irac method of critical thinking

Using the IRAC method in law school

Apply critical thinking to maximize your law school and bar exam scores.

1. Why use the IRAC method 2. Learn enough for exam success 3. Know what’s being tested 4. Skills to hone for legal writing 5. Read with intention 6. Think outline 7. Write with structure 8. Master the analysis

Why law students and lawyers alike use the IRAC method

In your law school classes, and eventually on the bar exam and as a practicing attorney, you will be presented with scenarios that are not cut and dry. It is your job to be able to decipher the rules of the law that apply and determine if the appropriate elements are present to resolve disputes.

The simple truth is merely memorizing the law is not enough to prepare you for cases, law school finals or passing the bar exam. Critical thinking is required. You have to actually learn and be able to apply the law when writing for exams.

While you definitely need to know a lot of rules to do well in law school and later in your legal career, it’s impossible to know all the rules of law. That’s why good legal reasoning and analysis (or the process of thinking like a lawyer) really come down to understanding the structure by which lawyers solve problems. This structure of problem-solving is known as the IRAC method — Issue, Rule, Analysis and Conclusion — and it’s what your professors and bar examiners will test you on.

The IRAC method is an efficient framework for organizing your answer to a legal essay question. But here’s the catch with using it for exam success: If you don’t know the specific rule(s) to apply to solve the problem at hand, it becomes difficult to follow IRAC.

So how do you learn enough for exam success?

For most people, rote memorization without application doesn’t last long. Learning or memorizing a ton of information without structure and without context creates a problematic environment in which to recall the rules you know and be able to apply them on exam day.

What’s important is to know enough law to figure out which facts are legally significant, and which aren’t. This requires learning three things: Rules, Elements and Stories. Start with studying the rule and the elements that make up the rule. Once you have the rule and elements down, apply a story or real scenario to the rule to solidify your knowledge and understanding.

Now you’re ready to write using the IRAC method.

Know what you’re being tested on

The idea of IRAC is that you go through an exam fact pattern, spot as many issues as you can, state the rules of law, apply the law to the facts and then arrive at a conclusion. In exam situations, this translates to:

• Issue: Your ability to figure out your client’s problem (or what problem your professor is asking you to solve).
• Rule: Your knowledge of a rule(s) that might help solve your client’s problem.
• Application (of law to facts): Your ability to determine which facts are relevant to solving the problem.
• Conclusion: How you think a court would solve the problem.

The majority of points on law school exams come from understanding or recognizing the facts and where they are derived from (steps 1 and 3). Can you figure out the problem (issue) and can you solve it by figuring out the law (which facts are actually applicable to that issue). This understanding, and showing it in a very organized manner, can be the difference between an “A” answer and anything else.

Although it’s not the only way to structure an essay answer, the IRAC method is an effective tool for organizing your thinking and your writing. It helps to ensure all the bases are covered as you learn how to respond to legal issues.

Key skills to hone for your legal writing

Your goal in mastering the use of the IRAC method is to answer essay questions in a way that demonstrates your competency to practice law in the future. This means performing a concise legal analysis for each of the small problems presented in the fact pattern. Legal writing success comes down to Reading, Thinking and Writing like a lawyer.

A good rule of thumb is to allocate a third of your time to the reading and thinking part of the learning process and two-thirds of your time writing your answer.

Read with intention

Start with the call of the question (what issue needs to be solved) prior to reading through the fact pattern. This will help you begin separating relevant from irrelevant facts. As you are reading through the question, you should always be asking yourself: Why is my professor telling me this? Is this relevant fact?

While reading through the fact pattern, make note of which facts are outcome determinative and mark or highlight them. These are the facts that will help you figure out the question — so they should go into your outline.

Think outline

Think about which rules apply to your facts and put them in an outline. Then, go back to the highlighted facts from your hypotheticals and add them to your outline. Your outline should be brief. Keep it to what rule you are going to use and what facts you are going to apply.

Important note: If you do not have facts to apply to every element of your rule, the rule shouldn’t be in your outline.

• Rule: Element 1 , Element 2 , Element 3

Write with structure

Follow the IRAC structure when you begin writing your answer unless your professor requires otherwise. Be sure to look back at the facts you didn’t use to confirm that they aren’t part of the rule. With an organized and well-thought-out approach, you will be left with plenty of time to write because you’ll know exactly where you are going with your answer (thanks to your outline). Every time you get a new rule or identify a new issue, just remember to start a new IRAC analysis.

Master the analysis to write better exam answers

You might be thinking to yourself, this all sounds good in theory but how does this system for approaching law school finals really work in practice? As you begin to write out your exam answer, we recommend you analyze each dispute or issue raised using the IRAC method as follows.

Issue Start by stating the question you plan to address in precise legal terms. Your answer should then cover all the main legal aspects of the issue in a neutral tone without being too general or oversimplified. Just remember to avoid using specific names of any parties involved or other proper nouns.

Rule Next, state the applicable law or laws. If several laws could be applicable in the case, be sure that the number of rules matches the number of issues you’ve stated. Be clear and concise when defining the relevant elements of the rule and term of art.

Application Then, apply the rules to the facts using supporting arguments. Be sure to spell out everything and include counterarguments whenever possible. This is a good place to use an Issue T to break down the problem into its component parts and as a way to remember to discuss which facts in the fact pattern either support or prevent application of the rule. Address each fact given and the logical inference to be drawn from it.

Conclusion Finally, it’s time to summarize the entirety of your findings using a clear-cut conclusion for each issue as well as the question asked. In close cases where a number of outcomes are possible, it is usually best to go with the most feasible and fair conclusion and state why it is your position. Discuss the merits of each outcome in your essay answer without considering yourself bound by the “general rule” or “majority view” (unless the question clearly calls for such). Ultimately, your conclusion should offer the expected legal ruling.

Congratulations, you’re learning to resolve disputes!

The great thing about grasping the IRAC method and the Read, Think, Write skills is that once you hone them, they will serve you well not only through the Multistate Bar Exam — no matter if the questions are multiple-choice or essay — but through your real-world practice as well. BARBRI takes those critical strategies to task in our proven, time-tested bar prep program. That’s why every single year, more students pass the bar exam with BARBRI than with all other courses. Combined.

Understand that law school finals and the bar exam are not tests of your ability to simply recite rules. Ultimately, they are given to test your ability to apply the rules to new factual situations. When you master this process, you begin to learn and recall the rules on your way to helping people resolve disputes. That’s what being a lawyer is all about.

BARBRI 1L Mastery

The most complete and effective 1L resource available.

BARBRI 2L/3L Mastery

Efficiently learn critical rules and elements for the most challenging subjects.

Top final exam-taking tips

High-level tips to help you prepare for your law school finals.  

IRAC Method of Legal Writing

Glossary of Grammatical and Rhetorical Terms

• An Introduction to Punctuation
• Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
• M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
• B.A., English, State University of New York

IRAC is an  acronym for ' issue, rule (or relevant law ), application (or analysis ), and conclusion ' : a method used in composing certain legal documents and reports.

William H. Putman describes IRAC as "a structured approach to problem-solving . The IRAC format, when followed in the preparation of a legal memorandum , helps ensure the clear communication of the complex subject matter of legal issue analysis."

(Legal Research and Analysis Writing. 2010)

Pronunciation

Examples and observations of the irac method.

"IRAC is not a mechanical formula, but simply a common sense approach to analyzing a legal issue. Before a student can analyze a legal issue, of course, they have to know what the issue is. Thus, logically, step one in the IRAC methodology is to identify the issue (I). Step two is to state the relevant rule(s) of law that will apply in resolving the issue (R). Step three is to apply those rules to the facts of the question—that is, to 'analyze' the issue (A). Step four is to offer a conclusion as to the most likely result (C)."

(Andrew McClurg,  1L of a Ride: A Well-Traveled Professor's Roadmap to Success in the First Year of Law School, 2nd ed. West Academic Publishing, 2013)

Sample IRAC Paragraph

• "( I ) Whether a bailment for the mutual benefit of Rough & Touch and Howard existed. ( R ) A pawn is a form of bailment, made for the mutual benefit of bailee and bailor, arising when goods are delivered to another as a pawn for security to him on money borrowed by the bailor. Jacobs v. Grossman , 141 N.E. 714, 715 (III. App.Ct. 1923). In Jacobs , the court found that a bailment for mutual benefit did arise because the plaintiff pawned a ring as collateral for a $70 loan given to him by the defendant. Id. ( A ) In our problem, Howard pawned her ring as collateral to secure an $800 loan given to her by Rough & Tough. ( C ) Therefore, Howard and Rough & Tough probably created a bailment for mutual benefit." (Hope Viner Samborn and Andrea B. Yelin, Basic Legal Writing for Paralegals , 3rd ed. Aspen, 2010)
• "When faced with a fairly simple legal problem, all the IRAC elements may fit into a single paragraph. At other times you may want to divide the IRAC elements. For example, you might wish to set out the issue and the rule of law in one paragraph, the analysis for the plaintiff in a second paragraph, and the analysis for the defendant and your conclusion in a third paragraph, and the transitional phrase or sentence in the first sentence of yet a fourth paragraph." (Katherine A. Currier and Thomas E. Eimermann, Introduction to Paralegal Studies: A Critical Thinking Approach , 4th ed. Asen, 2010)

The Relationship Between IRAC and Court Opinions

"IRAC stands for the components of legal analysis: issue, rule, application, and conclusion. What is the relationship between IRAC (or its variations...) and a court opinion? Judges certainly provide legal analysis in their opinions. Do the judges follow IRAC? Yes, they do, although often in highly stylized formats. In almost every court opinion, judges:

- identify the legal issues to be resolved (the I of IRAC);

- interpret statutes and other rules (the R of IRAC);

- provide reasons why the rules do or do not apply to the facts (the A of IRAC); and

- conclude by answering the legal issues through holdings and a disposition (the C of IRAC).

Each issue in the opinion goes through this process. A judge may not use all of the language of IRAC, may use different versions of IRAC, and may discuss the components of IRAC in a different order. Yet IRAC is the heart of the opinion. It is what opinions do: they apply rules to facts to resolve legal issues." (William P. Statsky, Essentials of Paralegalism , 5th ed. Delmar, 2010)

Alternative Format: CREAC

"The IRAC formula... envisions a time-pressured exam answer...

"But what's rewarded in law-school exams tends not to be rewarded in real-life writing. So the coveted IRAC mantra ... will produce mediocre to worse results in memo-writing and brief-writing. Why? Because if you were to write a one-issue memo using the IRAC organization, you wouldn't reach the conclusion—the answer to the issue—until the end...

"Knowing this, some legal-writing professors recommend another strategy for writing you do after law school. They call it CREAC , which stands for conclusion-rule-elaboration-application (of the rule to the facts)-conclusion (restated). Although you'd probably be penalized for that organizational strategy on most law exams, it's actually superior to IRAC for other types of writing. But it, too, has a serious shortcoming: Because it doesn't really pose an issue, it presents a conclusion to an unknown problem."

 (Bryan A. Garner, Garner on Language and Writing . American Bar Association, 2009)

• The Differences Between Law School and Undergrad
• What Is a Case Brief?
• What Is Legal English?
• Definition and Examples of Analysis in Composition
• What an Essay Is and How to Write One
• Understanding Organization in Composition and Speech
• Learn the Degree You'll Need to Get In to Law School
• Paragraph Writing
• How to Write a Narrative Essay or Speech
• Undergraduate Courses That Are Recommended for Law School
• The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision
• The Ultimate Guide to the 5-Paragraph Essay
• How to Write a Lab Report
• How To Write a Top-Scoring ACT Essay for the Enhanced Writing Test
• Learning the Lingo in Law Schools
• Presidential Bill Signing Statements

IRAC Method: Definition, Application, and Criticism

The acronym “IRAC” stands for issue, rule, application, and conclusion. More than just an acronym, it specifically corresponds to a method for legal analysis, thus providing a predefined framework or structure for legal writing, especially for composing legal documents, position papers, issue or policy evaluation, and other reports, among others.

Below are the specific applications of the IRAC method:

• The primary application of this method is in answering hypothetical and situational questions in law schools and bar exams.

• Outside the academe, the framework has also been used in actual legal practice or other related professions that require issue and policy analyses.

• Note that it is not merely a mechanical formula. More than just providing a format, it offers students and practitioners a logical process for examining an issue.

• A more specific application of the IRAC method is in writing a case brief or a summary of a particular case in both law school and legal practice.

• Other fields have used the framework for writing position and white papers , including public administration and business management, among others.

The Four Major Sections

Remember that the method provides both a mechanical formula and a logical process for analyzing an issue, as well as writing the corresponding details and results of the analyses. The following are the four major elements or sections of the IRAC method:

1. Issue : The “issue” or “issues” are the statements or legal questions that must be answered. Note that there is an issue if the facts of the case or situation present an ambiguity that must be resolved through the identification and evaluation of relevant rules.

2. Rule: Remember that the identification of the issue or issues requires the identification of applicable rule or rules such as laws and ordinance, policies, principles, and ethical standards. In this section of the IRAC method, the analyst must provide a summary of all relevant rules used in the analysis of the entire issue.

3. Application: This section is the specific analysis part of the entire document that demonstrates the application of rules to the particular issues, as well as a justification or logical argument explaining how these rules resolve the issues. Note that this is the most important section of the IRAC method because it provides answers to the questions raised in the first section.

4. Conclusion: A conclusion simply answers the questions presented in the issue section through the synthesis of the discussions in the rule and application sections. Note that it is critical not to introduce new issues, rules, or concepts in this section.

Criticisms and Limitations

The method is a simple but extremely useful tool for analyzing legal issues or other situations that require the application of some sort of rules, as well as for organizing the manner of analysis. However, it has some drawbacks.

One of the criticisms of the IRAC method centers on its purported rigidity. In some situations, the strict format offers little to no room for expansive discussion, thus limiting the depth of the analysis, as well as the critical and creative thinking of the analysts.

Another criticism involves the supposed tendency of analysts to either oversimplify an issue or overwrite the corresponding analytical results. The oversimplification does not work in complex issues, while also disregarding the complexity of a proper legal analysis.

Other practitioners believe that a proper written analysis should be made from a thoughtful, careful, and well-researched essay using a format that highlights the strength of the particular analyst. The reason should be expressed using an open format.

How to Use the IRAC Method in Legal Analysis

What is the IRAC Method?

The IRAC method is an acronym for Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion. It is a problem-solving method that is commonly used in legal writing to analyze and solve legal problems. The method provides a framework for organizing legal arguments, and it can be applied to any legal issue, including court cases, legal memoranda, and law school exams.

How to Use the IRAC Method

Step 1: Identify the Issue

The first step in using the IRAC method is to identify the legal issue that needs to be analyzed. This issue can be a question of law or fact, and it should be clearly defined.

Step 2: State the Rule

The second step in using the IRAC method is to state the legal rule that applies to the issue. This rule can be a statute, case law, or a legal principle. It should be clear and concise, and it should support the analysis of the issue.

Step 3: Analyze the Issue

The third step in using the IRAC method is to analyze the issue using the legal rule. This analysis should be thorough and comprehensive, and it should address all relevant facts and legal arguments. The analysis should also consider any counterarguments that may arise.

Step 4: State the Conclusion

The final step in using the IRAC method is to state the conclusion of the analysis. This conclusion should be based on the legal rule and the analysis of the issue. It should be clear and concise, and it should answer the legal issue that was identified in step one.

Example of Using the IRAC Method

To demonstrate how to use the IRAC method, we will provide an example of its application.

Issue: Does the defendant have a valid defense to the breach of contract claim?

Rule: A party to a contract can assert a defense of impracticability if performance of the contract has become significantly more difficult or expensive .

Analysis: The defendant in this case is arguing that the breach of contract was due to impracticability. The defendant needs to provide evidence that the performance of the contract has become significantly more difficult or expensive. The defendant must also show that the impracticability was not foreseeable at the time the contract was formed. After analyzing the evidence, it appears that the defendant has met the requirements for the defense of impracticability.

Conclusion: The defendant has a valid defense to the breach of contract claim based on the defense of impracticability.

Advantages and Limitations of the IRAC Method

The IRAC method is a widely used problem-solving method in the legal profession, and it has several advantages. One of the primary advantages of the IRAC method is that it provides a clear and structured framework for legal analysis. This means that lawyers can easily identify the key issues in a legal problem, apply the relevant legal rules, and provide a well-reasoned conclusion.

Another advantage of the IRAC method is that it encourages lawyers to think critically and apply legal reasoning to their analysis. This means that lawyers must evaluate the legal rules and apply them to the facts of the case to arrive at a well-reasoned conclusion. By doing so, lawyers can provide more comprehensive and accurate legal advice.

However, there are also some limitations to the IRAC method. One of the primary limitations is that it can be time-consuming, particularly for complex legal problems. Additionally, the IRAC method does not always provide a definitive answer, and there may be alternative conclusions that are equally valid.

How the IRAC Method Compares to Other Legal Problem-Solving Methods

There are several other legal problem-solving methods that lawyers use, and it’s important to understand how the IRAC method compares to these methods. One of the most common methods is the Socratic method, which involves a back-and-forth questioning process between the lawyer and the client. This method is often used in criminal cases, where the lawyer must establish a clear understanding of the client’s actions and motives.

Another method that lawyers use is the Toulmin method, which is a more argumentative method that involves identifying and analyzing the various arguments and counterarguments in a legal problem. This method is often used in complex litigation cases, where there are multiple legal issues that must be addressed.

While each of these methods has its own strengths and weaknesses, the IRAC method is often preferred because of its clear and structured framework. Additionally, the IRAC method encourages lawyers to think critically and apply legal reasoning to their analysis, which can result in more comprehensive and accurate legal advice.

Common Mistakes and Pitfalls when using the IRAC Method

While the IRAC method is a powerful tool for legal analysis, there are several common mistakes and pitfalls that lawyers should be aware of when using this method. One of the most common mistakes is failing to identify all of the key issues in a legal problem. This can result in an incomplete or inaccurate analysis, and may lead to an incorrect conclusion.

Another common pitfall is failing to apply the correct legal rules to the facts of the case. This can happen when a lawyer is unfamiliar with a particular legal rule, or when the lawyer fails to fully understand the facts of the case. In either case, the result can be an incorrect or incomplete analysis.

To avoid these mistakes and pitfalls, it’s important to take the time to fully understand the legal problem and to conduct a thorough analysis. Additionally, lawyers should always be diligent in their research and should seek out the advice of other legal experts when needed.

In conclusion, the IRAC method is a valuable tool for legal writing that can help to analyze and solve legal problems. By following the steps of the IRAC method , legal writers can organize their arguments and provide a clear and concise analysis of legal issues. We hope that this article has provided you with a comprehensive understanding of the IRAC method and its application. If you have any

Are you struggling with your paper? Let us handle it - WE ARE EXPERTS!

Get started

Starts at $9 /page

Recent Customer Feedback

See more customer feedback.., how our paper writing service works.

It's very simple!

Complete the order form by providing as much information as possible, and then click the submit button.

Select your preferred writer for the project, or let us assign the best writer for you.

Allocate funds to your wallet. You can release these funds to the writer incrementally, after each section is completed and meets your expected quality.

Download the finished work. Review the paper and request free edits if needed. Optionally, rate the writer and leave a review.

Popular Articles:

The irac method.

The IRAC method is the standard of legal writing, structured to communicate logical reasoning in a precise fashion.

The key to such precise communication is to give the audience an efficient and effective argument by presenting all pertinent facts, applicable rules, and the logical framework of that argument. If all of these elements are provided, the logical conclusion should be self-evident.

An IRAC provides such a self-evident conclusion by leading the reader through the logical analysis of an argument: highlighting the legal I ssues at hand, presenting the applicable legal R ules, A pplying those rules to the pertinent facts at hand; and finally, yielding the logical C onclusion of the argument in question.

The following articles have been designed to break down the components of the IRAC method and introduce some new concepts that can make the IRAC even better.

IRAC Method Articles:

It's All About IRAC

As beginning law students soon learn, what we call “legal reasoning” can be expressed by the formula IRAC. It’s the law’s version of the deductive syllogism. It stands for Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion. First, identify the salient issue (“Is Socrates mortal?”). Then, state the applicable rule (“All men are mortal”). Next, apply the rule to the relevant facts (“Socrates is a man”). This leads inexorably to the conclusion (“Therefore Socrates is mortal”).

IRAC is what “thinking like a lawyer” is all about. It is the format used by lawyers in preparing legal memoranda. And the structure that most judges use in drafting judicial opinions. It’s also the type of analysis that law professors—and importantly, bar examiners—are looking for.

THE IMPORTANCE OF IRAC

IRAC is as central to legal analysis as the formula E=mc2 is to physics. Over three decades ago, University of Texas law professor, and leading authority on legal writing, Terri LeClercq called IRAC “the golden-rule acronym for organized legal discussions” ( Texas Bar Journal , February 1987). A recent Michigan Bar Journal article by Michigan State University law professor Stephanie LaRose affirms that despite some critics, “variants of the IRAC method continue to be the gold standard in legal memorandum and brief writing” ( Michigan Bar Journal , November 2018). Go for the gold! (Wikipedia lists 20-plus variants .)  Our own legal-writing guru, Distinguished Professor Emeritus Joe Kimble, has endorsed IRAC as well ( The Second Draft , November 1995). As has Nelson Miller, Cooley Associate Dean Emeritus and Professor. His book Preparing for the Bar Exam (2015) says point blank, "IRAC is king here as elsewhere." A 2003 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review article by Jeffrey Metzler, “ The Importance of IRAC and Legal Writing ,” rightly concludes: “IRAC is the key to success on law school exams, the bar exam, and a successful career in litigation.” Any doubt that IRAC is key to bar-exam essay-writing success is resolved by the Michigan Board of Law Examiners Rule 3(B) . It explains that a high-scoring answer “demonstrates a full understanding of the facts, a complete recognition of the issues presented and the applicable principles of law, and an excellent ability to reason to a conclusion.” Sounds like IRAC, doesn’t it? (There is no F in IRAC, but the A requires applying the rule to the relevant facts.) Even more direct is this passage from a 2005 article in The Bar Examiner , published by the National Conference of Bar Examiners: "A candidate must demonstrate mastery of the fundamentals of IRAC (the Issue-Rule-Application-Conclusion structure of legal analysis) . . ." Notorious for introducing multiple-choice testing on the bar exam, the NCBE also supplies essay questions to all but a handful of jurisdictions. They know what they’re looking for. (In 2022, Michigan will begin using NCBE essay questions.)

WHERE DID IRAC ORIGINATE?

One researcher has declared , “Though many scholars reference IRAC in legal writing literature, there is no clear record of its genesis and underlying principles.” The earliest reference to IRAC found in a search of legal literature dates to 1961 ( Student Lawyer Journal , October 1961). One origin story is that IRAC was devised by the United States Army as a means of teaching a sudden mass of raw recruits, drafted to fight in World War II, how to problem-solve on the battlefield. This much is true: IRAC helped Michael Josephson, then a young Wayne State University law professor, create a bar-review powerhouse. In the early 1960s, only one bar-review course was available in Michigan: Melvin Nord’s Bar Review. “Dr. Nord” himself lectured on every topic. But although the Michigan bar exam was all-essay back then, Nord’s course didn’t spend much time on essay writing. In 1969 Professor Josephson started a competing bar-review course with two compelling differences: he engaged seasoned law professors to do the lectures and he emphasized IRAC-based essay writing. (Legal Research & Writing had been his first teaching gig.) Within a few years Josephson’s Bar Review Center (BRC) was dominant in Michigan. In 1973 Josephson moved to Los Angles and took on the growing California bar-review market. By 1980 BRC was enrolling 14,000 students in 14 states, with annual sales of $4 million. He sold the company in 1985 for $10 million . So listen up, students: IRAC may have helped us win World War II, it made Mike Josephson a multi-millionaire, and it can work for you. CALI (Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction) offers a helpful online tutorial that can coach you through each element. Set aside 45 minutes to complete it. Then practice with old exam questions until using the IRAC framework becomes second nature. Too many students start answering with IRAC, then as pressure builds they lapse into a stream-of-consciousness outline dump.

IRAC TEMPLATE

Here is an IRAC template I have shared with my first-year students. It incorporates certain “trigger” words (in italics), as explained below: The [first/next/last] issue is whether . . . Under the [general/majority/modern] rule . . . Here the facts [do/do not] indicate . . . Therefore [I/a court] would conclude . . .

And, add where appropriate:

On the other hand, if . . . , then . . . , because . . . The italicized words are well-established terms that lawyers use to introduce issues, rules, facts, conclusions, and alternatives. Use them as signposts to help the grader follow your analysis. (Some commentators oppose  beginning issue-statements with whether . But it’s the practice followed by the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office. That’s good enough for you and me.)

GIVE ME AN O

On the other hand is a useful “flipper.” As with a pinball machine , it serves to redirect the silver ball upward so it can score additional points. Use it wherever there is more than one rule (the “Williston rule” vs. the “Corbin rule” on parol evidence might be an example, if your Contracts prof covered both). Or maybe the facts are ambiguous enough—by design or carelessness—to admit of more than one reasonable interpretation. If so, explore both. Rather than ignoring alternative rules or ducking conflicting facts, rejoice when the opportunity is presented to leverage them to score extra points. Recall the joke , “I need to find a one-armed lawyer . . . I’m tired of them saying ‘On the one hand’ and then ‘On the other hand.’” Well, it’s no joke—it’s what we lawyers do: turn the question over, look at both sides. When writing exam answers, act like a lawyer. I have often seen students leave points behind by failing to explore all reasonable alternatives. For that reason, I have created my own variant by adding an O for On the other hand . Go for the gold. Win the war. Use both hands. Achieve essay excellence with IRAC-O.

Otto Stockmeyer is a Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Cooley Law School. Although retired from classroom teaching, he maintains an active interest in helping students succeed. He appreciates the help of Rita Marsala, Head of Public Services at Cooley’s Brennan Library. 

Related Articles

St. michael's legal center: serve as counselors more than as lawyers, judge fitzgerald's final precedent, how are michigan lawyers employed in 2023 – part 1, subscribe to email updates, recent posts, posts by topic.

• Cooley Faculty (134)
• Cooley Alumni (122)
• Cooley Students (78)
• Legal Education (78)
• Faculty Experts (64)
• Tampa Bay Campus (25)
• Diversity (23)
• From Where I Stand (18)
• Cooley Law School Students (16)
• Dean's Fellow (15)
• Awards (13)
• Military Students (11)
• Plain language (11)
• Study Abroad (11)
• Innocence Project (10)
• Multicultural Lawyering (10)
• Michigan Lawyer Employment Data (7)
• Cooley Law School History (5)
• Lansing Campus (5)
• Library Blog Series (5)
• Weekend Program (5)
• Equal Access to Justice (4)
• Kimberly O'Leary (4)
• Legal Ethics (4)
• Bar Exam Advice (3)
• Externships (3)
• International Law Faculty Experts (3)
• Resiliency (3)
• Continuous Improvement (2)
• Service & Integrity (2)
• online learning (2)
• Cooley Career Office (1)
• Cooley Mission (1)
• Homeland & National Security Law Review (1)
• LSAT Prep (1)

• May 8, 2023

THE IRAC METHOD EXAMPLE

Updated: Sep 30, 2023

We write law books using the IRAC method. We deliver the content of your course in the way you are expected to answer your questions. Have a look at the work exampled below. Then have a look at both the Core books and the Q&A law books.

IRAC METHOD EXAMPLE

What is irac method.

IRAC is an acronym which stands for the “Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion” (IRAC). You may structure your answer to any law problem question or essay topic using the IRAC method . The issue, rule, analysis, and conclusion (IRAC) make up the fundamental framework used by law students around the world. You may be confident that your answer is comprehensive if you use this straightforward approach for constructing it. Other methods exist such as Celo and the FACT LAW SANDWICH. Choose the one that works for you.

How do I use the IRAC method? There is no point in talking about applying IRAC unless we show you how it works. Let use this excerpt of a contact law, problem question, from a law past paper to show you a IRAC Method example: “Michael promises to sell his 3 year old BMW car to Chithra for £100.00 as he has recently won a new expensive car in a competition”.

IRAC METOD - ISSUE

Your answer should start by addressing the problem that is raised in the essay topic or the issue in the problem question, these are easy to spot in a problem because the facts of the cases you have studied (where the principle emerges) is to be applied will be similar to the facts in your problem scenario. Thus there are occasions when the question itself will supply the problem for you to solve. If this is not the case, the next question to ask is: What is the legal issue that, once answered, will decide the outcome of the case? It is recommended that the issue be posed in the form of a question, and that the inquiry be specific rather than generic.

How do you write a IRAC example? So using our example above the question that needs to be asked is: “Is Michael contractually obliged to provide the BMW car to Chithra for £100.00?” This is the legal issue and this is ultimately the advice Michael is looking for. We can refine that question even further to demonstrate being specific. Thus the question is: was there sufficient consideration and can Chithra bring an action against Michael for this promise?

IRAC METOD - RULE

The rule explains whether statute or case law guideline is relevant to the matter at hand. Instead of stating the rule as a conclusion to the specific instance that is being discussed, the rule needs to be articulated as a universal principle.

For example in Michael’s case of the BMW, consideration must be sufficient. It can range from some form of payment to other interests of value under the law. Consideration must also be ‘adequate’, in terms of a bargain being made, although it is not imperative. Sufficiency remains of prime importance when forming a contract.

IRAC METOD - ANALYSIS

Your analysis is both the most crucial and the most time-consuming component of your answer. This will includes adapting the Rule to the specific details of the issue or situation Michael is facing. You need to do this. Apply this information to demonstrate how the rule may be used to get the conclusion. When it is feasible to do so, discuss the situation from both perspectives. You have to predict what Chithra’s lawyers will argue. It is essential that you do not only assert a conclusion but also provide the grounds that support it. If you reach a conclusion without providing any supporting evidence or rationale, it indicates that you have not applied the principle and considered the relevant facts in your analysis of the problem. A helpful hint for your discourse is that you may use the rule as a guide.

For Michael’s example a case the authority establishing this principle is Thomas v Thomas , where the court held that as long as there is valid consideration. Under the authority of Currie v Misa then the agreement has some benefit or detriment to the parties. Furthermore in Chappel v Nestle , the courts stated the chocolate wrappers constituted purported consideration. It was held that the offer Nestle made for the exchange of chocolate wrappers provided that they were of some value.

IRAC METOD - CONCLUSION

After considering the position of the law you have to apply it to the scenario. Your solution to the problem is presented in the conclusion. This is the advice that Michael wants! Please share the findings of your assessment. As a rule of practice always give the bad news first and then the good news because then you can give them your bill.

For example in advice to Michael, if Michael promised to sell his 3 year old BMW to Chithra for £100, this may not be the market value of the car. However, the £100 will still be deemed to be of some value, hence valid consideration, making the promise to sell the car enforceable by Chithra. Any attack on the enforceability of the contract could be based around there was never any intention to create legal relations.

THE FINISHED ADVICE

This is how the advice will read:

Michael’s promise to sell the BMW

Michael promised to sell his 3 year old BMW car to Chithra for £100.00 as he won a new expensive car. The question is: was there sufficient consideration and can Chithra bring an action against Michael for this promise? Consideration must be sufficient. It can range from some form of payment to other interests of value under the law. Consideration must also be ‘adequate’, in terms of a bargain being made, although it is not imperative. Sufficiency remains of prime importance when forming a contract. A case authority establishing this principle is Thomas v Thomas , [1] where the court held that as long as there is valid consideration under the authority of Currie v Misa [2] then the agreement has some benefit or detriment to the parties. Furthermore in Chappel v Nestle , [3] the courts stated the chocolate wrappers purported consideration. It was held that the offer Nestle made for the exchange of chocolate wrappers provided that they were of some value. In advice to Michael, if Michael promised to sell his 3 year old BMW to Chithra for £100, this may not be the market value of the car. However, the £100 will still be deemed to be of some value, hence valid consideration, making the promise to sell the car enforceable by Chithra.

[1](1842) 2 Q.B. 851 [2]ibid [3] [1960] A.C. 87

IF YOU NEED LAW TUITION OR HELP WITH LAW ESSAY WRITING GET IN TOUCH

• CONTRACT LAW

Recent Posts

TOP 10 QUOTES ABOUT EDUCATION

HOW CAN A LAW TUTOR HELP YOU?

LAW EXAMS STAY ONLINE

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Improving Law Student Ability on Legal Writing through Critical and Logical Thinking by IRAC Method

Indonesian Journal of Advocacy and Legal Services

The lack of good stigma is attached to student activists, ranging from the unsatisfactory level of academic quality, graduating on time, not responsive and very reactive, hard and opposing views, to demonstrations that are colored by violence. The stigma is only in a few cases, not all activists face such conditions, but this stigma seems to have been far attached. The development of student activists today demands that activists must also have three literacy abilities: data literacy, humanitarian literacy, and technological literacy. However, based on the preliminary results of this activity, 90 percent of UNNES Law School student activists agreed that activists must have a critical attitude and critical writing skills, but only about 10 percent of activists who had taken it seriously (thought publications in various forms). This activity is aimed at developing the critical abilities of student activists through increased publications in various media. This activity also aims to es...

Related Papers

Law and Method

Bart van Klink

Donna Bain Butler, Ph.D.

This case, from a mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative) study, contributes to evidence-based writing instruction for language learners. It gives a learner-centered view of how research writing from legal sources can be both a cognitive and a social-cultural process for students as they shift from the writer-centered activity of drafting to the reader-centered activity of revising and constructing knowledge.

gayle mallinger

Yomaira Angélica Herreño-Contreras

Li-ann Thio 张黎衍

JHSS (JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL STUDIES)

Kokom Nurjanah

The purpose of this study was to investigate argumentation writing skills in terms of critical reading and student academic vocabulary mastery. This research was conducted at the Department of English Education, Semester VII, STKIP Kusuma Negara Cijantung. The research method used is a correlation survey with technical regression analysis. Collecting data from research variables using test instruments. The results of this study reveal that: (1) critical reading has a positive effect on students' argumentation writing skills; (2) academic vocabulary mastery has a positive influence on students' argumentative writing skills; and (3) critical reading and mastery of academic vocabulary have a positive influence on students' argumentative writing skills. Therefore, it can be concluded that the improvement of critical reading skills, mastery of academic vocabulary supports the improvement of students' argumentation writing

Per Linguam

Lesley Greenbaum

Journal of Applied Language and Culture Studies

HELLALAT NADIA

International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM 2018, SGEM2018 Vienna ART Conference Proceedings, ISBN 978-619-7408-32-4 / ISSN 2367-5659, 19 - 21 March, 2018, Vol. 5, Issue 3.1; 261-268 Pp, DOI:10.5593/sgemsocial2018H/31/S10.033, 19.03.2018

Tatiana Emelianova

This article is a contribution to the discussion and analysis of the law-students' English-language writing skills necessary for effective legal analysis. This paper covers some linguistic issues of lawyer's writing skills developed at law-students studying English at the Institute of Law, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University). The actuality and relevance of this paper is based on the need for adequately prepared lawyers competent to write a speech and various types of legal documents. The goal of the current study is to determine that lawyer's well-developed writing skills contribute to grammatical, lexical, stylistic correctness and effectiveness of legal analysis. To achieve this primary purpose, a descriptive analysis is proposed as a means of presenting key ideas. The methodological bases of the paper are the conceptual provisions of Russian and foreign researchers in the field of applied aspects of linguistics, theory and methodology of teaching foreign languages, intercultural interaction, and English for special purposes. The practical value of the current research is in deepening law-students' knowledge of the English, Russian languages using the rules of morphology, syntax, stylistics adequately and in mastering their writing skills and abilities of the legal opinions' argumentation and justification, the norms of law competent elucidation in these languages. The results of the study may be useful and implemented by the faculty members teaching foreign languages to law-students at non-linguistic universities, because RUDN University law-students' writing skills became stronger and more advanced, students' personal achievements, legal analysis awareness and interdisciplinary subject matter understanding deepened during the period of this study.

Law Text Culture

Barbara Kamler

RELATED PAPERS

Indian Journal of Fisheries

G Tamilmani

Indonesian Journal of Agricultural Research

mustopa romdhon

Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services - MobileHCI '09

Elisabeth Unterfrauner

Journal of Nuclear Physics, Material Sciences, Radiation and Applications

Anil Khachi

Guido Castelnuovo , Catherine Wolff

Juan L Espinoza

Scientific reports

abdussalam mohamed

Revista de Saúde Pública

Maria Helena D'Aquino Benício

Interciencia

Fabian Serrano

Journal of Applied Phycology

Dr. S.P. Muthukumar

2020 Joint IEEE 10th International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics (ICDL-EpiRob)

Francisco Odair Bonilla Cruz

EKAIA Euskal Herriko Unibertsitateko Zientzia eta Teknologia Aldizkaria

Revista Facultad Nacional …

Carlos Enrique Cardona Ayala

Journal of Vocational Behavior

Rainer Silbereisen

South Florida Journal of Development

Aurelio Flores García

Daniel Martinez

Simpósio Internacional de Cognição e Artes Musicais – SIMCAM 4

ABCM Associação Brasileira de Cognição e Artes Musicais

Charles Dawson

Paradigma FIB

Heinz-Günther Nesselrath

arXiv (Cornell University)

Joe Mambretti

Tendencias de la Minerıa de Datos en Espana, Red Espanola de Minerıa de Datos y Aprendizaje (TIC2002-11124-E)

César Hervás-Martínez

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

A Crash Course in Critical Thinking

What you need to know—and read—about one of the essential skills needed today..

Posted April 8, 2024 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

• In research for "A More Beautiful Question," I did a deep dive into the current crisis in critical thinking.
• Many people may think of themselves as critical thinkers, but they actually are not.
• Here is a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you are thinking critically.

Conspiracy theories. Inability to distinguish facts from falsehoods. Widespread confusion about who and what to believe.

These are some of the hallmarks of the current crisis in critical thinking—which just might be the issue of our times. Because if people aren’t willing or able to think critically as they choose potential leaders, they’re apt to choose bad ones. And if they can’t judge whether the information they’re receiving is sound, they may follow faulty advice while ignoring recommendations that are science-based and solid (and perhaps life-saving).

Moreover, as a society, if we can’t think critically about the many serious challenges we face, it becomes more difficult to agree on what those challenges are—much less solve them.

On a personal level, critical thinking can enable you to make better everyday decisions. It can help you make sense of an increasingly complex and confusing world.

In the new expanded edition of my book A More Beautiful Question ( AMBQ ), I took a deep dive into critical thinking. Here are a few key things I learned.

First off, before you can get better at critical thinking, you should understand what it is. It’s not just about being a skeptic. When thinking critically, we are thoughtfully reasoning, evaluating, and making decisions based on evidence and logic. And—perhaps most important—while doing this, a critical thinker always strives to be open-minded and fair-minded . That’s not easy: It demands that you constantly question your assumptions and biases and that you always remain open to considering opposing views.

In today’s polarized environment, many people think of themselves as critical thinkers simply because they ask skeptical questions—often directed at, say, certain government policies or ideas espoused by those on the “other side” of the political divide. The problem is, they may not be asking these questions with an open mind or a willingness to fairly consider opposing views.

When people do this, they’re engaging in “weak-sense critical thinking”—a term popularized by the late Richard Paul, a co-founder of The Foundation for Critical Thinking . “Weak-sense critical thinking” means applying the tools and practices of critical thinking—questioning, investigating, evaluating—but with the sole purpose of confirming one’s own bias or serving an agenda.

In AMBQ , I lay out a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you’re thinking critically. Here are some of the questions to consider:

• Why do I believe what I believe?
• Are my views based on evidence?
• Have I fairly and thoughtfully considered differing viewpoints?
• Am I truly open to changing my mind?

Of course, becoming a better critical thinker is not as simple as just asking yourself a few questions. Critical thinking is a habit of mind that must be developed and strengthened over time. In effect, you must train yourself to think in a manner that is more effortful, aware, grounded, and balanced.

For those interested in giving themselves a crash course in critical thinking—something I did myself, as I was working on my book—I thought it might be helpful to share a list of some of the books that have shaped my own thinking on this subject. As a self-interested author, I naturally would suggest that you start with the new 10th-anniversary edition of A More Beautiful Question , but beyond that, here are the top eight critical-thinking books I’d recommend.

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark , by Carl Sagan

This book simply must top the list, because the late scientist and author Carl Sagan continues to be such a bright shining light in the critical thinking universe. Chapter 12 includes the details on Sagan’s famous “baloney detection kit,” a collection of lessons and tips on how to deal with bogus arguments and logical fallacies.

Clear Thinking: Turning Ordinary Moments Into Extraordinary Results , by Shane Parrish

The creator of the Farnham Street website and host of the “Knowledge Project” podcast explains how to contend with biases and unconscious reactions so you can make better everyday decisions. It contains insights from many of the brilliant thinkers Shane has studied.

Good Thinking: Why Flawed Logic Puts Us All at Risk and How Critical Thinking Can Save the World , by David Robert Grimes

A brilliant, comprehensive 2021 book on critical thinking that, to my mind, hasn’t received nearly enough attention . The scientist Grimes dissects bad thinking, shows why it persists, and offers the tools to defeat it.

Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know , by Adam Grant

Intellectual humility—being willing to admit that you might be wrong—is what this book is primarily about. But Adam, the renowned Wharton psychology professor and bestselling author, takes the reader on a mind-opening journey with colorful stories and characters.

Think Like a Detective: A Kid's Guide to Critical Thinking , by David Pakman

The popular YouTuber and podcast host Pakman—normally known for talking politics —has written a terrific primer on critical thinking for children. The illustrated book presents critical thinking as a “superpower” that enables kids to unlock mysteries and dig for truth. (I also recommend Pakman’s second kids’ book called Think Like a Scientist .)

Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters , by Steven Pinker

The Harvard psychology professor Pinker tackles conspiracy theories head-on but also explores concepts involving risk/reward, probability and randomness, and correlation/causation. And if that strikes you as daunting, be assured that Pinker makes it lively and accessible.

How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion and Persuasion , by David McRaney

David is a science writer who hosts the popular podcast “You Are Not So Smart” (and his ideas are featured in A More Beautiful Question ). His well-written book looks at ways you can actually get through to people who see the world very differently than you (hint: bludgeoning them with facts definitely won’t work).

A Healthy Democracy's Best Hope: Building the Critical Thinking Habit , by M Neil Browne and Chelsea Kulhanek

Neil Browne, author of the seminal Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking, has been a pioneer in presenting critical thinking as a question-based approach to making sense of the world around us. His newest book, co-authored with Chelsea Kulhanek, breaks down critical thinking into “11 explosive questions”—including the “priors question” (which challenges us to question assumptions), the “evidence question” (focusing on how to evaluate and weigh evidence), and the “humility question” (which reminds us that a critical thinker must be humble enough to consider the possibility of being wrong).

Warren Berger is a longtime journalist and author of A More Beautiful Question .

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience