The “A” of IRAC: Analysis through Application of Law to Facts,

Presenting Assertions or Arguments

Below is an Essay from Mckay Tucker, followed by comments by Prof. Calleros
In my first year of law school, I struggled on essay exams because I did not fully appreciate or
understand what professors meant by “analysis.” Every professor and upperclassman emphasized
that I shouldn’t hastily draw conclusions. They all said the trick to essay exams is to “apply the rules
to the facts.” However, I didn’t understand what this looked like in practice.
One concept that helped me wrap my brain around “analysis” was the concept of linking. With
linking, my job was to put down the black letter rule on paper and then explain why this rule fit the
facts in the fact pattern. The key here was to not assume that the reader simply “got it,” but to walk
step by step through my thought process and explain how I came to see a fact analogy or
application in an organized manner. This process is not dissimilar to Geometric proofs in high school
where I was directed to not jump straight from A to B. In that class, I had to start with my first
premises and outline each logical step line by line. A student in Geometry might quickly see how
two shapes or two angles were related, but proof writing demanded a specific approach to explain
how logical leaps were made.
Fact analysis in Law is similar. In practicing my essay writing, I’ve discovered that one of the
most effective ways I can demonstrate my analysis of the present facts is by using the word
BECAUSE in the sentences following my rule statement. When I use the word because, I state a fact
and clearly show the link to the rule statement through my use of the word“ because.” This is one
mechanism that certifies I am linking facts to rules.
In writing an essay answer, it is also important to address potential counter arguments and the
nuance conveyed in the facts. I do this by using the word HOWEVER. I quickly follow this transition
by adding “because” statements to demonstrate how facts from the prompt undergird the counter
arguments.
Finally, I try to leave my analysis of each IRAC with a conclusion that will favor one side or the
other. I do this with a transition of NEVERTHELESS, followed by a brief conclusion that addresses the
issue I spotted. I usually attach one or two last “because” statements if time allows.
I use this approach in my discussion of each issue, though the length of my analysis varies by
time allotment and relevance to the fact pattern. In my opinion, repetition of BECAUSE, HOWEVER,
NEVERTHELESS also helps further establish the organization of my arguments. Below, I’ve written a
simplified outlined for how my mental framework might look in a sample answer.
Issue: . . .
Rule: . . .
Analysis:
This applies here because . . . and . . . because. [application of law to facts for one side]
However, . . . because . . . . Also, . . . because [counter-argument]Nevertheless, . . . . [possible
rebuttal of counter-argument, if it adds something new]
My conclusion.
One could summarize this approach as a “because-centered” IRAC.

McKay Tucker
Notes from Prof. Calleros:
McKay’s phrase, “This applies here,” can be viewed as a generic placeholder for a more specific
link to a rule or part of a rule: “Jan can argue that her statement had sufficient detail for an offer
because . . . .” The word “because” is a great way to remind yourself to support an assertion with
reasoning that invokes specific facts, facts at the level of items of evidence.
“However” is a good transition to a counter-argument, as in “However, Jan’s statement might
not be an offer because . . . .” Other transitions: “Bob can respond that . . .” or “In response, Bob
can argue . . . .”
In the A of your IRAC, you usually can gather all the fact-based arguments from one side, then
state all those for the other side, and then conclude. If you have at least 2 sentences for each, you
can put the argument and counter-argument in separate paragraphs, as additional signals to
transition. Occasionally, you can add one additional transition, if it makes sense to wait for the
counter-argument before stating the first party’s rebuttal to it: “Nevertheless, Jan can respond that
she stated sufficient commitment because . . . .”
Of course, the multi-faceted arguments above would be feasible only in a question that
presents a manageable number of issues with plenty of facts to argue. In an extreme issue-spotting
exam, you often won’t have time for more than one “because” sentence, and maybe also a
“however” sentence if you can come up with a counter-argument. And then it’s time to quickly and
briefly address the next issue. Your analysis of each issue will also be limited because – even over 3
pages of facts – the question in an issue-spotter won’t be able to provide you with more than 1 or 2
facts on average per issue. On the other hand, even in an issue-spotting exam, some professors like
to see you write in greater depth on one issue, to show you can do it. So, if you run across one issue
that has more facts associated with it, or otherwise more opportunity for discussion, go ahead and
address that issue more thoroughly while still addressing as many issues as possible.
As for the conclusion, I recommend being brief and moving to the next issue. You likely won’t
get credit for repeating earlier arguments. You could get credit for invoking a policy reason for
preferring one conclusion over another, but you could state that in the fact analysis instead. At
most, you could link the conclusion to a part of the legal rule again: “On balance, Jan’s statement
left too many terms for further negotiation and thus was not an offer.”

Feel free to discuss this essay on the Discussion forum for Exam techniques.