A student asked a question that I thought was important enough to address here.
Definite conclusions are not necessary on a bar exam. There may be times when a conclusion is definite (I'm thinking of, say, an issue asking whether diversity jurisdiction is satisfied), but the fact that some conclusions are definite does not mean that you've done something wrong if some of your conclusions are indefinite. In fact, and this is something that over the years, I've seen students struggle with, the bar exam writers are looking for nuance: they are looking for answers that understand and respect the complexity in a given legal issue and aren't so quick to advocate for one side winning, even if the question tells you that you represent a specific party in the lawsuit. Most answers do have one side that is stronger than the other, and the conclusion is an opportunity to let the graders know that you recognize that. But not all answers. For some, the best conclusion is that more information is needed to draw a conclusion. When you get into advocacy mode and decide that in order to convince the graders that you've come up with the right conclusion you've got to downplay any strengths of the opposing side, you end up leaving many points on the table. Get those points; they'll benefit you more than they'll benefit the table.
No comments:
Post a Comment