The 9-Step Exam Writing Formula

Successful exam writing can be a formula. You can save time and earn stylistic points
by pre-writing your exam. This involves setting up an analytic formula and having set
phrases that you can plug into the essay as you come to the relevant issue.
Use the following formula to pre-write your essay.

Step
One:

State the issue.

Step
Two:

Identify the rule, but don't waste time stating the rule.2

Step
Three:

Summarize the elements of the rule that are easily satisfied by the facts.

Step
Four:

State the sticking point on which this issue turns - i.e. the ambiguity in the facts
that makes it a difficult question.

Step
Five:

Apply one or more of the four types of Analysis to the problem.

Step Six:

Contrast conflicting authority.

Step
Seven:

What are the defenses?

Step
Eight:

Make a conclusion.

Step
Nine:

Go to the next issue.

To illustrate the process, here is a sample exam question.

EXAMPLE ESSAY QUESTION
Peter Plaintiff and David Defendant are neighbors who bear each other a grudge. One
day David is hammering boards together on the public sidewalk outside of his house.
Peter sees David hammering and walks behind him in order to avoid talking with him.
As Peter walks behind David, David brings his hammer back to hammer the boards
and hits Peter in the head causing substantial injury.
Step One: State the issue. Write one sentence that identifies the issue as suggested by
the facts. Get used to stating the issue by using every fact that you can.
EXAMPLE
The key issue is whether battery occurs when a defendant with a grudge who is
hammering nails hits the plaintiff walking behind him as he swings the hammer.
Step Two: Identify the rule, but don't waste time analyzing the rule. Rather,
incorporate the rule into your analysis of the facts. 3
EXAMPLE
The governing law on the issue of battery depends on the jurisdiction, though most
commonly the Common Law rule suggests that the key elements are intent, harm and
causation.
Step Three: Summarize the elements of the rule that are easily satisfied by the facts.
Make sure that you don't make up or infer facts from the hypothetical. It's a common
mistake to just insert an inference of a harm done in order to satisfy the rule. If you do

make an assumption on a factual situation then be sure to state that you are making
that assumption.
EXAMPLE
Here, the element of harm is satisfied since the plaintiff suffered severe trauma to his
head. Furthermore, the element of causation is proven because but for the defendant's
swinging the hammer, the plaintiff would not have been harmed.
Step Four: State the sticking point on which this issue turns - i.e. the ambiguity in the
facts that makes it a difficult question.
EXAMPLE
The real question in this suit is whether the defendant intended to hit the plaintiff on
the head. Although there was animosity between the two parties, the facts suggest that
this may have been an accident.
Step Five: Apply one or more of the four types of Analysis to the problem. Contrast
conflicting authority.
Use one or more of the four types of proof to prove or disprove the rule.
Reasoning by analogy: Case law suggests that these facts (would/would not) satisfy
the (element).
Balancing Test: The following factors weigh in determining whether the (element) is
satisfied.
Judicial Test: Courts have applied the following test to prove whether the (element) is
satisfied.
Policy: The underlying policy of the rule (is/is not) furthered by its application in this
scenario. (Cite policy.)
EXAMPLE - Judicial Test
The standard test that courts apply for the general intent necessary to hold the
defendant liable is that he knew with substantial certainty that harmful consequences
would result from his action. Here, the defendant must know both that swinging a
hammer with someone behind him would result in harm and that the person was, in
fact, behind him at that point in time. Whether the defendant knew with substantial

certainty is an issue of fact that is up to a jury or judge to decide. Animosity by itself,

or even a motive, does not prove intent.
Step Six: Contrast conflicting authority.
EXAMPLE
Some jurisdictions rule that in circumstances where there is an unlikely accident, then
motive alone might infer intent. Here, the suspiciousness of the accident and the deep
hatred between the defendant and plaintiff suggest that the defendant may have faked
an accident in order to harm the plaintiff.
Step Seven: What are the defenses? Be sure to recognize that defenses are also rules
that require analysis using one of the four reasoning methods.
EXAMPLE
The defendant has the affirmative defense of self-defense. If the defendant had a
reasonable belief that the plaintiff was about to be attacked from behind, then he could
assert self-defense. However, the defendant has the burden to prove he used only as
much force in swinging the hammer as was reasonably necessary to protect himself
from potential injury.
Step Eight: Make a conclusion.
In writing the Conclusion you want to hedge.
Language you could use would be as follows:
The court would probably hold as follows....
A probable result would be....
Given the facts, it is highly likely that...
Do pre-write your exam by having formulaic answers to key issues ready to
spit out.
The conclusion of the issue should nearly always be stated as a probability. Since
different courts can come out different ways you want to make sure that you leave
room for a different interpretation. There usually is no right answer. The art is in
the analysis.

EXAMPLE
In all likelihood, the defendant will not be able to assert a credible defense of selfdefense because there is no evidence that the plaintiff was going to attack the
defendant.
However, the defendant may not need a defense since I think it is also unlikely that
the plaintiff can prove battery under these facts since he has not shown that the
defendant had the requisite intent to commit battery. Consequently, the defendant will
probably not be held liable for battery and the plaintiff will have to seek relief under a
negligence theory.
Step Nine: Go to the next issue.
EXAMPLE
Peter will seek to recover damages in negligence if he can prove....