Answering a law problem question without losing half the marks

Problem questions are the format law students find hardest and the one that rewards discipline most reliably. The structure is not the difficulty. Almost everyone can recite IRAC. The difficulty is that the four steps are not equal in weight, and most answers spend their words on the two that carry the fewest marks.

Issue: be specific and be brief

The issue is not the area of law. It is the precise legal question the facts raise. Whether the exclusion clause was incorporated into the contract is an issue. Contract law is not. Where a problem raises several issues, take them in a logical order and deal with each completely before moving on.

Rule: state it with authority, then stop

The rule statement should be tight. Give the principle, cite the case or section that establishes it, and move on. A long exposition of the development of the doctrine reads as padding, because the marker already knows the law. What they do not know is whether you can apply it.

In a problem question, the marker wrote the facts. Repeating them back uses words that should be doing application.

Application: this is the answer

Application means taking the rule and running it against the specific facts you were given, including the awkward ones. Which facts satisfy the element, which do not, and which are genuinely ambiguous. If the problem gives you a detail, it is there for a reason, and an answer that never mentions it has probably missed an issue.

• Work element by element rather than in general terms
• Name the specific facts that satisfy or fail each element
• Where the authority is unclear, say so and argue both readings
• Distinguish unhelpful cases rather than ignoring them
• Keep advising the party the question asked you to advise

Conclusion: actually advise someone

Problem questions ask you to advise a party. An answer that sets out the arguments and stops has not advised anyone. State the likely outcome, say how confident you are, and identify what additional fact would change the analysis. Uncertainty is fine and often correct. Refusing to reach a view is not.