APPROACH: - Do not bail on the fact pattern, read the facts aggressively - Write down where the witness and parties are - What rule are they testing me on - Recall the rule and apply it to the facts - Eliminate the bullshit answers that have incorrectly states the rule - Then choose the answer that states the rule as applied in the facts Character Evidence → If the question is using a witness to say D or P did bad things in the past then it is asking about character evidence - Probative value outweighs substantial - Do not pick the answer with Impeachment → If the question is attacking what the witness just said, then apply the impeachment rule - Cross exam is key word to tell us its impeachment question Hearsay → Not admissible (That is literally the rule) The answer is “inadmissible as hearsay” unless they give you all the elements of the exception/exemption Don’t pick an exception unless you are 100 percent sure that’s what the fact pattern is talking about. Know each element of the exceptions and exemptions and find each element is in the fact pattern Torts ½ of torts questions are negligence but divided into 3 different concepts and you NEED to be able to identify the type of negligence question its testing you on….is it common law negligence (duty, breach, causation, damages), negligence per se, or res ipsa loquitar. DO NOT conflate these three concepts