waas, a secured creditor at the time of the insolvency. The issue is whether Abdulle was in agreement with Brian to commit the crime off burglary. The issue is whether Alex can be held liable for the nuisance caused by his factory. The issue is whether the jury is likely to find the requisite men's rare for Tammy to be guilty of the assault on telly. Now the bottom line here is to try and make the issue as clear and as concise as possible without introducing any unnecessary facts. Some basic facts are fine, unnecessary facts, you know, streams of, um, that help you to kind of get rid of that blank page that we don't need. It should be immediately clear to the Examiner that you have correctly identified the issue and that the remainder of your answer will be written in direct reference to that question to that issue. Remember that your conclusion tests to answer this question, right? That's how you round off and you close the whole answer. So if the issue isn't stated in the question itself, then you are the one writing it. So you are the one that has to make sure that you are not wording it in such a way that it makes it too complicated to state very clearly and very powerful and very authoritatively, authoritatively at the end. Now, in the next video, I will run through a simple example so that you can see exactly how to approach the whole off. The issue section off the Iraq method will see that. 8. Example (Issue): Okay, now that we've gone through what is required of you in the identification and articulation lectures, let's put all of it together and look at a simple example off a problem question. Now let's assume that we are doing a contract wallpaper on that. The applicable jurisdiction is the United States, Of course, that have. There may be some state jurisdiction issues, some nuances, but we don't need to worry about that for this example now there could be several issues in this example that I'm about to present to you. But let's just assume that we know enough about the context of the exam to actually be confident that the main one that strikes is is the one that we're actually after. Of course, in a real example, be a bit more complicated than that would have to do a lot more. But just for examples sake, let's just assume it could be that simple. Okay, an old man who is very ill and near death makes on aural contract with his nephew the terms of the contract of that. The uncle will immediately give his nephew all of his life savings $100,000 in return for the nephews promise to provide food and shelter for the old man until the man dies. The nephew takes the money and supports the old man at a cost of $10,000 a year. The old man lives longer than its expected, and it's still alive after 15 years, at which point the nephew cuts the old man off without further support. I will just say that this example comes from the Lord Nerds website, aptly named Andi. If you want to see the full example and some of the additional materials they've got on that, then please visit that website. I've included it because it's a very simple example. And I think it's easier for us to follow this at this present stage than it is to go into the rial exam questions which will go into in the next next section. Okay, so what are our first thoughts about the potential issue in any areas of ambiguity? As we read through the question Now, remember, we will already have scan read the question on then we've read it in detail. We might, in our detailed review, be looking at some kind of highlighting some areas or underlining or whatever out. Okay, so we probably get the impression from studying contracts that these types of fact patterns usually center around whether the contract is valid, whether it is enforceable. Eso we might immediately spot on area of ambiguity there. We might also see the word contract very near the beginning, off the fact pattern. And we, of course, start to think about common issues that we know off in contract law. We might start assessing the terms of the contractors were reading through. We might start looking out for the elements of the contracts off, adding them up to see if there's a full contract there. We might be looking for signs of deception or mistake. The key is to kind of let your brain sort of sit with the question and so to play around with the issues as you read through. And as you start making some notes now, we could also start to imagine that a kind has come to us and they are telling us this story, and I think this is really helpful. If you're trying to get to try, get to the point right, trying to figure out what the point of the question is, so who's likely to come to us, who is likely to be a client? Well, either the nephew or the uncle, They are the parties that are identified. Now I have to think, Well, what will their positions be? Why are they coming to us in the first place? What's the purpose off their visit? What do they want to know from us on those kind of questions? Very early on, when you're answer the question when you're answering a law school problem, question can help you to kind of indicate issues to yourself about what you might want to account for. So those are my kind of first impressions of their search of the first things that I would be thinking about at this point, I haven't really written anything down. This is just a sign reading through starting to think about these kind of issues. So now that we've got some kind of basic impressions in our head about this question, we can go through the list of questions that I provided to you earlier to help was really narrow it down. I will just say before I put the questions up that there is no need for concrete answers to every question. Just know that it may be helpful to kind of write it down in the beginning. But the more the more you can practice this, the more obvious it will become on it kind of gets stuck in your head comes quite intuitive , So identification Step one is going to be to identify the broad subject area. OK, so contract law that we might notice this from the exam paper were sitting a contract law paper. We might recognize it from the use of the word contract. Throughout the question, we might recognize the description of an agreement of some kind, which might fall into contract law Now. This one, of course, is fairly obvious. One thing I will say, though, is just to make sure that you're not automatically classifying questions as one broad field without thinking carefully about all those little bits that kind of go into it. There might be some red herrings in a question. OK, eso, you know, an assault, for example, that's described in a question immediately might think, OK, assault crime, but it can actually be a civil liability issue as well. So you know that's just something to think about. And if you go crime, criminal law on your missing out civil liability and taught law, you know you're on completely different ends of the spectrum. And so in that sense, you really think pretty carefully actually about about how much you take into account, though some words and what you want them to tell you about the subject area. Okay, so step two eyes going to be to identify that kind of broader topic area within that subject. So we know it's contract law. What do we know about the topic within contract law? Now, we've already mentioned that we go on impression from the fact pattern about the validity off the contract of potential validity of the contract. We know that the validity off the contract that the agreement is relevant to both parties, so that might help us to kind of identify what that issue is gonna be. Um, we might also at this point and good students well, at this point, start to think about the statute of frauds. Why? Because if you are in the U. S, you will know that the statute of frauds states that a contract must be in writing. If it's not possible to perform a contract within one year. Now, we don't need to go. And that's a rule. We don't need to go into this rule here. We don't need to do any kind of writing out of that full rule. Remember, all we're doing at the minute is figuring out on identifying how we're going to articulate something later. We haven't yet written anything down. But just knowing this rule, right, knowing the narrow topic will help us figure out that this could be a statute of frauds issue. Okay, so step three, we're going to compare our knowledge of the topic off validity off statute frauds with the facts. And we're gonna try and spot some areas that are or that could be missing, Confused, contradictory. So we do that and, you know, we might start thinking about that role again. The statute of frauds rule. We may start thinking about the fact that you know certain issues are raised by this generally in your experience, you may know that these rules relate Teoh issues about validity off the contract. So here we get in a kind of confirmation that our initial impression or initial our intuition on on validity could actually be the correct issue. So we think we figured it out. At this point. We've gone through the 1st 3 stages and we go, OK, we've got this validity thing coming up again, and we've got this statute of frauds thing coming up again. We're getting a good kind of impression. What we need to do now in step for is to take a step back or to kind of take a top down look at the whole of the question again. So is validity a main issue? Are there any kind of sub issues here? Does that sound like a sensible issue? You know, have we spent time on this topic in class? Has the professor kind of gone on about this? A lot of we read a lot of cases around this, you know, start thinking about those questions now. To me, it looks like validity is the main issue here. The fact that we have been told early on that it's an oral contract helps to trigger the validity under the validity under the statute of frauds issue again because we know that the rule relates to agreements. We know that they that the rule relates to whether they could be sold the oral agreements, whether they must be written. We know also in general, that oral agreements can be quite problematic, you know, come, especially when it comes to validity. It's harder to prove things when you have just a normal contract. So we go through the question again, and we know that there are no other kind of major areas of ambiguity in the question and certainly non that look. As important as this one is S o, you know, top down approach or a wider view. Big picture approach, it seems like this is our major issue. Step five. Then the last step is going to be to kind of consolidate. All of this and list are ambiguity as some keywords. Now you can do this mentally. You can do it on paper. Think e is just that you get your keywords down eso for me. I would say that these would be validity Orel contracts statute of frauds and enforceability. Now, by exercising our skill in identification, we have come up with that Siris of words. A series of words and ideas about what the issue might be now is relatively easy, actually, to figure out what the question should be. So let's move on to the articulation point. Now we could start with the very, very simple articulation, which would be, um, just a kind of issue, a weather statement. So the issue would be whether the contract is valid. That's as we've talked about before. That's a weather statement. Very clear, very simple. Very basic weather statement. Now a week student might leave it at that. But because you guys are high caliber students that want to get the top grades, you should add a little bit more to it on again. Remember not to stray into the territory off the rule itself, so we might want to mention the statute of frauds. I've said it a 1,000,000 times, and we might want to get it in there. We might also want to preempt the So what aspect of our conclusion if you remember in the introductory materials to this, I mentioned how important it is to be thinking about that. So what early on in your analysis? Because it helps tie your answer together. So we might also want to talk about enforceability, right? If you could enforce a contract, that means it's valid. So we might want to get that in there. Now, if I'm pulling all of that together, I could articulate it like this. I could say both parties, the uncle and the nephew haven't interesting whether the oral agreement concluded between them is valid under the statute of frauds such that it would be enforceable. Okay, Now, if you want it or if you prefer for professors advised that you phrase that as a question, then you could articulates it this way. Is the oral agreement made between the uncle and the nephew valid under the statute of frauds such that it would be enforceable. Now it really doesn't need to be much more complex than that. In fact, the simpler the better when it comes to articulating your issue. Remember, at the end of the day, you are trying to indicate to your examiner that you know what the issue is and that you are prepared to set up a legal analysis so that once concluded, you can make it clear and concise. Conclusion. Okay, let's summarize Your job is to identify the relevant ambiguity in the facts presented and to articulate clearly the legal question to be answered. I hope I've given you the instruction on the guidance that you need to be able to figure out how to exercise those two key skills. Please remember that you should not be introducing excessive fax or going into any detail about what the rule is. Okay, you can mention a basic. You can make a basic reference to the rule or where it might be found, like I just did in that example. But please do not go into detail about it, because that is for the next section off your answer. It will flow nicely on you'll see how well that comes together at the end. Let's think about goals. OK, um, the ultimate goals with the issue section, which is gonna be a short section, is to leave your examiner with a good impression on, and it is to set yourself up to answer confidently. Okay, Brevity and clarity are imperative here. Please don't try and impress the Examiner with fancy language and convoluted sentences. They won't be impressed. They will impress them with a concise statement about the legal issue or the legal question that will be addressed in the analysis that follows in your answer. Okay, that's it for the issue section in the course materials, you will find an assignment that you should complete before moving on to the Rules section . That assignment consists off three real life problem questions in subjects that most first and second year law students will have studied. Eso you can choose one or all of them and try and come up with the legal issue. Once you've completed them. You can review your answers against mine in the Solutions video on that assignment. Okay, I hope you find the exercise useful and I'll see you in the next section. 9. Introduction to [R] Rule: in this section. Our focus is the rule. Now. You might be pleased to know that the Rules section Andi indeed, the application and conclusion sections as well tend to be more straightforward than the issue section. Why is that? Well, it's because the issue section, after all, is that critical part off the process upon which everything else in your answer is found it . Now when you come to write your answer, your issue section may only be one or two sentences, but it's vital for establishing the structure and the argument that you will follow in the rest off. Your answer. Now, In this regard, it's important to remember that the rule hinges on the issue that you have just identified . The rule section is linked directly to the issue section, just as the application section is linked directly to the rule section on the issue section that came before it. And, of course, just as the conclusion is linked directly to the application section, the rule section on the issue section that originally started everything off. So you think off each section like building blocks in a house you can't build higher until you've laid the foundations Andi In the Iraq method, Each section i. R. A. C serves as a foundation for those that come after it. Actually, CBC being the exception because nothing comes after that. But I r a then serves as the foundations for everything that follows. Now, in this short section, I will explain to you how to correctly state the rule that you will use in your legal analysis. Accordingly, the learning outcome for this section is to be able to state concisely the relevant rules from statute and case law to be applied to the issue identified. Now The good news is that this could be a very straightforward exercise, and you may only end up writing one or two sentences in your rule section. But there are nonetheless a couple of key considerations that you should keep in mind to ensure that your rule section is as good as it can be on that it matches or exceeds the examiners expectations. So let's get to in the next video 10. Finding the Relevant Rule: the short lecture is about finding the relevant rule to state in your rule section. Now, in many ways, this is gonna be obvious to you. If you've studied well throughout your course, the rule is a substantive aspect of your answer, and accordingly, you must rely on the legal knowledge in your brain in order to identify precisely what that rule is. There is, of course, no single legal rule that applies to every circumstance. That Means said, there is one important thing that I will mention at this stage that should help you to narrow down exactly the rule or the aspect off the rule that you need to state in your rule section. So here it is his theme porton consideration. Generally in the rule section, you should only be concerned with the main or primary rule that is relevant to the issue that you identified earlier in your answer. Okay, you should not be concerned with any subsidiary or secondary rules at this stage unless unless they are the relevant aspect of a broader rule that is applicable to your issue. Now, this is really, really important. Let me give you an example. Let's assume that you have in front of your case about murder now, as we did only in the course. That's just assume that this is on English murder case. Now in the rules section, generally, you will only stay the common law definition off murder as your rule. You're not gonna go into the details about particular aspects of that rule on the rules. Rodman's rare, for example, and you're not gonna go into the rules on, say, defenses, which you would then turn to kind of later in the question. Now, the exception to this is, is that if you are specifically asked to focus on a particular aspect of the rule in the question right which could be implied through a particular issue, or it could actually be stated in the question itself. Um, then, of course, there's an exception that, and you have to answer it in that respect so you could have that fact pattern describing a murder. And then, at the end of the question, it could ask you specifically about whether self defense applies, and in that case, you would go straight into the broad rule on self defense in the rule section and skip the more general aspects off the murder rule. Okay, That would be, of course, the common law definition of the common or requirements off murder. Now, this is off course because presumably, if you're being asked about whether self deployment self defense applies, then the requirements for murder have otherwise being fulfilled. Okay, so there's no point in you restating them in the question. You should just get straight to the relevant point which the relevant rule, Um and you should go straight to that Self defense section. Self defense rules. Sorry. Now, to some of you, this is probably really obvious. And you think you want us. You tell me this. But the reason I'm saying this is because I've seen on so so many occasions students that are not particularly confident about answering the narrower aspects of the issue. And they kind of just couch the rule in the more general in more general language. And they used their broader knowledge off a subject to write a more general legal analysis . Now it may read really well, and it could be the best general analysis in the world. But this is not a good approach when there is a particular issue or a specific question that you have being asked. It signals to an examiner straight away that the student just doesn't know how to address the narrow issue, that they lack confidence to answer it in a particular way. Now it's may even seem counterintuitive to some people to spend all that time studying a particular topics. Wendell that time revising on, then in the exam, having to miss out certain details. You feel like you're missing out because you've learned all of this and that you can't write it all down weeks. Students will cram in everything they possibly can about the law of murder. On Day won't talk unnecessarily about the specific issue, which was in this last example self defense. I think about it, how lawyers do right. Lawyers won't go into a case and prepare every single thing they know about Divorce Lord and then come down to this narrow issue off treatment of a child in the in the marriage or something like that, right? They focus more on the specific issue that that been asked to advise on, and that's it. Now, one thing that I will say is the examiner's care or another thing that I will say is the Examiner's really do care about how you state the rule. Now that's gonna be the subject of the next video, so I'll see you there. 11. State the Rule(s) Implicitly: in the last video, I mentioned that examiners care about how you state the rule. Now. This is a relatively straightforward issue, but it's an important one on the left. So let's get into it now. Most examiners will prefer that you state the rule implicitly, not explicitly. Now, this means that they do not want to see you say the rule is blah, blah, blah. Okay. Instead, they want to see you implied the rule by stating its key components and, if relevant, linking it back to your issue. So let me give you an example off on implicit statement of the rule versus an explicit statement off the rule. So let's imagine that you have a question in an exam about whether a defendant could be liable under the violence and Fletcher rule in the English law off nuisance. Now you identify that the particular issue in the case is whether the defendant can be said to fulfill the accumulation requirement. Okay, so that's the focus off your rule section or of your incest, therefore, of your rule section as well. Now you've identified your issue, and now you might state your role in one sentence, something like this to be liable under the rule in violence, and Fletcher of Requirement is that the defendant must bring the hazardous material on to his land and keep it there and then in brackets, you would put the case law where that is found. Now, as an aside will come back to these cases citations. The you know 18 90 24 Q B d. Six websites will come back to that on talk about whether you need to include all of that in your answer in the next video. But for now, please just notice that I don't say any where the rule is that the defendant must blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I just state the substance off that rule, and it is implied that this is the rule, because I've kind of indicated the core of it, the real substance of it. Now, Like I said, this is a really pretty straightforward think Think about when you are making your rule section or you're writing your rule section. All it comes down to is this implicit phrasing versus the explicit phrasing. Okay, so bottom line is don't say the rule is blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, unless your professor is explicitly asks for it instead, just state clearly the relevant substance off the rule on that should speak for itself. Ok, as for the level off detail that you need to include, that is all in the next video, so I'll see you there. 12. Level of Detail to Include: Okay. The last thing I want to say before we look at an example is that there is a certain level off detail expected when you state the rule Now, rules statements come in two parts. There is the rule itself. And then there is the citation that accompanies it. And together they are the rule statement. Now, in some law schools, your professor will tell you exactly how to state the rule. And you should follow his or her advice on that if he or she is the one marking your examination. However, if you do not have any specific guidance on this point, following the guidance here is a pretty good idea. Okay, so in terms off the rule itself state the rule verbatim, if you can. Okay, I exactly word for word. But if you can't remember the words exactly And remember, we all go blank in examinations. Sometimes please do not risk misquoting it don't risk put in the wrong words in and then put in quotation marks around it. It's better just to paraphrase, Okay, eso no risk off misquoting. Instead, just make sure that you accurately power paraphrase Sorry without quotation marks. Now buy accurately. I mean, don't add or detract any key details or change the logic off the rule. Okay, To be accurate, you're paraphrasing should convey the exact same meaning just without being in the exact same words. Okay. Now, in terms off the citation that accompanies the rule on the level of detail that's required there, there are different rules here, depending on the law school that you're at the level of study that your at and exam instructions. But generally, the more information you can record in the citation the better. Okay, so you want to state where your rule actually comes from and then show the examiner you want to stay your rule. Sorry. And then you want to show the Examiner exactly what that rule comes from. Usually that's gonna be case or statue. Now, you can either do this by working the source into the statement off the rule itself. Or you can just put the citation in brackets at the end off your rule statement. Now, let me give you two examples off these approaches. So let's go back. Teoh Rylance and fracture. Another requirement for liability under that rule is that there must be an escape from the defendant's land. So if we're writing about this particular rule are requisite level of detail might look a bit like this. The first example for a defendant to be held liable under violence and Fletcher. There must be an escape from the defendant's land and then in brackets we have Ponting in notes and reading lines. Now here we have paraphrased the rule accurately. Okay, that's know exactly how it appears in either of those cases. It's just inaccurate. Paraphrasing on, we have just simply stated at the end the cases in which that rule can be found. Now, another way we could have said it is this, According to Ponting, a notes and read and lions, there must be an escape from the defendant's land in order for liability to be established under violence and Fletcher. Now, either way off raising is absolutely fine and the decision really just comes down. Teoh your personal preference and how it kind of flows best with your writing. Now, the final thing that I want to say is that you do not have to include this citation in full in most examinations. Okay, So instead, off writing, read alliance on then the 1947 a. C 146 You could just write, Read Alliance 1947 or even reading lines. If you forget the year in the moment, rarely winning will an examiner actually doc you down points for forgetting the year. But it is quite impressive to put it in if you remember it. And it also helps you to kind of trigger some historical context from that date, right? So, for example, there's a lot of criminal cases in England that have them main point from, you know, back in the 17 or 18 hundreds on. So if you could remember that year, you might have some additional relevant commentary to put in with that. So that's why I would just include the year if you can. Now you want to check with your professor if you are unsure, of course, but the majority off professors will say to you that it is well, they think at least that it is unreasonable for students to recall the full citations for each case. Okay, some people just happen to be good at remembering them on. There's no harm in including them. It can even be impressive, but only if you have the time. Okay. If you're rushed in the exam, don't bother trying to put in Citation the four Citation, cause it's not gonna do you any good compared to what you could have written if you hadn't have spent time on that. Um, most professors are going to see it as being absolutely necessary. Okay, So it's now time to bring thes elements together and look at an example, So I'll see you in the next video. 13. Example (Rule): Okay, let's take a look at San example, Dexter was a 17 year old boy who was sentenced to three years at a Youth Offenders institute, which is a prison for young people having been convicted off burglary and violent robbery. The institute is called Begin Again. Dexia has a history of self harming and of suicide attempts, despite repeated requests from his family and his GP begin again refused to place Dexter on suicide watch, claiming that is short of staff and has a limited budget for replacement staff. Sadly, just three weeks into his sentence, Dexter took an overdose of sleeping tablets and slashed his wrists. He was taken immediately by ambulance to the local hospital, where he was treated for his satirists by Sally, the doctor on call, but no other medical examination was carried out on Dexter. Dexter was recovering from his wrist injuries but died two days later off the overdose. Advise begin again, and Sally off their liability in negligence to Dexter's estate, assumed that the area health authority is vicariously liable for Sally if she is in breach off a duty off care. Okay, if you want to spend a bit more time trying to understand what this question is actually getting to. Then please pause the video here before I move on to the next section. Okay, for ready. Now, remember that before we can state the rule, we have to establish what the issue is now. In this case, the issue was given in the question itself. If you remember from the issue section that we can add to the issue if we want to. But right now, just so that we can get straight into the rule aspect will just accept the basic version of the issue that has been outlined in the question. And we'll just have to accept that a better one could have been written. So the issue here is whether Begin again and Sally are liable in negligence. Now, when it comes to our rules statement, we have to identify from the substance of knowledge in their heads the relevant rule that will take us closest to answering whether there is liability in this case again, a full identification off. The ambiguity in the question in the fact pattern that you've been given will actually help us out here. And you should have done that's part of the identification skill in the issue section. Assuming, of course, that you were doing this in real life for now. Just accept that we've gone through all of the issues and we figured out how it'll kind of pieces together in are in the planning for our issue section. Now, if you have studied taught law, you will notice that this question hinges on being able to establish the duty off care. There are also issues in this particular fact pattern with standard of care and with causation. But for now, let's just stick to one issue for the purposes of this section. Now, in order to establish a duty of care in English law, we use the rule in keep our industries and Hickman. Now, according to Lord Bridges, three stage test for imposing a duty of care, the claimant must establish that the home was reasonably foreseeable and that there was a relationship off proximity and that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. So we know at this stage that this is the broader rule, that we are going to be applying to the facts, but we need to decide exactly which part of this relatively complex rule is the relevant part for our analysis, I we need to figure out the part that the issue truly pertains to. Now we are going to go into the details off the law of negligence right now. But rest assured that the particularly relevant point here is the third stage that the imposition off a duty of care is fair, just and reasonable. Now, our task in the rule paragraph then, is to state this part of the rule concisely so that in the application section we can really dig into the details without having to kind of revert, revert back to the broader rule and explain kind of how it all fits together. So if we were going to draft a rule paragraph, it might look something like this in order to establish duty of care. The requirements off Lord Bridges, three stage test. Most people must be fulfilled. The harm must have been reasonably foreseeable. There must have been a relationship off proximity, and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. Now again, we've kind of encapsulated that citation aspect there in by stating where that rule actually came from. I've also added, especially relevant here is the requirement that the imposition off a duty of care be fair , just and reasonable. So we've kind of given that broader context, and we've specified, as we've been really specific, I should say about about the particular aspect of the rule that is especially relevant now . In many instances, you will be able to state the rule as one sentence, and usually this is preferable. But in this example, we really do need to make it clear to the Examiner that we are aware that the imposition of a duty of care does not hinge solely on the imposition being fair, just and reasonable now, because the aspect of the rule that is relevant to us is one off three parts of a broader rule. We have to make that context make the context in which the narrower of all sit clear to the reader. To the examiner, two sentences is fine as long as you are being concise is forgive me as long as you are being as concise as you can be, and as long as you are not beginning to kind of engage in any form off application off that rule. Okay, I hope that was helpful. That's it. For this relatively short section on the rule to check your knowledge off the rule aspect off the Iraq method, there is a short multiple choice quiz to complete. Once you've done that, I'll see you in the application section. 14. Introduction to [A] Application: in this section are focuses the application off the relevant rules to the issue identified on the facts presented. Before we go any further, I just want to point out that many people will refer to this section as the analysis section, not as the application section. Now, for all intents and purposes, these are exactly the same, just with different names now. Personally, I prefer application because it's clearer about what is needed on because, really, I see the whole answer as legal and us. It's not just that third section now doesn't really matter what you call it. Eso I just wanted to point out right at the start of this. Just don't worry. If you do call it analysis and no application, the principles are exactly the same. In both cases. Now, the learning outcome for this section is to be able to understand how to apply authoritatively. The rules stipulated on argue convincingly why certain rules do or do not apply if you remember from the last section. What is critical in application is that we use the rule on the issue as foundations for the application. So before we go into the substance of what you need to do in the application section. We need to revisit the idea off expectations about what the Iraq method can do for you now . The application section, as many people will tell you, is the most complex part of answering the exam question. It's the part where students struggle the most. And I could tell you, from my own experience as a student, as a lecturer, excuse me and as an examiner that this is what you know. It's really what could make or break your answer. So I hope that you recall from the first section of this course that the Iraq method cannot answer the question for you. It can tell you how to structure your answer, but cannot tell you anything about what to write in terms off the substance. Now the application section is a very heavy substance section, and for that reason you really are going to have to rely on your own knowledge on your own study to do well in application sections. It's a shame, but there's not much that the Iraq method can actually tell you about exactly what to put into the application's section. In fact, all it really does say is that this is the section in which you apply the rules to the fax to the issue and to the facts. It doesn't really tell you what's involved in that application. Now, of course, that doesn't mean that I personally in this course want to leave out this section or just kind of skim over it. Instead, What I'm gonna do is I'm gonna teach you my approach for writing thing application section , which really is a Siris of tips and hints. I try and keep in my head while I'm writing thes sections. It's what got me following this approach got me a first class llB law degree on. And this approach, I think, has improved in my years off teaching and examining law students. Now, before we move on to that, though, I do want to throw out a bit off a reality check that might be relevant to some of you. Now, if you find yourself struggling with the application section one if you're not alone, most people struggle with this at some point, but if you are struggling with it on your struggling with it, even after you've implemented some off the recommendations that I am going to give you here , you really need to take a step back and ask yourself whether you really do understand the topic that you are being examined on right with. You really understand what's going on with the topic that you are being asked to write about now. I found in my 10 years or so as a a za lot student, a little lecture and a little examined that the reason that people struggle with this section actually has nothing to do with not fully understanding what apply means or what to apply rules to facts means it's that they don't really fully understand the thing area of law that they had been asked to write about. And as such, they don't really know what goes next or how it all things together or whatever else. Now this is a really harsh kind of reality, and it's not easy to snap your fingers and have this fixed by the Iraq method. This is going to be a hard lesson for some of you toe learn. But the fact is, and bomb line is you just cannot write a good application section unless you know the topic really? Well, right. If you gave me, I don't know a lot about family law, for example. So if you gave me a family little question, you know, I could maybe sort of spot on issue, but I wouldn't know the rules are certain. Wouldn't know anything about the application, you know? And of course, that means I wouldn't know anything about the conclusion. All right, So you really do need to know the topic. Um, if you want to do well on the application section. So if you are struggling with knowing what to write next, you know, you start off an application section, then you go Hang on. What? You know what happens next? If you feel that you run out of things to say really quickly, the most important thing that you can do is go back to your materials, go back to the lectures that you have been taking in school. Go back to the seminars, go back to textbook Andre, revisit that topic. Okay. I do want to give you a top tip here on. Do you might think I'm a little bit insane by doing this, but this is what I used to do in all school? Uh, one really good way of figuring out what your stock on is by pretending audibly if you want to lecture a class on that topic. I used to do it all the time. Must have driven my roommates mad. But I used to kind of just pretend lecture to people all the time on that is a really good way to figure out which parts of your of your knowledge are actually missing. Okay, so try and explain the subject to someone imaginary or real who doesn't know about this subject. Hasn't learned it before. You'll soon figure out what you actually know. What you don't. Okay, so with that reality check in mind, let's proceed and look at what it means for this section toe. Want you to apply rules. OK, Once we've done that, we're gonna look at some of my top tips about how to write this part of the answer. So I'll see you in the next video 15. Demystifying Application: in this section. We're dealing with the fundamental issue off what it actually means to apply rules. Now the dictionary definition is pretty helpful here, so let's take a look at it according to dictionary, don't come to apply as a verb with an object i e. To apply rules means to make use off as relevant, suitable or pertinent to put to use, especially for a particular purpose, to bring into action. Use. Employ. Like I said, I think this is pretty helpful for us, actually, because thes definitions are lying with what it is that we expect to come next in a proper question. Answer In applying rules. Then we've been asked to make use off those rules to put the rules to use to help us answer the legal question posed by our issue and to kind of bring the rules you know, interaction or bring the rules to life essentially pie using or employing the rules to answer a legal question. Now this makes sense if you think about it, because the issue section was all about identifying a question. The Rules section was all about figuring out what we needed to answer that question on Now the application section is all about actually using what we need, using the rule to answer the question. Now, we don't quite a bit in this course so far. But remember that in the examines air itself, all we would have done so far is written two short paragraphs that consisted off one or two short sentences each. Now they're critical for the for the exact for the answer to your exam question. But they are relatively short parts of your answer. Um, in reality, we have just a this point set the foundations and the application section is where we really get into answering the question itself. So let's have a look at a visual that kind of breaks all of this down and helps us figure out what kind of percentage of the answer we're taking up here. Okay, so I think this is the simplest way to think about Iraq and what it's actually doing for you on what it actually looks like in practice. So as you'll see on the left hand side of the table, we've got the headings for each of the sections issue rule application conclusion on then on the right hand side of the table. We've got basically what we're doing in this sort of the issue. Here's the question I'm going to answer rule. Here's what I need to answer the question application. Here's how I worked out the answer to the question and conclusion. Here's my final answer to the question. I really want you to spend a little bit of time on that and just just kind of read through pulls the video. If you want just kind of read through that, I go, Oh, yeah, this is actually what I've been asked to do. It's very, very logical. So, as I said, I think this is the simplest way to think about the Iraq method about what it can actually do for you on. I think it's also kind of useful to compare this to another subject. So if you think about maths, for example, that you've got a similar thing going on, right, First of all, you work out what the math problem is. Then you figure out the mathematical rules that you need to work it out. Then you show your working, remember, show you working in order to get the grade and then you just state your answer and you underlined it at the end. Okay. Three Iraq method is doing the exact same thing just with law instead of massive. So with this kind of application section demystified, in a way, I want you to be really clear about what this actually is and not kind of stress about the fact that it's complex. Let's just take a look at how you can best show your legal working, so to speak, with some top tips that I have, which I will give you in the next video. 16. Top Tips: Okay, Here's my first top tip. Used the rule as a guide destruction at your application section. Now, usually the application section is going to be the in fact, always It's gonna be the longest part off your answer right Application section should always be the longest part of your answer. It's going to be several power of paragraphs, probably at least three or four. It's not gonna be just one. So you have to think really carefully about how you're going to guide your reader logically through your application section. That last thing that you want to do is to kind of just vomit out all of this information. Even if it's great information, you need to kind of put it in order for your examiner. OK, think of your application section has been a bit like a jigsaw puzzle. You've got each individual little piece and you know you get drugs or positive you just typical on the desk in front of you. And then you start to kind of salt out. Okay, you're salting out is what's going on in your planning, and then as you piece together, all of these all of the little pieces you know that's when you're actually putting together the application section. So that is your job in this in this task. Now, in terms off the picture that you need to kind of present with this, I think it's useful. Andi, I would advise you to use the rule itself as a way to structure your application section. Okay, So what that means is that you're going to look at what your rule says, and you're gonna break it apart into its components. And then you're going to use those components as the paragraphs, even if they're really short paragraphs in your application, Okay, in your application section. So if you have, say, a murder case you're going Teoh sort of deconstructed that it's a common law definition of murder in England, and you're gonna use each of those parts of it as the structure for a sore paragraph list. Almost. It's a structure for the whole Iraq. Forgive me, the whole application section and it really is a simple Is that Okay? Look at the role that you have deconstructed into its parts and just use those as the guide for what you need to talk about in each paragraph if you do that, you don't ever have that problem of like, Oh, God, I don't know what to write next. Okay? You just go. Okay? This part of all this part of ruled this part of rule and you kind of just check it off. Okay? That's a simple one are connected to This is my second tip, which is to use and on or to link your paragraphs together. Now, I don't mean literally right on door. I mean, look at the rule and look at how it all fits together, and then figure out whether this is a cumulative roll i e. There are separate parts that all need to be satisfied sometimes in order or whether it is the type of rule where you can satisfy different parts of it or only certain parts of it. So if you remember our Kaparo test, for example, there were three paragraphs. There were three parts to that test on that would represent three paragraphs in your application section. Another Kaparo test is a cumulative test. It's an and test. So you need to satisfy a requirement one on requirement to on requirement three. It's not the case that you can satisfy a requirement one or requirement to all requirement three. It's and and and not or on. That basically means that when you are formatting your application section, you need to kind of state what the first requirement is and then say, and this needs to be satisfied on. And this needs to be satisfied, and that will give you a natural kind of flow as to how to guide the reader through each part off your application section. Victory is to use principles are or other rules to explain the definition right to explain the definition aspects off the rule. So if we go back to murder again, for example, the murder, the common law definition of murder requires an actress and a men's Raya on. So you would split your actors raise up and he would split your men's rare up. And then you would kind of explain on the each of the headings, You know what those additional rules are that apply to the crime off murder? Um, one thing I will say is that if you are going to kind of use legal principles and use other legal rules, you have to be committed to what they are, you know, word for word again. Try not to try not to paraphrase, if you you know if you can remember it. Word for word is much better to use the verbatim exact word for word than it is to paraphrase. But if you do paraphrase remember that sometimes it could be acceptable depending on how complex the rulers. But you just got to make sure that you put each aspect in in the exact same way. The exact same meaning as the original tip for is to address very briefly that easy points that you could dispose off. Okay, Now a lot of people will kind of recognize the easy point and go, Yes, this is an opportunity for me to write everything that I know about this particular topic. Just don't do it. If it's easy in the exam, it's put there as a kind of something you should dispose off briefly, something you should just deal with and then move on to the more complicated part. Eso. If you're recognizing this in an exam, please don't kind of spend any amount of, you know serious time on it. So let's say that you've got fact pattern again about a murder on its in disputed in the facts that a killed be okay and then, you know, say that there might be something about defense afterwards. So you can say in your application section very clearly you could go. Okay, Um a satisfies requires for murder, because X Y said, and you just do it really quickly. And then you go on to the more complicated part off the whether the defense applies. Okay, so just save that extended discussion for the difficult points and address the easy points . Quickly, briefly. Get them out the way. Okay, Don't dwell on them. I know it's tempting to, but please don't do that, okay? This is a really good one. And this really helps to kind of guide your examiner through your answer in a really logical way, Which again is the thing that's gonna help you get higher marks. So you want to make sure in your application section that you make many conclusions throughout. Okay, So say whether each bit of the rule each part of the rule has been satisfied before you move on to the next part. Okay, um, that in mind make many conclusions, but don't make your big overall conclusion. Okay, so those many conclusions want Teoh. Answer the many questions that you're addressing in the application. They don't want to answer the big legal question that was stated in your issue, because that's what you going to do in your concrete in your conclusion. Okay, so if it's a question off, you know, is this person guilty or not? Don't say yes or no to the gill until you get to your conclusion. What you want to do is say, kind of like Yes, no or likely highly likely unlikely to the aspects off, whatever that crimes elements are as you go through your application section, Okay, So make many conclusions as to each part before you get to the big conclusion, which is yes, it is highly likely this person is guilty or no, it's not. Whatever the next one on this is where really good students stand out is to include the next step is to include policy considerations where you can okay, now judges will often apply rules, and then you might see sometimes that they assess whether it's fair, equitable, etcetera to actually enforce that rule in in the case that they have in front of them. Now, um, you need to think about what this could actually mean in your exam question. OK, So if there is a rule in, say, criminal law that you know is particularly problematic, maybe there's been a big policy debate on it. Maybe it's come up in government discussions. Maybe a think tank has written a really inflation, an influential paper on it. You know, if you're aware of those things and it applies and it's relevant to your question, then you can bring them in. And it's really, really impressive if you do that in your application section. Um so the rock crimes, for example, that treat certain groups in society or certain people you know within other kind of categories much more harshly than they would say Everybody else okay, said the law and provocation in murder, for example, treats your country victims of domestic violence in a lot harsh away that they perhaps ought to bay on dso, you know, in terms of fairness, Alexey on DSO judges have been pretty proactive and saying, Actually, there are some policy considerations here, and we maybe shouldn't impose this particular rule in this particular case. Now, if you can identify the opportunity to talk about that and you can authoritatively with sources talk about that, it is really, really impressive. And so I would encourage you to do it if you can. The next tip is a pretty straightforward one, and it should be something that you're doing already. But you should be discussing both sides often argument or appoint okay on. The reason that you need to do this is because you should be preempting counter arguments and trying to deal with them in your answer. OK, now remember, you need to be acting well thinking, Sorry, thinking, not acting, thinking life a lawyer while you're doing this right, like a real lawyer, you know, real lawyers will take their case and they will be trying to preempt, right? They think about in advance the counter arguments that the other side are going to are going to make. So you need to do the same thing in your answer to a problem question. Now, sometimes this will be really obvious. You know, you might have a particularly ambiguous area that you're trying to deal with on In that case, you know, you can kind of more easily preempt what those issues might be. Sometimes it's a little more difficult, but the higher caliber students are gonna identify them. They're going to try and throw out some arguments for the other side, and then they're going to try and deal with them. Now, you'll see an example of this in the Indy full Iraq and so that I'd given you at the end off this course. Last thing will say on this, actually is with the other side of the argument. Please only deal with those off with those other potential arguments if they are actually relevant to your case and to the facts that you have in front of you. Okay? We could also imagine a number of different things. Well, if X then why, you know, if they did this than they did this and we don't know about this, but it could have been this. You know, we can all do that to infinity, but it doesn't really get us anywhere. And so only do this only engage in the other side if there is a reasonable ground to do so . If there's evidence that suggests that you should number last tip eyes to use the facts as evidence, not as padding. Now, this sounds really obvious to some of you. I know, but the panic in the exam ends up with facts being used as padding, right? It's like, Oh, my God, I'm not writing enough. I don't know what to write. Let me just write about the fact. Okay, You need to avoid during that. It's better to not do that than it is to hand in a short answer. Honestly, you know, examiners have limited amount of time to actually great papers, and they're just looking for the points. They're not interested in all the kind of wishy washy, woefully kind of facts that people put in. Okay, But please avoid going into too much detail about the facts. You should use the facts, right, employees the facts as evidence. You don't need to kind of re state. You don't need to kind of explain what happened again. Okay? Examiners tend to have pretty good memories, and they know what's happened in the question. So they know what to expect. Okay. All right. Well, that's it for my tips. For now, because the application section is so complicated and because it relies so heavily on substance, I'm not including a separate section example in this particular section. Okay. Instead, please complete the assignment for this section, which is a reflective exercise on that reality check that I told you about earlier on. Then move on to the conclusion section. Conclusion section of this course is much shorter. You can wrap it up straight away, and once you've done that, you could move on to the final section of the course where we tile of this together on in that section. I do have a full example answer using the Iraq method. And of course, that means that there is a full application section in there Now. The reason that I don't want to kind of provide an additional example right now is because is because it relies so much on that substance and because, you know, the application's section drawers so much on the issue and on the rule, and it links to the conclusion. Okay, so I don't want to repeat things that we've said already, and I don't want to start talking about things about the conclusion that we haven't really addressed yet. Rest assured, though, that I have given you that Full examples or you're not missing out. Okay, good luck with the reflective exercise. Please be as honest as you can, and I will see you in the next section. 17. Conclusion: congratulations on getting to the final section off the Iraq method. He is the leading outcome for this section to be able to restate the answer without repetition and provide a compelling conclusion to the issue identified at the outset. Now, as I said, Congratulations and welcome to the final section off the Iraq method. Now the good news is that the conclusion is a really simple section two right? So this section itself should be pretty quick and straightforward. Now the conclusion is your answer to the legal question that you identified in the issue at the outset of your answer. Now, as such, it should be between maybe one and three short, clear sentences that wrap up your answer. Now, remember that throughout your application section you will have made a Siri's off many conclusions that all hints at one big conclusion. Now that big conclusion could be guilty or not guilty, liable or not liable, able to rely on a defense or not able to rely on a defense, etcetera. Now, your first sentence, you want to write what that answer is. Okay, you want to get straight to the point, so you want to answer the question. And then you want to answer that kind of related question off. So what? OK, so this is gonna mean that you need to state what the potential remedy could be. Remember the end, right? Quote from the beginning of this course, Right. The remedy could be a prison sentence or a fine if it's a criminal case, or it could be sort of potential compensation or other remedial action if it is a civil case. Okay, so you've just got to state the big conclusion. Answer, then answer the question. So what? Okay. Put your remedy in there and that's it. That's all you have to do. Okay? You don't have to repeat any of the facts. You don't have to repeat the basis of your argument. You don't have to identify again that there could be some ambiguity in bar blah, blah, right. You just have to kind of estate the answer. And then you have to stay the remedy, have to state the So what? Okay, so let's look at some examples of this now. Your conclusion should be very simple. Very straight to the point. OK, so let's have a look. Novello contract was formed between A and B, therefore be will not be entitled to any financial compensation, not that simple. Caroline did not have the requisite authority to sign the contract on behalf of a company. Therefore, the insurance broker will not be able to enforce the agreement between Caroline's company and the insurance company again. Super simple. What's the big answer? What's the remedy that goes with it? Okay, what's the So so what? Right. Last one. James is highly likely to be found guilty of assault and therefore faces a maximum term of incarceration off 15 years. Okay, so simple. So, so simple. Now, the fact that your conclusions should be so simple and so straight to the point is something that eludes a lot off students. I've seen long conclusions like paid a page long, at least kind of restating the main arguments and kind, summarising everything that was said. You don't need to do that in the Iraq method. You don't need to do that for law school problem questions. You just need to get straight to the point. Simplicity is, after all, what will make a good conclusion. Now you should know that one of the reasons that it is so important to write a good conclusion. Despite it being 123 sentences, Mike's is because examiners will often look at your conclusion first. Okay, before they've read anything else Now a lot. A lot of people know this, but some examiners will skip to the end on the read accomplish. And first, right, they want to know what they should be expecting all the way through. Some people think it's a nice thing to lead your examiner on this nice romantic story through your answer, right. No one cares about that. What they care about is that you are straight to the point on that you are ready to kind of justify that conclusion all the way through your answer. Okay. Now, this is called the accordion method. Right? If you know what accordion looks like, you've got this kind of two ends to it, and then all the in the middle. You don't see it until you pull it out. Okay, Now, this is exactly the same thing on Examiner will reach a conclusion. He or she will read your introduction on then. All that middle bit is what they will later reveal that the first thing they see is your introduction and your conclusion. Okay? No, A lot of people know that, but it's really worth bearing in mind. Okay, so at the end, off your drafting, read your introduction, reach a conclusion. Do they match? Have you said something in your introduction that you haven't answered in your conclusion? Okay, it should be question, answer. Introduction conclusion. Okay. It's really simple. Okay, that's it for the conclusion section. I told you it was gonna be short. Please. Now turn to the final section of our course where we tie everything together and we learn how we can use Iraq to write a really stand out answer to an exam question. We'll see that. 18. Introduction to Tying It All Together: congratulations on get into the very final section off this course. If you've gone to this stage and you have completed all of the assignments than I am really hoping that you're beginning to feel a lot more confident about your ability to address law school problem questions with the Iraq method on this final section, the learning outcome is to be able to consolidates the Iraq sections to craft a direct, confident and well reasoned answer to law school problem questions first time every time. Now that is a pretty ambitious learning outcome. But it is one that is achievable if you commit to putting the teachings that I have provided here into practice on a regular basis. What I want to do in this final section is addressed a few final points about how Iraq works of all, how you kind of tired all together and how you could deal with a couple of things that might come up. In fact, that probably will come up. So let's get straight to it. 19. Multiple Issues/Parties: The first issue that I want to address in this final section on tying everything together is the issue of what to do when you have multiple parties, which is our mortal issues. Sorry, which is usually indicated by multiple parties now in order to communicate best the principles off Iraq. Throughout this course, we have generally just focused on identifying one issue stating one rule and then applying that one rule to come to one conclusion. Now, obviously, this is an oversimplification of what you will be asked to do in the exam, and for that reason I want to make a suggestion to you for how you might structure your answer when you have multiple issues to deal with. Now, it's very simple kind of structure, so it's not gonna differ. Too much difference are too much from what we've done already, but it's just something to bear in mind now. There are two main ways of doing this on the one that will make the most sense will depend on the way that the question is structured on what you up what you are actually being asked to do, so the best thing that you can do at this stage is to bear both of these in minds and be prepared to implement either one of them in the real exam, depending on what you're facing. So here is how I would suggest structuring your answer. The first option is to separate your answer up by party. On the second is just to keep the General I r A C structure, but to deal with the multiple parties in each one. Okay, so you're structures are gonna look something like this. Okay, so in the 1st 1 you can see that your answer basically is you're going to deal with party one and you're gonna go issue rule application conclusion on, then party to issue rule application conclusion. So it's almost like you're writing many answers. All in one answer. Now, the second option is that you can either deal with the issue for party one and then the issue for party to, and then you deal with the rule for party one and then the rule for party two and so on, and then application application, conclusion, conclusion. Um, sometimes that works. I tend to avoid that one as much as possible because it's kind of hard to kind of track back through all the different issues. So I prefer the 1st 1 I think most people prefer the 1st 1 What you do need to do, though, is make sure that you avoid repetition throughout. So in your first with the first party that you're gonna deal with, you answer everything absolutely and full, like you would if you were only dealing with one issue when it comes to the second party. If you've already dealt with a particular rule, if you have explained a particular application of it or whatever, somewhere in reference to party one, you could just cross reference. Okay, so you can say in your paragraph, as seen in blah, blah, blah party boom. You know, you could do X, Y and Zed, right? And you just and you just literally dis cross reference it back to something that you said earlier you could say as aforementioned or as I said earlier, or, as you know, explored above. You know, any of those kind of things you can say just to send the really backed as a quick kind of reminder so that you are not spending all that time sort of explaining the same issue all over again. Um, one thing I will say is that if there are multiple issues, remember that you need multiple conclusions. So likelihood is you're going to get multiple issues. You don't want to wrap all of that up in one overall conclusion, cause it's probably not going to address each of those individual questions properly. So make sure that in your conclusion, you also just have, you know, very simple, very straightforward conclusions for each of the issues that you have identified. Okay, now remember, you need to check that you need to go through, make sure you've answered every part for every party on DSO. Best thing to do is just revised the question again very quickly at the end. Look at your introduction, your interest, your introductory issue section and make sure that you've kind of identified each question that and then just check it and at the end, in your conclusion and it really is that simple. Okay, so better in mind, please. As you are looking at multiple issues of multiple parties, I think one of these two will probably see you best 20. Uncertainty: The next issue that I want to deal with is uncertainty. Now most of us, in fact, just about all of us, maybe one or two exceptions in the whole of your law school will be uncertain about something in the exam, either because it's deliberately uncertain in the question itself or because we're missing some knowledge somewhere which has led House, which is leading us to experience. That uncertainty happens to practically everybody now in advocates. We need to know what to do with this uncertainty. Now I have one very simple, very straightforward suggestion to this. Andi actually helps with producing an answer that is much more like a realistic lawyers answer in the first place. So regardless of whether you are one of the one or two exceptions that never experience is uncertainty. You know, this is something that you can apply anyway, and I think it will be of benefit. So the suggestion is this. Get into the habit off, always writing in likelihoods, not in certainties. Okay, so what I mean by that is that you should always say things like it is likely that the defendant will be found guilty rather than saying something like the defendant will be found guilty. Okay, Now, many professors and I'm not professor. Put myself included. Take quite strong views on this. Okay, They will correct you if you say something with absolute certainty. And the reason for that is because nothing is certain in law until the judge's gavel falls . Okay, you really have to remember this. Practically speaking, no lawyer will ever commit 100% to the outcome off a case. Okay? Instead, even the most confident ones commit to their argument, and they hope that that will lead to the outcome. But the reality is, none of us know the outcome of a case until that gavel. That judge's hammer, if you want to call it, that actually falls on the desk. Okay? You need to kind of take that approach in your answers. Remember that. As you're writing, you need to write in terms of likelihood. Highly likely. Likely unlikely, highly unlikely or any kind of sensible variation of that. Never right in certainty. 21. Final Checks: okay on to final checks. This is the last tip that I want to give you. Okay. And this tip is to remember to do a final check before handing in your answer. Now, you need to plan time to do this in your more general sort of answer planning that you're going to do before you even start writing. Make the time so that at the end of writing your answer, you can switch gears, and you can kind of pretend that you are the examiner for a few seconds. Okay, You're gonna use the accordion method that I told you about introduction conclusion, and you're going to assess whether you have truly answered the question in your conclusion that you set out to answer in your issue section. Now, if you haven't, you need to make sure that you address that gap right before handing in your answer, because that is the first thing that your examiner is going to look for. Okay, So remember, just kind of accordion up your answer. Look at your Internet. Your introductory issue section. Look at your conclusion and make sure that the to kind of equal in that sense, right. You should have your question. And then your answer will you around. So many question whichever way around on your screen. Ok, um really simple point. But it's a really important one. And it will help you to catch any kind of mistakes that you may have made or toe sort of better online something if in the process of your answer, is kind of got out of out of kilter a little bit. I know that I used to do this in all of my exams, and on several occasions I picked up and picked up errors that I wouldn't have seen if I didn't make the time to do that. So it's definitely worth doing. Okay, Those are the three kind of main points in wrapping up your Iraq Answer that I wanted to kind of remind you off when you are considering everything that you've written down and how it kind of works as a legal analysis. All that is left to do now is to look over the full answer example that I am attaching to the end of this course. Go through it kind of methodically right all over it. You can download it prints off however many times that you want, I just go through it and try and link up what I've done in that answer to what we've gone through in this course. Okay, I've made sure that in that answer, I'm doing everything that I've told you to do in this course. And so you should be able to kind of link up each of the lectures in each of the points that I make really quite clearly in that answer. Okay, there is one final assignment, so I hope you get something out of that. And I really look forward to kind of reviewing your final sort of culminating class projects your final assignment in that regard. 22. Final Assignment and Thank You: There's only one thing left to do now, and that is to put your new skills in identifying issues, stating rules, applying rules on drawing conclusions into practice. The final assignment for you is to make a commitment to practicing the Iraq method on a regular basis. Just imagine how confident you will feel going into an examination if you have done 20 or 30 of these practice examples in the weeks and months preceding your examinations, I tell my own students all the time, time and time again that the first time that they used the Iraq method should not be in the rial examination. Now, as part off that commitment, I want you to find a practice question on a topic of your choice and right either a detailed plan for answering it according to the Iraq method. Or, if you want to be really brave, that right out your full answer. Okay, Now please feel free to upload your practice senses so that we will be able to learn from each other's strengths and weaknesses. All that remains for me to say. Now it's thank you so much for joining me on this course. I really do hope that it has helped you to better understand the Iraq method and how it could be used to produce really excellent answers to law school problem questions. If you've enjoyed this close at this course, please remember to rate and review it so that all those students can find it on benefit in the same way that you have. It's been an absolute pleasure teaching for you on day. I hope to see you again in another one. My courses.