OTSO: 101 Practice Problems for Lost Law Students

and Bar Takers

By Lex from Lex in Motion

The following problem appears in the e-workbook, Otso. It contains a detailed

guide, not only on what to answer, but how to answer. Each of the problems have been
broken down, and discussed thoroughly.

My hope is that this excerpt helps you with how to answer your law school exams
and quizzes, and the bar exam. If you are interested in getting a copy on pre-order, click
here.

Tonight, we are going to talk about how not to answer. I want to be able to show
you the common mistakes law students and barristers make when they answer in quizzes
and exams. I want to show you some common fallacies, and how to avoid them.

By the end of this lecture, I want to be able to show you our method of answering
questions in the law school, and the bar exam. I want to help you spot the correct issues.
I want to help you become more and more responsive. Hopefully, by the end of this
lecture, ay mai-aangat din natin mula sa laylayan ang quality ng inyong pag sagot.

Isa sa mga pinaka-malaking tampo ko noong ako ay nasa law school ay ang
malawakang kakulangan ng pointers for improvement. Our professors made it absolutely
clear that our answers were wrong, but they did not extend any effort to tell us exactly
why our answers were wrong.

Fast forward to many years later, I have vowed to put in the time, the energy, and
the attention to telling each and every one of my students exactly what was wrong in their
answers. I’ve been heavily criticized for nitpicking answers, but if it’s our job to cure
ignorance, then I will not apologize for imposing a much, much higher set of standards
for the improvement of my students.

Here are some of the common mistakes students make in answering questions for
law school and the bar exam.

Sloganeering.
 Sloganeering is the process of arguing the correctness of one’s answer or position,
using common adages, pieces of the law that have been handed down to us. Sloganeering
is incorrect because it almost usually results in an unresponsive answer.

Kung wala na tayong masabi o maidagdag sa ating mga sagot, karamihan sa atin
ay bumibitaw ng mga linyahang gasgas na – “Justice and equity dictates that X should be
held liable…” Pero kung ating aaralin, ay baka may iba namang legal basis para maging
tama ang ating mga sagot.

“In the interest of substantive justice…” This line is an invocation of a generic,

almost blanket ground. Gasgas na gasgas na rin ito, kapatid, at kung maaari lamang ay
huwag na huwag mo nang pamamarisan.

Article 19 of the Civil Code, or the catch-all provision of all things within human
relations is also a common slogan for those of us who have no decent answers. “Every
person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.” Masarap pakinggan,
kapatid, pero ito ang kadalasang kinakapitan, kung wala na talaga tayong maisagot.

One-Paragraph Answers.

I know that I’ve mentioned that there is no one single format that magically makes
all of our answers correct. Walang nag-iisang template na biglang magpapaganda ng
ating mga sagot, kapatid. At marami na akong natulungan na barista, na hanggang
ngayon ay naghahanap ng template, format, o kahit anong formula para makapagsulat
ng mga sagot na de-kahon.

Kung ito ay iyong patuloy na paninindigan, ay wala nang kaibahan ang iyong mga
magiging sagot sa ilang libong kumukuha ng bar exam. As you move along in our
discussions, sa Otso: 101 Practice Problems for Lost Law Students and Bar Takers, you will
learn that there is no single way to write you answers, just a handful of principles that will
help turn your answer from miserable, to somehow elegante.

That being said, trigger ang one-paragraph answers on two levels. Una, mahirap
markahan at basahin ang sagot na isang tipak o bloke lang ng text. Masakit ito sa mata,
at lalong masakit ito sa mata, puso, at apdo – kung pangit din ang iyong sulat.
 Remember that if you are kind to your examiner, your examiner will be kind to you.
That is the golden rule of exams. Make it easy for us to grade your work. Hindi mahirap,
kapatid, na dutdutin ang “Enter” sa iyong keyboard. Mas madali lang basahin kung sapat
ang iyong mga line breaks.

Next, trigger din ang one-paragraph answers dahil kalimitan, ang mga ganitong
sagot ay meron ding fatal defects na ilalahad ko sa baba. Please take note of these.

Facts-Based Answers

Facts-based, or factual answers are answers that essentially restate the problem.
Factual answers ay ang paguulit ng mga facts ng problem, at ito ay iyong ibinebenta
ngayon sa examiner bilang iyong sagot.

Facts-based answers are not responsive answers. Inuulit mo lang sa examiner, ang
kwento na siya rin naman ang nag-sulat. Malamang, kapatid, ay alam din niya ang naging
takbo ng kwento, kung siya rin mismo ang may akda.

The repetition of facts is always, always a waste of the examiner’s precious time,
energy, and attention. You are typically fighting alongside 40, maybe 50 students in your
section for the examiner’s attention. For the bar exam, you have seconds to impress before
the examiner actually sits up and reads your work. Do not waste it by repeating the facts.

Halimbawa, when the problem tells us that X did not fulfill his obligation in time,
don’t begin your answer by saying, “In the case at bar, X did not fulfill his obligation in
time.” I know you might feel that you are laying down the premise, but you are actually
not. I hope I am making sense, so far.

Conclusory Answers

Conclusory answers, on the other hand, are answers that make conclusions without
first laying down their premises. Conclusory answers are fallacious arguments because
they attempt to draw the correctness of the argument, based on insufficient evidence.

Kung ang facts-based answers ay ang paguulit ng mga facts ng problem, ang
conclusory answer naman ay pagdadagdag ng mga bagay na wala naman sa problem.
Conclusory answers are wrong because they are not responsive, they address matters not
in the problem, or make conclusions based on evidence that is not present in the problem.
 Kadalasan, ang conclusory answer ay nanggagaling mula sa misappreciation of the
facts. Nagkakaroon naman ng misappreciation ng facts, kung mabilisang basa lang, scan
lang ng problem ang ating ginagawa. Dito, we rely on one clean reading of the problem.

Very rarely do we ever have time to read the problem twice. All we can honestly
afford is one thorough reading. Misappreciation of the facts causes us fall into the traps
laid down by our examiners. When that happens, we tend to fixate on one portion of the
problem, and fail to address exactly what is being asked in the problem.

Self-Levitating Arguments

Self-levitating arguments are tautological arguments, or more commonly called

circular arguments. They are wrong, just like conclusory answers, because they draw
conclusions based on insufficient evidence, often anchored in the conclusion itself.

“Here, X is liable because he is already liable.” This kind of reasoning is wrong

because you are, in effect, telling the examiner that you are correct because you are
correct. Ikinakatalino mo ba, kapatid, kung sinasabi mong tama ka, dahil tama ka?

Self-levitating arguments are answers that have no legal basis. They have no
foundation in the law. Sometimes, we find self-levitating arguments when we create our
own legal basis. Kadalasan din itong nasusundan ng, “Are you a Senator? Why are you
amending the law?”

Guilty din ako nito noong araw, kapatid. Sasabihin ko na lang na based sa
jurisprudence, o “According to decided cases…” na alam naman namin pareho ng aking
sarili na ako lang din ang umimbento, at ako lang din ang gumawa ng decision.

Unresponsive Answers

Unresponsive answers are the most common mistakes that we commit in quizzes
and exams. Heto rin ang kadalasang comment sa ating mga answer sheets at exam
booklets. Being unresponsive makes us incorrect on different levels.

An answer is not responsive when it fails to address exactly what is being asked in
the problem. You can be unresponsive when you say that the petition must fail, when
what is really being asked is what defense, or defenses can you raise on behalf of X.
 You can also be responsive when you discuss the merits of the argument, when
what is really being asked is, if you were the judge, how would you rule on the motion.
You are also unresponsive if you evaluate the entirety of the problem, when what is being
asked is a ruling on a specific argument.

Being unresponsive is a direct function of your inability to spot issues. In the great,
grand overarching story of this work, one of my goals is to teach you how to be hyper-
responsive because being unresponsive accounts for about 60% of our mistakes in law
school. The rest is a function of being imprecise, committing mechanical errors, or faulty
reasoning.

Being responsive falls within the bare minimum competency that should be tested
from you, as a learner of the law. Hyper-responsiveness is your ability to zero-in on exactly
what is being asked in every problem, and then use that, to give to the examiner the
precise answer that he or she requires.

Evasion of Actual Issues

Evading the actual issues of the problem is a function of being imprecise.

Remember, kapatid, that the law demands precision in everything we do. Being precise
means answering each problem using the precise, not exact, precise language of the law.

Evading issues is a common mistake students make, and it usually happens when
we do not know enough of the law. Kung ang itinatanong ay ang status ng marriage,
huwag kang sasagot, kapatid, ng lack of the essential requisites of marriage. Kung status
ang tanong, ang hinahanap na sagot ay void, voidable, or valid. Gamitin mo ngayon ang
lack of essential requisites as your follow up.

Kung ang itinatanong ay aling justifying o mitigating circumstance ang applicable,

huwag kang sasagot, kapatid, na liable siya for parricide, o homicide. Evading the actual
issues will result in an unresponsive answer. Unresponsive answers are not going to be
worth your examiner’s precious time, energy, and attention.

Shotgun Answers

Huwag kang tumawa, kapatid, dahil alam ko minsan ka na ring sumagot ng ganito.
When I was in law school, I committed this mistake many times because I was unsure of
the correct answer. By laying down or invoking as many pieces of the law, umaasa ako na
isa man lang diyan ay tatama. Shotgun answers are unresponsive answers.

Madalas din akong maglagay ng mga shotgun answers, hindi dahil kulang ang
alam ko, at bahala na kung ano ang tatama, kundi dahil marami din akong gustong
sabihin sa aking sagot, at gusto ko lang i-flex sa aking professor na aral ako – oh, kita
mo?!

When this happens, kapatid, you are not being graded for your extra answers.
Rather, expect the appropriate deductions for shotgun answers. Kung nagsususulat ka
lang diyan, na kalat-kalat na, asahan mong ipapamukha rin ng professor mo na makalat
kang sumagot. Kahit na tangential lang sa issue, or slightly related, do not write it down,
kapatid.

The law demands precision in everything we do. That means laying down one very
precise, very correct answer. My mentor once said that I had the tendency to attack issues
with a war hammer, then an axe. He told me that I should be able to attack issues with a
scalpel. Laser-like focus naman, ang pangarap ko para sa iyo, kapatid.

Diluted Arguments.

Diluted arguments are answers that take away from the precise answer that the
examiner is looking for. Diluted arguments happen when we add or volunteer answers
that are still related to the problem, but whose presence takes away the attention from
our answers.

One of the principles that you will learn in answer is that you always, always lead
with your strongest argument. Ang goal kasi dito, kapatid, ay mapabulong natin ang
examiner ng, “Mismo!” kapag binasa na niya ang ating sagot.

Ngayon, kung magdadagdag ka sa sagot ng isang bagay na related, o hindi mo

naunang ibato ang iyong alas, ang iyong pinakamalakas na putok, ay hihina na ang
kasunod. Pinsang buo ng shotgun answer ang diluted answer, pero ito ay understated,
akala mo ay matalino, pero ang effect lang ay pagbaba ng precision.

Errors in Citation
 A good citation will turn a good answer into great, real quick. However, this comes
with the inherent risk of being incorrect. Errors in citation for me, are worth the gamble.
Here’s why.

Kung ang tanong, kapatid, ay tungkol sa Aggravating Circumstances – nakakahiya

naman na hindi mo pa mababanggit ang Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. Kahiyaan
dahil kalahati ng iyong matututunan sa Criminal Law I ay ang JEMAA. Pang-apat ang
aggravating circumstances sa JEMAA, at alam natin na nagsisimula ang bilangan mula sa
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. I hope I’m making sense here.

For all other applications, we can always stick to the generic citations. When you’re
talking about tax, and you are unsure if you’ve learned it from the NIRC, from revenue
regulations, or from the cases, you can start your second paragraph with, “Under our tax
laws,” or “Under our Laws on Taxation.”

When you’re invoking the Civil Code, please do not call it new. The Civil Code was
new in the 1950s, new in the way we talk about the amendments to the Rules of Court.
However, if I were born in 1950, would you still consider me new?

Next, the Civil Code is unique in that it spans over 2,000 provisions. When you say
“According to the Civil Code,” masyadong malapad iyan, kapatid. Narrow it down. Pwede
mong sabihin na, “According to the Civil Code provisions on Wills and Succession.” The
latter is too long, so you might as well stick to, “According to our Laws on Success.” I hope
I’m making sense, so far.

The following errors are not really common, but they deserve some form of
dishonorable mention, at baka ulitin mo pa sila sa mga susunod na pagkakataon.

Leaps in logic are errors that students make. They involve the failure of one, or
more important premises that cause the collapse of the entire problem. Kadalasang
nangyayari ito kung kulang ng isa o dalawang element sa problem, pero pilit pa rin nating
ipinpasok sa banga.

When in the facts of the problem, we see that three people come to an agreement
regarding the commission of a crime, it is erroneous to conclude that there is a conspiracy.
Article 8 provides that there is a conspiracy when two or more people come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony, AND decide to commit it.

Leap of logic ito, kapatid, at malaking pagkakamali dahil ang conspiracy ay two-
step process. Kung wala ang isa, hindi ‘yan conspiracy, generally.
 Illogical arguments are errors too that are contain fallacies. Ang isa fallacy, kapatid,
ay nagpapanggap na tama ang isang bagay, mukhang tama ang isang bagay, pero kung
atin itong tututukan, ay obvious na mali.

Appeal to ignorance is a common fallacy that law students make. Extraterrestrial

beings have not been conclusive disproven, and therefore, they must exist. That’s a fallacy.
In law school, you might encounter a statement that, “There is no showing that the plaintiff
received the summons.” Yet, this melts in the face of the presumption that mail matters
when mailed, carry with them the presumption that they have been received in due
course.

Volunteering answers ay isa rin sa mga sakit ng mga law student na hindi
makapirme, hindi kayang manahimik, at may malaking pangangailangan na
pangalandakan ang kakarampot nilang talino. Volunteering answers typically presents
itself when students add to the problem with statements like, “The situation would have
been different if…”

Sakit ko din ito noong araw, at kung mali ang plaintiff o defendant, isinusulat ko
pa, kapatid, kung ano ang pwede niya sanang ginawa para maitama ang kanyang mga
pagkakamali, o kung paano naman maitatama ang present situation.

Volunteering answers are also present in our conclusion. Wala na kasi tayong
maisulat o masabi, kaya nagdadagdag na naman tayo ng ibang thread o topic na wala
naman sa itinatanong ng ating mga examiner. Akala natin na ito ay ating ikinakatalino,
pero deduction ang aabutin mo.

Altering facts or assuming facts are very common errors for those who are new to
law school. We have a strong tendency to change, reframe, or rephrase the facts of the
problem, in the off-chance that they will fit our answers.

Malaking trigger ito sa mga examiner, kapatid, dahil hindi mo na nga sinasagot
ang mga tanong, ay binabago mo pa ang kwento. Please take note, na hiwalay ang
pagbabago ng mga facts, sa pagsisingit ng hypothetical na sagot o alternative remedy sa
ilalim ng volunteering answers.

Imprecise use of the law is an error that goes into the way we lay down our legal
basis. Sometimes, when we try to consolidate two or more provisions, we lose the actual
essence of the law. Sometimes, this happens when we try to answer with the incorrect
legal basis, in the hope that it will fit our answers.
 The law does not require the doing of impossible things. When you’re being tested
in your knowledge of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, there is no obligation on your
part to write down paragraphs one to six. Kung ang issue sa problem ay ang unlawful
aggression, there is no need for you to include the reasonable necessity of the means to
prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.

Nevertheless, when you take liberties with the law, always, always do it in the
precise language of the law. The law demands precision in everything we do, even when
we use only a small portion of it.

Unconvincing arguments are a next-level error that students make, once they get
to the level of being hyper-responsive. It is not enough for us to spot the issues correctly;
we have to address them correctly.

A common refrain you will hear in this work is that, you can give the judge a
mountain of decided cases but none of it will ever, ever matter until and unless you are
able to convince him or her with the correctness of your position.

In every answer, write as if you’re writing a miniature pleading. You need to write
for the human being on the other end of your exam booklet or your answer sheet. You
need to be able to sell your answer to the examiner. Ito ang kadalasang struggle, lalo na
kapag responsive naman tayo.

Reason over the rule is not exactly a logical fallacy, but it becomes the go-to
argument of many students. Here, the error is in failing to sell your answer to the
examiner. Ang error na ito ay nagmumula sa ating nasa na maibenta sa examiner ang
ating sagot, pero ina-angguluhan natin ito mula sa ratio legis, the reason of the law, rather
than the simple, precise logic that the law typically requires.

Another common error is the citation of the non-essential or irrelevant portions of

the law. This error occupies the gap between imprecise use of the law, and diluted
arguments. Anytime you draw the examiner’s attention away from what he or she wants
to see, then the further you move away from eloquence and elegance.

Finally, we have verbose answers. An answer is verbose when it is just too long. A
good answer should be responsive, logical, and straight to the point. Kapag mahaba ang
ating mga sagot, hindi na tayo nabibigyan ng sapat na pagkakataon para maibenta na
tama tayo.
 Some students have the need to discuss each and every single element of the rule,
concept, provision, or doctrine that is being tested. This generally results in an
unresponsive answer. This always results in a verbose, or very long answer.

Some students have the need to discuss each and every reason why the petition
must fail, complete with sloganeering, and grandstanding. Hindi ito kailangan, kapatid.
Sapat na na diretso tayong sumagot.

Finally, a word of on format. At the beginning of this lesson, I’ve mentioned that
there is no one-size-fits-all approach towards crafting your answers. Pwede namang
maiksi ang sagot mo, kapatid, pero talon-talon ang logic. Tama kaya ang ganitong
approach?

Kung sakaling ikaw ay nagkaroon na ng mga professor na nagsasabing mahaba

kang sumagot, listen to them. They are correct. Huwag mo namang paiksiin ang iyong
mga sagot, kapatid, kung ito naman ay magkakaroon ng gaps sa logic. Minsan kasi, sa
nasa nating sumagot ng simple at elegante, ay nagbubunga lang ito sa factual answer,
conclusory answer, or worst of them all – self-levitating arguments.

Find the careful balance between what is brilliance and brevity. This, kapatid, is
what Otso – 101 Practice Problems for Lost Law Students and Barristers wants to explore.

This excerpt is free to share with anyone and everyone so long as credit is given to
the author, with a link to the YouTube Channel. Order your copy of Otso: 101 Practice
Problems for Lost Law Students and Bar Takers here.

For inquiries, questions, and suggestions, you may send an email to

Otso@LexinMotion.PH