JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™

COACH’S EVALUATION FORM

REVIEWEE__ Compasivo, Vannesa Ronquillo_________________________

MOCK-BAR SUBJECT Criminal Law_____________DATE August 22, 2021__
Note: Number (e.g., “1.4” may be used by coach to mark booklets).

Value Very Good Satisfactory For improvement

1. RESPONSIVENESS √

DIAGNOSED CONCERNS NUMBER/S WHERE FOUND

1.1 Conclusion not responsive to call/immediate issue
1.2 Not all calls/immediate issues tackled 8, 13
1.3 Core issue not tackled
1.4 Non-issue tackled
1.5 Echo method not followed

Value Very Good Satisfactory For improvement

2. LOGICALITY √

DIAGNOSED CONCERNS NUMBER/S WHERE FOUND

2.1 Conclusory answer
2.2 Factual answer
2.3 Citing the rationale rather than the rule
2.4 No application of law
2.5 Being particular in 2nd paragraph
2.6 Not being particular in 3rd paragraph
2.7 Conclusion not fully stated
2.8 Rule not connected to call/immediate issue
2.9 Rule remotely connected to call/imm. issue
2.10 Tenor of rule incompatible to conclusion
2.11 Weak statement of rule
2.12 Non-interlocking key concepts 1, 3a, 3b, 4, 6a, 11b, 14,
2.13 Incomplete rule 6b, 6a,
2.14 Sweeping rule
2.15 Self-levitating rule/argument
2.16 Conditional premise/conclusion
2.17 Analogical format not used
2.18 Ratio decidendi omitted
2.19 Echo argument 16

Value Very Good Satisfactory For improvement

3. ORGANIZATION √

DIAGNOSED CONCERNS NUMBER/S WHERE FOUND

3.1 One-paragraph format
3.2 Jurists 4-par format not followed
3.3 No citation clause
3.4 Sweeping citation clause
3.5 Wrong citation clause
3.6 Mixed discussion of issues
3.7 Write-overs & insertions
3.8 Excessive erasures
3.9 Issue-markers not used

Value Very Good Satisfactory For improvement

4. LITERACY √

DIAGNOSED CONCERNS NUMBER/S WHERE FOUND

4.1 Key legal term/concept not used
4.2 Incorrect/imprecise legal usage
4.3 Incorrect grammar
4.4 Wrong spelling

Value Very Good Satisfactory For improvement

5. BREVITY √

DIAGNOSED CONCERNS NUMBER/S WHERE FOUND

5.1 Obiter dictum/irrelevant discussion
5.2 Strong point not front-loaded
5.3 Citing irrelevant portions of law
5.4 Shotgun answer
5.5 Repetitive/superfluous statement/s

6. OTHER DIAGNOSED CONCERNS

OTHER DIAGNOSED CONDITIONS NUMBER/S WHERE FOUND

6.1 Page set up not followed
6.2 Skipped/unanswered question
6.3 Assumes/changes facts of question
6.4 Writing too small
6.5 Letters indistinguishable
6.6 Writing “floated”
6.7 Wrong numbering/labeling
6.8 Not following instructions

7. OTHER COMPETENCIES/SKILLS

Very Good Satisfactory For improvement

Penmanship
Distinction √
Definition √
Discussion √
Enumeration √
Time-management √

RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS

Analyze facts of the question for application in the third paragraph.

Avoid mixing discussion of issues for clarity.

Discuss all issues being asked using CRAC method and always apply the rule
which you have mentioned.

Always keep in mind the interlocking key concepts rule and connectivity rule to
improve presentation of your answers.

Avoid echo arguments.

COACH Beronilla, Gracia Mae A.

(Please print name and sign)
Coach’s Evalation Sheet (2019 ed.) Last revised/modified: 1 July 2019 Jurists Coaching Library/Evaluation Sheets ©
2019 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction & dissemination prohibited