Gaming MEE/MPT Tips Forum

[Traynor Brah]

I recall reading various threads about "gaming" the rubrics and what not, but can't seem to find resources as to what this means in real life beyond using point headings/IRAC. Can ppl send some tips this way of what I'm missing? Thanks

[LSATWiz.com]

MEE

1.) Use headings to make it easier for the grader. You want them to go check, check, check as they read your essay without taking too long to think about it.

2.) Short paragraphs - makes transitions easier, and also makes it easier to get points. This limits the risk that points are lost in a big block of text. It also saves you if your prior analysis was totally off. You'll only lose 2-3 points instead of 8-10 if the examiner just dismisses the entire paragraph. Again, make it easy to read.

3.) Point maximization - If you know the elements of something, list them out clearly in one short paragraph - (1), (2), (3)

Apply law to fact element by element.

If a particular element is at issue, or if there's a modern/CL list, make this element a new paragraph. Then insert a new paragraph and resume.

4.) If you don't know a law - make it up using your knowledge of other laws (it's probably right). Don't do the element by element approach.

5.) General writing tip - write like you're speaking to a client, not a law professor or lawyer. Explain things clearly in plain english, and don't take anything for granted. A statement "this is hearsay" will almost never get points. Legal jargon tends to be conclusory - you get points for analysis!

6.) Timing tips -

1.) Write your first sentence at the end of each essay. P/D will prevail because..... Don't force yourself to make a conclusion before you fully analyze the problem.

2.) Make your paragraph headings before you start writing so you can pace yourself issue by issue rather than question by question. "I'll spend 30 minutes on this essay" is a weaker strategy than "I'll spend 5 minutes on Issue 1".

MPT

1.) All the same tips as above.

2.) Read the task page FIRST, and treat it as gospel. This is how you will write your answer. If you ignore the prompt, odds are you'll have a failing essay

3.) FIRST find the main law and break it down element by element as discussed above. If it's a statute, then great, your life is easy-peasy. If it is going to come from case law, just find the elements that the court applies. This is your starting point.

4.) SECOND, read the statement of facts. Between the law, and the statement of facts, you have enough information for a passing essay.

5.) Case law, witnesses, etc. are there to enhance and flush out your answer. I'd avoid ever reading a full case until you understand the relevance it has to the specific issue you're analyzing.

The vast majority of the points are in (3) and (4). (5) makes a borderline essay a passing one, and a passing essay a great one. If you follow the rubric, then odds are that you'll have a great MPT in 90 minutes or less.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_
I am available to grade and review individual essays until July 25 with package rates. Each essay will have a significant feedback on why you lost points, why you got them and what you can do to get more points. Inquire through PM.

[RaceJudicata]

^^ Awesome. Thank you.

[TheoO]

5.) Case law, witnesses, etc. are there to enhance and flush out your answer. I'd avoid ever reading a full case until you understand the relevance it has to the specific issue you're analyzing.

So, like, just read the facts? Analysis? Or just skim through for relevant law/factor tests?

[nenydcusc]

MEE
4.) If you don't know a law - make it up using your knowledge of other laws (it's probably right). Don't do the element by element approach.

Thank you for sharing your expertise.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by don't do the element by element approach? Wouldn't I still want to go through the elements of the rule I made up in order to get points for my analysis?

Thanks for your help!

[Yugihoe]

Fantastic, thanks!

[LSATWiz.com]

5.) Case law, witnesses, etc. are there to enhance and flush out your answer. I'd avoid ever reading a full case until you understand the relevance it has to the specific issue you're analyzing.

So, like, just read the facts? Analysis? Or just skim through for relevant law/factor tests?

So there's 2 ways a case will show up.

1.) If they don't give you an on point statute or the statute is too vague to employ.
2.) To illustrate a particular issue.

1.) If it's the former, you're literally just pulling out the paragraph where the judge lays out the elements of law. Don't worry about the facts yet. Monroe, the 2013 haunted house MPT is a good example of this. You'll normally get a case that's very similar to yours, but you're still working off the law provided at the forefront of the case (after the facts and before the analysis). You're just using the facts and analysis as a way to flush out your application of the facts. Example:

2.) If it's the latter, you're still going element by element, and don't worry about the case until you get to that element. Like in real-world practice, you're just applying the facts of the situation you're presented with to the applicable law, and turning to case law when the issue comes up. Your basic outline/skeletal answer won't revolve around the case and giving it more than a once over is a waste of time unless you know how you'll use it, because you'll invariably wind up reading it again.

In the above situation, they will give you the on point statute. For example, if your task is to analyze whether the DA can charge a defendant with a reckless homicide, you'll have a statute for reckless homicide and your entire MPT is going to revolve around the elements in this statute. You only read the case(s) when you get to the element they're pertinent to.

[LSATWiz.com]

MEE
4.) If you don't know a law - make it up using your knowledge of other laws (it's probably right). Don't do the element by element approach.

Thank you for sharing your expertise.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by don't do the element by element approach? Wouldn't I still want to go through the elements of the rule I made up in order to get points for my analysis?

Thanks for your help!

I should have been clearer, which is my bad. Of course, You're still applying law to fact but you're not going element by element because you're presumably making these elements up. At the same time, you're trying to hide the fact you're making them up and are sacrificing a few points in order to get the bulk of the points for the application.

For example, let's say you're employing negligence and we have a fact pattern with a babysitter who doubles as a dog sitter who gets the baby food and dog food messed up.

To maximize points, you would list the 4 elements for a negligence claim and then work your way through each one in sequential order, arguing both sides where there's a legitimate issue.

Let's say you have no idea what negligence is and are making it up, you're probably going to write something like "For the parents to prevail on a negligence claim, they'll need to show that the babysitter/dogsitter did something careless that caused the child and dog to be harmed", and you're going to focus on the facts - "most babysitters would not mix baby food up with dog food. Baby food tends to come in flavors like buttersquash and peaches while dog food comes in flavors chicken and beef. On the other hand, it's not like baby food is rat poison and ordinarily would not lead to..."

The goal is to make it seem like you know what the law is but were just pressed for time. You may lose the point you would get for outlining the correct rule, but will lose that point anyway and you may still get all of the same points for the analysis. If you get caught making the rule up, you run the risk of them just dismissing the whole answer. They're supposed to only dock the point for the rule, but these are human graders.

The trick is to hide a really short statement of phony law within a big paragraph of strong factual analysis whereas if you really know what you're talking about, you want there to be a clear distinction between the statement of law and the law-to-fact analysis.When people don't know what they're talking about, they're default is to focus on regurgitating whatever they remember. To successfully BS the grader, you want to do the opposite - you attack the fact pattern head on and speak about as if you're certain that you know what you're talking about.

The above is the BS approach, and the BS approach is a wonderful alternative to the panic, circumlocution or 200 word answer approach. However, it's the approach you use when you just don't know what the law is. If you know there's 4 elements but only remember 3 of them, you list the 3 you know and guesstimate the fourth. This approach is really just if you don't know there's 4 elements, but have some intuitive proximation of what the law probably is.