Legal method, reasoning and case analysis
Legal method, reasoning and case analysis
This domain tests how to read a case, extract the rule, and apply it to new facts. The exam looks for structure, ratio, and transparent reasoning.
Core rules
- IRAC: issue, rule, application, conclusion. State the issue precisely and apply the rule to the given facts, not to a hypothetical.
- Ratio decidendi is the legal principle necessary to the decision; obiter dicta are persuasive only.
- Precedent may be followed, distinguished, overruled, or reversed; distinguishing depends on material facts.
- Statutory interpretation uses text, context, purpose, and legislative history; ambiguity may permit purposive interpretation, but plain text prevails absent absurdity.
- Analogy requires relevant similarity; a precedent about bicycles may not automatically cover e-scooters without examining purpose.
- Reasoning must address counterarguments and avoid conclusory statements.
Worked example
A court holds that a ban on 'vehicles in the park' covers bicycles because the purpose is pedestrian safety. The ratio is that the term includes human-powered wheeled transport that creates a safety risk. An e-scooter is analogous if it creates the same risk; a motorized wheelchair is distinguishable because accessibility policy and lesser risk change the purpose. Obiter remarks about skateboards do not bind.
Traps
Reciting facts instead of ratio; treating obiter as binding; applying precedent without comparing material facts; ignoring statutory text for policy; writing a conclusion without application.