THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION Forum

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
kmn

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:51 am

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by kmn » Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:08 pm

Neilt001 wrote: Always :
- IRAC
- use good headings
- use an easy to understand format using lots of signposting language
- consider a counter argument
- come to a conclusion one way or another
This is so helpful, thank you! Can you clarify what you mean by use good headings? I find I struggle with this in MPTs too but also with the MEE... I want to give a good issue statement header that summarizes the issue and includes a "because" statement, but then the model answers have headings that are just a couple word issue, for example "Undue Influence" or "Expectation Damages" or whatever the issue may be.

Also, maybe this is a stupid question, but what is signposting language?

Lili8

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:14 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by Lili8 » Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:27 pm

Neilt001 wrote:BULLSHITTING ESSAYS:
For everyone complaining about essay graders, I'll just repeat my experience. I agree with you. I think I generally scored like a 2/6 to 4/6. No matter what I could never properly improve my score and there was little rhyme or reason to the grades. I never did very well and usually got the same comments (eg "IRAC better" "use better headings", "apply more facts" etc). I then scored in the 89th percentile on the MEE and was like WTF??

So I'm not sure why but I reckon the Themis graders are too tough. As someone said maybe it's a psychological thing to prepare you better. Who knows. Either way, just know that the real bar graders aren't actually that tough.

I made up two of the six essays because I hadn't studied what they were asking and didn't know the actual legal rules. What REALLY matters is using all the facts you're given, and letting them guide you. You can usually come up with a pretty intelligent sounding statement of the law based on the facts because they will be pointing you to something. For instance, I had no idea what the test for a criminal's capacity to stand trial was, and yet that's what the essay was all about. But the facts indicated that the criminal didn't understand what a trial was, didn't understand what guilt meant, etc etc. Now, that's a pretty simple scenario but it's pretty easy to use those facts to come up with a ballpark statement of the rule (eg "in order to stand trial, a criminal must understand the case put to him" or something. Even if that's wrong, you can still do well if you understand how to BS).

And Always :
- IRAC
- use good headings
- use an easy to understand format using lots of signposting language
- consider a counter argument
- come to a conclusion one way or another

Your statement of the law doesn't matter that much, so long as you're in the ballpark. Memorization isn't the key. Of course, if you want full points, you need the correct statement of the law, but you can pass without it, for sure.
Thank you. I came around (late) to the realization that using what they gave you is more important than remembering all the elements of everything, and it has helped. I kept getting dinged for analysis until I got that point in my thick head.

l18

New
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:41 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by l18 » Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:01 pm

Last few days I've realized I def don't know enough of the law necessary to pass the essays. I would guess I'd score 61 to 66 percent on the MBE. So overall I feel like my chances don't look good this first time around.

I def needed to make my own outlines and look at a lot more practice exams and answers to feel confident. At this point I'm a 2/10 for the essays...

xhe02

New
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 3:08 am

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by xhe02 » Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:15 pm

Would appreciate help reconciling these two questions!

1.

A CEO sued a catering company in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction for injuries resulting from the company’s alleged negligence in serving undercooked chicken at a business conference. Prior to trial, the judge granted the CEO’s motion for summary judgment, finding that a chef employed by the catering company had been negligent in preparing the chicken, and that the company was vicariously liable for the chef’s negligence. The catering company was only able to pay half the value of the judgment before filing for bankruptcy and dissolving.

If the CEO subsequently sues the chef in the same federal court, will collateral estoppel preclude the chef from litigating his own negligence?
No, because collateral estoppel cannot be used offensively.
No, because the chef was not a party to the original action.
Yes, because issue preclusion does not require strict mutuality of parties.
Yes, because the determination of the chef’s negligence was essential to the original judgment.

Correct answer is B. Themis says employer-employee not in privity for purposes of collateral estoppel and res judicata.


2.

A motorcyclist was involved in a collision with a truck. The motorcyclist sued the truck driver in state court for damage to the motorcycle. The jury returned a verdict for the truck driver, and the court entered judgment. The motorcyclist then sued the company that employed the driver and owned the truck in federal court for personal-injury damages, and the company moved to dismiss based on the state-court judgment. 
If the court grants the company’s motion, what is the likely explanation?

(A) Claim preclusion (res judicata) bars the motorcyclist’s 
action against the company.
(B)  Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) establishes the 
company’s lack of negligence. 

(C)  The motorcyclist violated the doctrine of election of 
remedies. 

(D)  The state-court judgment is the law of the case.

But in this NCBE question, you can use claim preclusion to bar claims against the employer?

Confused. Would appreciate it if anyone can help.

Pajsa18

New
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:16 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by Pajsa18 » Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:21 pm

l18 wrote:Last few days I've realized I def don't know enough of the law necessary to pass the essays. I would guess I'd score 61 to 66 percent on the MBE. So overall I feel like my chances don't look good this first time around.

I def needed to make my own outlines and look at a lot more practice exams and answers to feel confident. At this point I'm a 2/10 for the essays...
Don’t give up yet. Do whatever you have to do to pass this the first time around. There is still time to make up for missed subjects and add to base knowledge.

Go through EVERY SINGLE practice essay answer and do whatever you can to learn (not memorize) enough to paraphrase the answers. Not the fact patterns / fact specific portions, just the beginnings of each paragraph that shows the rule statements. This will help tremendously.

Never give in. Never, never, never . . . !

Don’t let this stupid @ss exam get the better of you!

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


User avatar
EncyclopediaOrange

Bronze
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:30 am

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by EncyclopediaOrange » Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:31 pm

Honestly, the good luck message we just got made me want to punch something.

l18

New
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:41 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by l18 » Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:38 pm

Pajsa18 wrote:
l18 wrote:Last few days I've realized I def don't know enough of the law necessary to pass the essays. I would guess I'd score 61 to 66 percent on the MBE. So overall I feel like my chances don't look good this first time around.

I def needed to make my own outlines and look at a lot more practice exams and answers to feel confident. At this point I'm a 2/10 for the essays...
Don’t give up yet. Do whatever you have to do to pass this the first time around. There is still time to make up for missed subjects and add to base knowledge.

Go through EVERY SINGLE practice essay answer and do whatever you can to learn (not memorize) enough to paraphrase the answers. Not the fact patterns / fact specific portions, just the beginnings of each paragraph that shows the rule statements. This will help tremendously.

Never give in. Never, never, never . . . !

Don’t let this stupid @ss exam get the better of you!
I appreciate your encouragement, definitely not giving up yet! Will do as many as I can, not sure if I can go through all of them by next Wednesday!

deacon

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 8:52 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by deacon » Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:57 pm

I was saving some practice essays to do around these days but OMG I am super bored, I don't want to sit and write like half an hour anymore. Not that I am ready, but I am really happy that we are coming to the end.

jcwest

New
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:48 am

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by jcwest » Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:02 pm

Yeah, man. Don't give up. You still have 6 FULL DAYS.

I have been feeling similarly screwed and honestly I think I've actually regressed the last 4 days. As soon as I start hitting 76% or so on Mixed PQs... I go right back down to 60%, which I haven't gotten in a week. I have been studying 10 hours a day. Nothing makes sense anymore.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Lawworld19

Bronze
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by Lawworld19 » Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:03 pm

deacon wrote:I was saving some practice essays to do around these days but OMG I am super bored, I don't want to sit and write like half an hour anymore. Not that I am ready, but I am really happy that we are coming to the end.

Exactly how I feel. I don't have the right to be bored, but I am..Only shitty thing I have a super stressful billable hour job waiting for me come Friday. FML. It is worse than bar study.

deacon

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 8:52 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by deacon » Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:12 pm

Lawworld19 wrote:
deacon wrote:I was saving some practice essays to do around these days but OMG I am super bored, I don't want to sit and write like half an hour anymore. Not that I am ready, but I am really happy that we are coming to the end.

Exactly how I feel. I don't have the right to be bored, but I am..Only shitty thing I have a super stressful billable hour job waiting for me come Friday. FML. It is worse than bar study.
Good luck already! Real life is harder than the bar that's forsure

lawlurk

New
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:17 am

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by lawlurk » Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:24 pm

xhe02 wrote:Would appreciate help reconciling these two questions!

1.

A CEO sued a catering company in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction for injuries resulting from the company’s alleged negligence in serving undercooked chicken at a business conference. Prior to trial, the judge granted the CEO’s motion for summary judgment, finding that a chef employed by the catering company had been negligent in preparing the chicken, and that the company was vicariously liable for the chef’s negligence. The catering company was only able to pay half the value of the judgment before filing for bankruptcy and dissolving.

If the CEO subsequently sues the chef in the same federal court, will collateral estoppel preclude the chef from litigating his own negligence?
No, because collateral estoppel cannot be used offensively.
No, because the chef was not a party to the original action.
Yes, because issue preclusion does not require strict mutuality of parties.
Yes, because the determination of the chef’s negligence was essential to the original judgment.

Correct answer is B. Themis says employer-employee not in privity for purposes of collateral estoppel and res judicata.


2.

A motorcyclist was involved in a collision with a truck. The motorcyclist sued the truck driver in state court for damage to the motorcycle. The jury returned a verdict for the truck driver, and the court entered judgment. The motorcyclist then sued the company that employed the driver and owned the truck in federal court for personal-injury damages, and the company moved to dismiss based on the state-court judgment. 
If the court grants the company’s motion, what is the likely explanation?

(A) Claim preclusion (res judicata) bars the motorcyclist’s 
action against the company.
(B)  Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) establishes the 
company’s lack of negligence. 

(C)  The motorcyclist violated the doctrine of election of 
remedies. 

(D)  The state-court judgment is the law of the case.

But in this NCBE question, you can use claim preclusion to bar claims against the employer?

Confused. Would appreciate it if anyone can help.
Oh wow I wondered this myself. I felt like Themis was inconsistent (possibly wrong?) in its own multiple choice of how it thought of "privity." I would assume in #1, that they would be in privity, they have an employee/employer relationship, and they would have the same interests in the litigation. I must be missing something too...

deacon

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 8:52 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by deacon » Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:47 pm

lawlurk wrote:
xhe02 wrote:Would appreciate help reconciling these two questions!

1.

A CEO sued a catering company in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction for injuries resulting from the company’s alleged negligence in serving undercooked chicken at a business conference. Prior to trial, the judge granted the CEO’s motion for summary judgment, finding that a chef employed by the catering company had been negligent in preparing the chicken, and that the company was vicariously liable for the chef’s negligence. The catering company was only able to pay half the value of the judgment before filing for bankruptcy and dissolving.

If the CEO subsequently sues the chef in the same federal court, will collateral estoppel preclude the chef from litigating his own negligence?
No, because collateral estoppel cannot be used offensively.
No, because the chef was not a party to the original action.
Yes, because issue preclusion does not require strict mutuality of parties.
Yes, because the determination of the chef’s negligence was essential to the original judgment.

Correct answer is B. Themis says employer-employee not in privity for purposes of collateral estoppel and res judicata.


2.

A motorcyclist was involved in a collision with a truck. The motorcyclist sued the truck driver in state court for damage to the motorcycle. The jury returned a verdict for the truck driver, and the court entered judgment. The motorcyclist then sued the company that employed the driver and owned the truck in federal court for personal-injury damages, and the company moved to dismiss based on the state-court judgment. 
If the court grants the company’s motion, what is the likely explanation?

(A) Claim preclusion (res judicata) bars the motorcyclist’s 
action against the company.
(B)  Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) establishes the 
company’s lack of negligence. 

(C)  The motorcyclist violated the doctrine of election of 
remedies. 

(D)  The state-court judgment is the law of the case.

But in this NCBE question, you can use claim preclusion to bar claims against the employer?

Confused. Would appreciate it if anyone can help.
Oh wow I wondered this myself. I felt like Themis was inconsistent (possibly wrong?) in its own multiple choice of how it thought of "privity." I would assume in #1, that they would be in privity, they have an employee/employer relationship, and they would have the same interests in the litigation. I must be missing something too...

Apparently, I was not the only one wondering this. I asked through message center at that time.

Here the answer is "Privity applies when two parties are litigating the same legal right due to their relationship. Privity is rarely found except in limited circumstances, such as when a party sues as the legal representative of another. For example, a class member and a class representative in a class action, or a guardian and a ward. It would also apply in a situation in which a party takes over another party's interest in a contract, or parties have the same interest in property. Here, however, the mere fact that the chef worked for the catering company does not create privity."

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


xhe02

New
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 3:08 am

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by xhe02 » Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:58 pm

Yeah but I kept wondering why it applies in the #2 scenario? What is different that makes the employer/employee in privity in this case?

l18

New
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:41 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by l18 » Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:08 am

jcwest wrote:Yeah, man. Don't give up. You still have 6 FULL DAYS.

I have been feeling similarly screwed and honestly I think I've actually regressed the last 4 days. As soon as I start hitting 76% or so on Mixed PQs... I go right back down to 60%, which I haven't gotten in a week. I have been studying 10 hours a day. Nothing makes sense anymore.
Been studying for about 10 hours a day too. Brain feels like jello haha. Hope you go on strong too, best of luck to you.

stressfulsusy

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:30 am

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by stressfulsusy » Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:07 am

dlrkgml wrote:Advice to bounce back from a devastating practice exam #4 score with one week to go?

I got below average after scoring consistently in the mid 60s on mixed sets and am currently devoid of any will to live.
This happened to me and I was sick about it, but you just gotta chalk it up to an off set and focus on going owe what you got wrong so you don’t miss it on the real thing.

fuuuuuuuuuu

New
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:34 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by fuuuuuuuuuu » Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:02 am

These two questions made me mad when I got it. I think the chef one is actually wrong and there is privity and just chalk it up to inconsistency.
deacon wrote:
lawlurk wrote:
xhe02 wrote:Would appreciate help reconciling these two questions!

1.

A CEO sued a catering company in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction for injuries resulting from the company’s alleged negligence in serving undercooked chicken at a business conference. Prior to trial, the judge granted the CEO’s motion for summary judgment, finding that a chef employed by the catering company had been negligent in preparing the chicken, and that the company was vicariously liable for the chef’s negligence. The catering company was only able to pay half the value of the judgment before filing for bankruptcy and dissolving.

If the CEO subsequently sues the chef in the same federal court, will collateral estoppel preclude the chef from litigating his own negligence?
No, because collateral estoppel cannot be used offensively.
No, because the chef was not a party to the original action.
Yes, because issue preclusion does not require strict mutuality of parties.
Yes, because the determination of the chef’s negligence was essential to the original judgment.

Correct answer is B. Themis says employer-employee not in privity for purposes of collateral estoppel and res judicata.


2.

A motorcyclist was involved in a collision with a truck. The motorcyclist sued the truck driver in state court for damage to the motorcycle. The jury returned a verdict for the truck driver, and the court entered judgment. The motorcyclist then sued the company that employed the driver and owned the truck in federal court for personal-injury damages, and the company moved to dismiss based on the state-court judgment. 
If the court grants the company’s motion, what is the likely explanation?

(A) Claim preclusion (res judicata) bars the motorcyclist’s 
action against the company.
(B)  Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) establishes the 
company’s lack of negligence. 

(C)  The motorcyclist violated the doctrine of election of 
remedies. 

(D)  The state-court judgment is the law of the case.

But in this NCBE question, you can use claim preclusion to bar claims against the employer?

Confused. Would appreciate it if anyone can help.
Oh wow I wondered this myself. I felt like Themis was inconsistent (possibly wrong?) in its own multiple choice of how it thought of "privity." I would assume in #1, that they would be in privity, they have an employee/employer relationship, and they would have the same interests in the litigation. I must be missing something too...

Apparently, I was not the only one wondering this. I asked through message center at that time.

Here the answer is "Privity applies when two parties are litigating the same legal right due to their relationship. Privity is rarely found except in limited circumstances, such as when a party sues as the legal representative of another. For example, a class member and a class representative in a class action, or a guardian and a ward. It would also apply in a situation in which a party takes over another party's interest in a contract, or parties have the same interest in property. Here, however, the mere fact that the chef worked for the catering company does not create privity."

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


gasfard

New
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:02 am

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by gasfard » Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:51 am

Can one use slashes, dashes, parentheses in MEE/MPT?

RecruiterMan

New
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:58 am

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by RecruiterMan » Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:02 am

gasfard wrote:Can one use slashes, dashes, parentheses in MEE/MPT?
no punctuation of any kind allowed, just pure stream of consciousness baby

User avatar
MGH1989

Bronze
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:59 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by MGH1989 » Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:50 am

Does anyone feel like when they are writing essays that they inevitably end up just writing it like C, RRRRRR, AAAAAA, C, whereas themis wants you to write it like C, RA, RA, RA, C? I feel like I do this a lot with topics that are harder to break down into sub-issues as opposed to things like Negligence which is super easier to break down into sub-issues.

dabigchina

Gold
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:22 am

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by dabigchina » Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:52 am

fuuuuuuuuuu wrote:These two questions made me mad when I got it. I think the chef one is actually wrong and there is privity and just chalk it up to inconsistency.
deacon wrote:
lawlurk wrote:
xhe02 wrote:Would appreciate help reconciling these two questions!

1.

A CEO sued a catering company in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction for injuries resulting from the company’s alleged negligence in serving undercooked chicken at a business conference. Prior to trial, the judge granted the CEO’s motion for summary judgment, finding that a chef employed by the catering company had been negligent in preparing the chicken, and that the company was vicariously liable for the chef’s negligence. The catering company was only able to pay half the value of the judgment before filing for bankruptcy and dissolving.

If the CEO subsequently sues the chef in the same federal court, will collateral estoppel preclude the chef from litigating his own negligence?
No, because collateral estoppel cannot be used offensively.
No, because the chef was not a party to the original action.
Yes, because issue preclusion does not require strict mutuality of parties.
Yes, because the determination of the chef’s negligence was essential to the original judgment.

Correct answer is B. Themis says employer-employee not in privity for purposes of collateral estoppel and res judicata.


2.

A motorcyclist was involved in a collision with a truck. The motorcyclist sued the truck driver in state court for damage to the motorcycle. The jury returned a verdict for the truck driver, and the court entered judgment. The motorcyclist then sued the company that employed the driver and owned the truck in federal court for personal-injury damages, and the company moved to dismiss based on the state-court judgment. 
If the court grants the company’s motion, what is the likely explanation?

(A) Claim preclusion (res judicata) bars the motorcyclist’s 
action against the company.
(B)  Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) establishes the 
company’s lack of negligence. 

(C)  The motorcyclist violated the doctrine of election of 
remedies. 

(D)  The state-court judgment is the law of the case.

But in this NCBE question, you can use claim preclusion to bar claims against the employer?

Confused. Would appreciate it if anyone can help.
Oh wow I wondered this myself. I felt like Themis was inconsistent (possibly wrong?) in its own multiple choice of how it thought of "privity." I would assume in #1, that they would be in privity, they have an employee/employer relationship, and they would have the same interests in the litigation. I must be missing something too...

Apparently, I was not the only one wondering this. I asked through message center at that time.

Here the answer is "Privity applies when two parties are litigating the same legal right due to their relationship. Privity is rarely found except in limited circumstances, such as when a party sues as the legal representative of another. For example, a class member and a class representative in a class action, or a guardian and a ward. It would also apply in a situation in which a party takes over another party's interest in a contract, or parties have the same interest in property. Here, however, the mere fact that the chef worked for the catering company does not create privity."
You can use issue preclusion offensively if the party against whom you are using it against was a party in the prior lit.

In the first one, the chef was not a party. Therefore the CEO cannot use estopple against him.

In the second one, the motorcyclist was party to the prior lit so you can use collateral estop again him.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


User avatar
Neilt001

Moderator
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:35 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by Neilt001 » Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:24 pm

RecruiterMan wrote:
gasfard wrote:Can one use slashes, dashes, parentheses in MEE/MPT?
no punctuation of any kind allowed, just pure stream of consciousness baby

LOL that's too funny.

But seriously, of course you can, and in fact you're also encouraged to use bold and underlined wording for headings, etc. If you make it visually appealing (especially on those long MPTs), you'll look much more organized to your examiner and it'll be easier for them to give you higher grades. I used plenty of formatting. Examsoft allows it.

Funnily, my laptop's apostrophe key stopped working right at the beginning of the written day, and so I had to start writing in the passive style ("the plaintiff's liability" becomes "the liability of the plaintiff"), and I also had to write a message to the bar examiners along the lines of [My apologies, but my apostrophe key has stopped working. Please excuse any punctuation errors]. It seemed to work out...

gasfard

New
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:02 am

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by gasfard » Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:26 pm

Neilt001 wrote: But seriously, of course you can, and in fact you're also encouraged to use bold and underlined wording for headings, etc. If you make it visually appealing (especially on those long MPTs), you'll look much more organized to your examiner and it'll be easier for them to give you higher grades. I used plenty of formatting. Examsoft allows it.
Thanks! That helps a lot.

dabigchina

Gold
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:22 am

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by dabigchina » Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:27 pm

Neilt001 wrote:
RecruiterMan wrote:
gasfard wrote:Can one use slashes, dashes, parentheses in MEE/MPT?
no punctuation of any kind allowed, just pure stream of consciousness baby

LOL that's too funny.



Funnily, my laptop's apostrophe key stopped working right at the beginning of the written day, and so I had to start writing in the passive style ("the plaintiff's liability" becomes "the liability of the plaintiff"), and I also had to write a message to the bar examiners along the lines of [My apologies, but my apostrophe key has stopped working. Please excuse any punctuation errors]. It seemed to work out...
This is honestly my worst fear. Going to bring an external keyboard just in case.

User avatar
Neilt001

Moderator
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:35 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Post by Neilt001 » Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:40 pm

kmn wrote:
Neilt001 wrote: Always :
- IRAC
- use good headings
- use an easy to understand format using lots of signposting language
- consider a counter argument
- come to a conclusion one way or another
This is so helpful, thank you! Can you clarify what you mean by use good headings? I find I struggle with this in MPTs too but also with the MEE... I want to give a good issue statement header that summarizes the issue and includes a "because" statement, but then the model answers have headings that are just a couple word issue, for example "Undue Influence" or "Expectation Damages" or whatever the issue may be.

Also, maybe this is a stupid question, but what is signposting language?
Headings
Great question! I agree that some model answers use full sentence-style headings, and others just use single words. I think you can use both. Use single words for the higher up headings, like "Undue influence". Then underneath use subheadings for the elements that are more descriptive and which use that "because" type of language. Alternatively, you can play it safe by always using the full-sentence headings. That's fine too.

What I also meant by good headings is to use them often so that your answers are nicely broken into easy-to-digest parts and not slabs of text. And finally, use the formatting features in Examsoft which allow bold, italic and underlining. Use the formatting for headings and to make your answer look pretty. It goes a long way and helps your examiner when grading. Esp important in those long MPTs.

Signposting
You probably already do this without thinking, but it's VERY important. Signposting is what people latch onto when they're quickly reading your answers so that they know what you're arguing at all times. It allows them to easily understand your argument without sitting there scratching their heads wondering what exactly you're trying to say. You should write assuming they are stupid and busy and don't care, (ie make it dead easy for them). You should scatter signposts throughout your answers. Examples of signposts include:

- "First, it can be argued that..."
- "However, although the defendant may argue X, the plaintiff can actually argue Y"
- "Therefore..."
- "On the other hand..."
- "The second issue to be considered is..."
- "Finally, it is important to note that..."
- "In addition..."
- "Further..."
- "The issue is whether..."
- "In particular..."
- "For example..."
- "In relation to/with respect to..."
- "Conversely"
- 'The reason the plaintiff is unlikely to be liable is because/for the following three reasons..."

As you can see, the above wording will always alert your reader what just happened, what's about to happen, whether you're making a counterargument, whether you're making an additional point supporting your argument, or whether you're about to make a concluding remark. Don't just write in a rambling way without signposting language because a grader will assume you're wrong and move onto the next exam. They won't sit down and take the time to give you the benefit of the doubt. Just make it super easy and obvious. I would say, just to be sure, almost every sentence should start with a signpost, and certainly every paragraph.

By the way, this is the sort of language that computerized grading programs look for, which are in use in some standardized tests.

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”