King's Inns Entrance Examination common mistakes
King's Inns Entrance Examination · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Drafting an essay-style answer to a problem question, setting out the law in the abstract before applying it to the facts.
Candidates carry over habits from undergraduate arts or history degrees, where marks reward breadth of exposition; the entrance assessment rewards issue-spotting and application, so an answer that never reaches the facts on the page scores poorly however accurate its law.
What to do instead
Adopt an issue-by-issue structure: state the rule in one sentence, apply it to the named parties and facts, then reach a conclusion. Before writing, list the parties and the disputed issues and allocate a paragraph to each. Practise under timed conditions and self-mark by counting how many sentences actually mention facts from the question.
Spending disproportionate time on the first question and leaving later questions thin or unanswered.
Candidates who know one topic well start there and lose track of time; the paper is marked across all questions, so a brilliant first answer cannot compensate for a rushed or blank final one.
What to do instead
Before starting, read all questions and budget minutes per question in proportion to marks. Write the planned allocation at the top of the answer booklet and check the clock at the start of each question. If time runs short, write structured bullet-point plans rather than nothing, since structure and issue identification still attract credit.
Failing to identify the correct area of law and answering under the wrong heading (for example, treating a contractual misrepresentation problem as a consumer-rights question).
Problem scenarios are deliberately factually messy and mix tortious, contractual and equitable elements; candidates latch onto the first legal label that comes to mind rather than classifying the relationship between the parties.
What to do instead
Open every answer by identifying the parties, their relationship, and the cause of action. Run a checklist: is there a contract, a duty of care, a trust, a statutory regime? State expressly which cause of action you are analysing and why the alternatives are weaker, then proceed.
Citing case names without extracting the principle, or inventing plausible-sounding authorities.
Candidates memorise lists of names under pressure and cannot recall what each decided; under time pressure the temptation to fabricate a citation is strong, and fabricated or misattributed authorities are penalised heavily.
What to do instead
Learn each leading case as a one-line ratio plus the facts that trigger it, and rehearse saying the principle before the name. If a name will not come, cite the principle without a name rather than guessing. Build a one-page table of case, principle and triggering facts and revise from that, not from lists.
Ignoring statutory provisions and relying solely on common-law principles where a statute governs the issue.
Many candidates prepare from case-based summaries and under-weight legislation; modern problems frequently turn on a statutory definition or threshold that changes the outcome.
What to do instead
For each major topic, note the governing statute and the key sections alongside the cases. In answers, cite the section number and paraphrase its effect, then use cases to illustrate interpretation. Check whether the facts engage a statutory definition before applying common-law tests.
Writing an unstructured, unparagraphed answer with no headings, signposting or conclusion.
Exam pressure encourages continuous prose; markers read quickly and award credit for visible reasoning, so buried points are easily missed.
What to do instead
Use short paragraphs and headings (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion). Underline case names and section numbers. Finish each answer with an explicit conclusion, even if provisional, so the marker can see the reasoning has been closed off.
Misreading the question's instruction - answering 'discuss' as 'describe', or ignoring a qualifier such as 'critically' or 'to what extent'.
Candidates skim the stem to get to the topic they have revised, and the instruction word determines the required depth and the type of credit available.
What to do instead
Underline the instruction word and any qualifier before planning. Translate the instruction into a task: 'critically evaluate' requires argument for and against plus a position; 'advise' requires practical application. Check at the end that the answer performs that task.
In a language or comprehension section, translating word-for-word and producing literal renderings that miss idiom, register or grammatical gender.
Candidates translate sequentially from the source text rather than reading the whole passage first, and under time pressure they default to dictionary equivalents instead of the target language's natural construction.
What to do instead
Read the entire passage before translating, note its register and audience, then draft in the target language's own structures. Leave time to re-read the translation alone, without the source, checking that it reads naturally. Revise idioms and set phrases as whole units rather than as individual words.
Leaving multiple-choice or short-answer items blank when uncertain instead of eliminating options and committing to an answer.
Fear of a wrong answer and perfectionism; candidates do not realise that an educated elimination beats a blank, and they over-invest time in one hard item.
What to do instead
Apply a strict per-item time cap, eliminate clearly wrong options, then answer. Flag uncertain items and return only if time permits. Practise with timed sets to build the habit of committing and moving on.
Neglecting the mechanics - illegible handwriting, unnumbered pages, missing candidate details, or answers written in the wrong booklet.
Candidates rehearse content but not the physical procedure, and stress on the day makes administrative steps feel unimportant; examiners cannot award marks for answers they cannot read or attribute.
What to do instead
Rehearse a full paper in exam conditions using the same stationery and answer format. Write a one-page pre-exam checklist (candidate number, booklet numbering, page numbers, pen legibility) and follow it. If handwriting deteriorates under speed, slow slightly and write larger rather than compressing.