CLAIM: Identify Causes Of

Action
1) Before Writing RE-READ QUESTION
MANY TIMES:
Make sure you will be answering the question as asked. Look for more claims +
contentious sub-issues. Think again about whether you can supplement your legal
authority. Only when you are sure you have considered everything and have
prioritised your points should you start writing.
Slow down and consider all the potential issues before starting to write your
essay. A confused reader cannot give you first-class marks. BE CRYSTAL
CLEAR about the claims you will be addressing.
Timing:
Work out ahead of time how many minutes you have to spend on each question.
In Exam: write down your 'changeover' time + stick to them.

2) Understand+ Analyse PQ Facts

Proceed line-by-line, looking for both claims + sub-issues within those claims.
Questions contain some twists to separate 1st papers from rest.
o 1st Students see through the deception. and use the opportunity to
discuss why the simple analysis is inappropriate and why the issue is
either
1. Red-Herring (No chance of success)
2. BETTER RESOLVED IN A MORE COMPLEX MANNER. Remember
always to explain your thinking, even if you are deciding to set aside a
point for further analysis.

Need to Differentiate between questions of law and questions of fact:

Concentrate ONLY ON LEGAL DISPUTES, since I will be arguing my points
solely based on legal authority, while evaluating the law in light of the facts.
Facts
Look for similarities to known cases. So its important cross-referencing your
notes. Since cases and statutes involving similar facts may appear at different
points during your course, you need to compile one list of those materials, so that
you can identify them immediately in your exam.

2A) Identifying potential (SUB) Claims

Consider all the different ways someone might sue on a particular set of
facts.
Equally possible that PQ will give rise to more than 1 claim because
sometimes a single set of facts can give rise to multiple causes of action.
If you decide that 1 of these related claims dont apply, devote 1 sentence
stating why claim cant prevail.
Invisible Parties:
Consider differences between different parties, including those concerning
'invisible' parties; 1 SENTENCE ONLY
o E.G: Defamation may involve a series of named individuals but may
also refer to an unnamed print shop where the libellous material was
photocopied prior to distribution.
Take the time to say that, because it was involved in the
publication of the material, the print shop would he a potential
D in a defamation action if the Defamation Act 1996 didn't
contain an exemption from liability for those who are
involved in the unknowing and merely mechanical
reproduction of the material.

3) Planning Claim Portion:

Walk through each of four CLEO steps, think about what you will say in each
step, and write down some notes so that you don't have to carry that information
in your head as you write. It is most important to write notes for the C and L
portions of your essay, since they are the ones that tax your memory and
analytical skills the most. The notes can he in any form you wish
Cryptic abbreviations of legal authority,
Lists of party pairings and potential claims,
Mnemonics that you have devised to help you remember the elements of each
claim
Whatever works best for me. The point is to be creative and broad in your initial
thinking; you can narrow the field down later, after Ive covered everything.
Once you have made a note of something potentially relevant, focus on
ascertaining whether the point is important enough to be put into your essay or

whether it is too tangential. Write down possible cases might use on scrap just so
dont forget.
Grouping:
Combining all possible claims under 2-3 points under a single heading, you are
not eliminating any potential areas of discussion. Include several sub-issues.

Arrange claims + sub-issues in order I will discuss them.

Start either with the sub-issue which logically comes first as a threshold matter
(E.G, when you need not address question B until you have answered question
A in the affirmative) OR
The Claim/Sub-Issue which yields the longest + most complex legal analysis.
Know which legal points are most important before you start writing, so I dont
spend too much time on a minor point.

3) Write Introduction Paragraph:

1 Minute: Write a 2-3 sentence-opening paragraph.

Identify the appropriate claim/claims, introduce all the relevant law.

o E.G: According to these facts Anton (A) can sue Bob (B) for the tort
of defamation. To establish defamation, A must prove [here you
would set forth, in one sentence, the basic legal standard for
establishing defamation, as discussed in chapter four]. Of these
elements, the only issue that can seriously be disputed is [identify
which aspect or aspects you wish to discuss]. I will begin by setting
forth the law concerning [that sub-issue].

(1) Cause of action that is being alleged (the 'claim' in CLEO);

Certain wrongs have been done and certain remedies should be forthcoming.
Wrong occurred and therefore must prove all the constituent elements in order
to make out their prima /ac ie case
Generate a list of elements that must be proven before the C can
establish a prima facie case. E.G: to establish the tort of
negligence, you must prove existence of a legal duty, breach of
that duty, causation and damages.
o Have to show what I left out and WHY I LEFT IT OUT.
Identify sub-issues - ie those legal elements - that are most
difficult to establish as a matter of law, since those are the points
that you will focus on in your discussion

 Focus on the POINTS IN DISPUTE, not on those areas of law

upon which there can be no disagreement between the parties.
Frame the initial claim (when at all possible) in terms of legal actions
because:
a) Framing the claim in terns of a cause of action gives the reader the proper
context for the following discussion (this is particularly important when you
have multiple claims or multiple parties);
b) Framing the claim in terms of a cause of action leads you directly to the
elements that must be proven as part of the claimant's (or prosecutor's) prima
facie case, which will help you identify all of the potential points of
discussion; and
c) Framing the claim in terms of a cause of action gives you a quick and effective
introductory paragraph when it comes time to write your essay.
Break apart different claims that arise between different parties.
o Recall and list each of the elements that must be established as part
of the prima facie case
(1) Each of the elements that must be proven in order to prevail on the cause of
action (1st, more general, aspect of the 'law' in (CLEO);
(2) Any particularly contentious areas of law relating to the elements that must be
proven as part of the claimant's prima facie case (2 nd, more specific, aspect of
the 'law' in CLEO)
(3) How the facts in his or her case fulfil the prima facie case (the 'evaluation' of
CLEO); and
(4) The suggested resolution of the case (the 'outcome' of CLEO).

Step 2 in the CLEO method: the

law
2-step process:
1. Consider the realm of potentially relevant law, both binding and persuasive.
This process requires both creativity and knowledge of the law.
2. Use my judgment to identify which legal authorities you will actually
discuss and which I will discard. Examiners are more interested in testing
my judgment than testing memory.
a. Then begin to write the 'L' section of your essay.

4) Write legal authority in 2 steps.

1. Give support for the various elements that C would have to prove as part of
his prima facie case if the claim were a real cause of action. (1-2 Sentence)
2. Give support for the contentious sub-issues you have identified in the 'C'
portion of your essay. This will form the bulk of your writing. It is best to
cover each contentious sub-issue separately.
a. Beginning with general legal principles (ie it is unlawful to kill
someone) before
b. Moving on to more specific exceptions and conditions to that rule (ie
it is not unlawful to kill someone in self-defence - and you will then
need to define self-defence). Each statement of law should come from
either a statute or a case and be followed by a reference to that source.
Be sure to include law that supports your desired or anticipated
outcome as well as law that opposes it.
c. If the law is not clear or if the outcome required under the law seems
unjust, you may want to introduce persuasive authority. Remember,
you cannot overcome had precedent with persuasive authority, but if
there is a gap in the law or a need to extend the law to a novel
situation, then persuasive authority will be useful.
Use Precise Legal Language

Need to indicate why you are including the reference. It's also true that some cases
are important for their outcome whereas others are important for their analysis (ie
why they come out the way they do). NO CASE FACTS.
State why the case is important to your discussion.
First-class essays show the following:

 detailed knowledge
Reference specific sections of statutory law as well as highly relevant cases
(not just the big leading cases)
Precise use of terms
Use specific language from cases and statutes where necessary;
Creative and sophisticated analysis
CRAFT ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST YOUR FINAL
POSITION, using your knowledge of binding legal authority and, if
possible and appropriate, persuasive legal authority;
Know arguments and bits of law to retain and which to discard.
Summary
1. Identify Claim+ Sub-Issues
2. Identify a list of legal authority (legal rationale), starting with statutes.
3. Discarding Irrelevant legal authority:
Law Draft:
The question at issue is whether Jack is liable to the claimant for the
tort of negligence. To establish a claim in negligence, the claimant
must prove the existence of a duty, breach of that duty, causation
(including both legal foreseeability and 'but for' causation) and
damages (Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, s 7-04). Of those four
elements, the claimant in our question will have the most trouble
establishing that there was an existing breach and a breach of that
duty, with the particular emphasis on what the appropriate standard
of care is.

The essay relies on

succinct statements of
the law
Reference To Case Facts:
EXCEPTION
More facts may be
necessary when discussing if
conflicting cases apply to
PQ.

Pure statements of law

are more appropriate when
there is no dispute about
the applicability/boundaries
of the law

Summary
1. Begin with the general rule associated with the claim
2. Then general rule associated with the sub-issues. (become more specific)
3. Next, set up your specific exceptions to the rule and
a. Any cases you need to distinguish. You can categorise your case law
by facts or by areas of law, as we have here.
b. Possible defences usually come at the end of your discussion.
c. If discussing a line of cases, relate more specific cases to more general
standard making discussion look more cohesive and less like a list of
cases and holdings.
1) Compiling Relevant Authority
1. Law supporting the various elements of the claim.
2. Law relating to the various sub-issues that you have identified in the 'C'
section of your analysis.
Discussing law relating to your claim set out each of the elements that must be
proven as part of a Cs prima facie case.

Support most statements with binding authority.

o E.G: Defamation, on the other hand, is a common law tort, despite the

existence of the Defamation Act 1952 and the Defamation Act 1996.
o Write a brief one-sentence formula explaining the elements, with
appropriate support. E.G: `To prove defamation, C must establish that
the statement was defamatory (that "the words tend to lower the
plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society
generally" (Sim' Stretch, per Lord Atkin)), that the statement refers to
him or her (Knupffer ' London Express Newspaper l.td) and that the
statement was published (Pullman t' Walter Hill).' Set forth elements
again. 1 sentence.

Not trying to create an argument for one side or another.

Look for cases or statutes supporting both sides.
Look also for any possible defences, remembering that some defences stand by
themselves (E.G: media law defences?),
o Whereas other defences can be seen as a negation of one of the prima
facie elements of the claimant's case.
o Identify more material than you will be able to use
Pros:
1. Forces me to come up with all possible arguments stops you from starting
to write the minute that you find a halfway decent case or theory.
a. Best arguments/authorities are not the ones that you think of first.
2. Need time to think of arguments favoring my position,
a. Counter-Arguments.
i. One position can seem so overwhelmingly right to you that it
will take a moment to figure out how it can be counterattacked.
1. Making a good opposing argument is the difference
between a first- and second-class mark.
3. Large amount of law to discuss so spend more time discussing the legal
authorities and less time arguing the facts.
a. Argue your points based on legal authority.
b. While you will need to evaluate the law in light of the facts, that is a
different thing from arguing the facts.
4. Create large amount of authority so I wont include irrelevant authorities to PQ.
a. Dont write about the first thing that comes to mind, even though that first thing
may not be the most important.
b. If you have identified a large amount of material, you will feel confident discarding
some of it.

c. Because you know you have a lot to write about, you will prioritise your arguments
and which aspects of the law you will discuss. Need to show examiner how
discerning your judgment is.
i. To increase your understanding of how to use legal authority,
read a complex case (with counsel's arguments) for style rather
than substance. Once a month.
To write a first-class law essay I must understand:
(1) The purpose of supporting authority ('law') in legal writing; and
(2) What constitutes supporting authority in legal writing.
Once you have grasped those points, you must learn how to:
(3) Compile the relevant supporting authority; and
(4) Communicate the relevant supporting authority in your essay

Distinguishing Cases
2 cases both seem to apply to a question but require different outcomes, they must
be `distinguished' from one another, meaning that you must find a way to describe
how the cases are dissimilar from your scenario and each other on either the facts or
the law (the `ratio').
Showing how a line of cases works together is harmonising those cases.
Distinguishing + harmonising different cases separates 1st marks from 2 nd.
General principles of law that exist in similar cases can be extended to cover your
point. You should also look at the exceptions that have been made to the general
rule and try to understand why those exceptions were made. Your facts may be
different, but you may be able to argue that the reasoning behind the exception
should apply in your case as well.
(1) What the legal principle is;
(2) Why it should apply in the current case; and
(3) What the source of the legal principle is.
Although the 'L' step of your CLEO essay is objective in tone and content, you still
need to
(1) Weigh up any conflicting precedents as you go and
(2) Anticipate what you will say in the 'E' step of the essay.

Binding Authority vs. Persuasive Authority

1) Binding authority: sources that must he followed when they are found to be
relevant,

2) Persuasive authorities

Principles, which may guide, but do not control, courts and lawmakers.
Persuasive authority cant used to negate relevant binding authority, but it can he
used to justify a particular course of action when there is no clear-cut answer
contained in the case or statutory law. 4 types.
(I) Public policy arguments;
Public policy argument that demands one outcome can be countered with a
similarly persuasive public policy argument that demands a different outcome.
You must be able to argue both sides of a problem. Presenting one perspective
alone does not make your discussion stronger and more cohesive; it is simply
incomplete. The art of legal argument lies in recognising opposing strands of
thought and stating why one position is more convincing than the other.
This method of analysis holds true for both binding law (when you are noting
which strand of cases and/or statutes is the most applicable to your fact
situation)
o And for persuasive law (when you are noting which public policy
rationale is the most convincing).
When presenting a public policy argument, remember: public policy is
persuasive, not binding, legal authority; there are two sides to every public
policy argument; and you must define what you mean by 'public policy'.
(2) Legal commentary;
Referencing legal commentary will round out your essays and will, like arguments
based on public policy, give highly persuasive reasons why the question you are
answering should he decided in a particular way. Indeed, some commentators are
so highly esteemed that courts grant great deference to their opinions.
Nevertheless, commentary does not constitute binding law, just as public policy
does not.
(3) Legislative documents,
a. Green or White Papers or committee reports; Not binding, but they are
persuasive in that they suggest where the law might he heading.
(4) Case/statutory law from other jurisdictions: Not binding.
Step 3 in the CLEO: the evaluation

Bring specific facts of your question into your essay. Evaluate the facts in light of
the relevant law

To implement Evaluation of CLEO properly, must understand:

(1) What `evaluation' means under the CLEO system;

Applying the facts to the law. Explain how your facts do/do not live up to the
objective standard identified in the 'LAW' step.
Sometimes the evaluation step involves the straightforward determination of
whether a particular act falls within the legal standard established in Step 2.
o Evaluate the facts AFTER you have presented the law.
Evaluate the facts in light of the cases and statutes you have presented earlier in
your essay,
(2) Need for evaluation in legal writing: Goal is to demonstrate either that
(a) Each element of the Cs prima facie case can be sustained by reference to the
fact pattern OR
(b) Some element of the prima facie case can be defeated, because it either
1) Fails to rise to the legal standard set forth in the 'L' section of the essay
2) Falls victim to a defence asserted by the defendant.
Advocacy of My Client: I have to Downplay Opponents Argument:
Dont identify so closely with your 'client's case that you ignore arguments and
facts supporting opponent's point of view, you can frame the argument in a way
that shows your perspective in the best light. Advising clients I should
Downplaying facts or cases that go against you - not ignoring
o By minimising their importance or demonstrating how and why they
do not apply in your case.
(3) How to distinguish `evaluation' from the `law' in CLEO; and
Separating the law and the facts, especially at first. Might seem odd initially,
but quickly becomes second nature.
Build on the information given in LAW to explain how those cases +
statutes affect the situation at hand.
Refer to the materials cited, but without repeating all that you have said
before.
Refer PQ facts, but without repeating everything said there.
Tie the relevant statement of law together with the relevant statement of
fact so that you can justify the outcome you will propose in the final step

 Incorporate previous discussions by reference: thus avoiding the need to

repeat points of law or relevant facts.
Keep legal analysis separate from factual analysis
o Key benefit to separating out the facts from the law is that it allows
you to parse out the finer nuances of your legal argument.

Different Claims/Defendants:
Separate out the law for each pairing or claim and follow it with its own
evaluation. Incorporate previous discussions by reference.
(4) Various stylistic + practical issues concerning evaluation of facts in light of
the law

Adhere to the separation of law + evaluation; just reference case in E

o If the point you are making regarding the legal aspects is very brief
and would have to be repeated every-time verbatim when you
referenced the case in the evaluation section to stop repetition.
Reference To Case Facts In EVALUATION: EXCEPTION
May be times when excessive abstract discussion of law could give impression I
don't relevant facts in mind. Highlighting the facts or legal issues in your authorities
that apply to PQ - sometimes a quick reference to the facts can be helpful.
When evaluating the facts, DONT repeating the law section, but reference
case or statute names as appropriate.
Identifying which aspects of the PQ facts bear a similarity/dissimilarity to
the legal standards introduced in the 'L' section.
Recognise that those brief evaluative statements cannot be made unless you
have already laid out the basic legal principles in the preceding section
Guard against rushing to the 'E' step too quickly and making conclusory
statements of law.
Separating out each individual sub-issue + following it with its own
evaluation.
E.G: if your facts raised the issue of whether legal relations were intended in
an alleged contract between a married couple and you were discussing
Balfour and Jones V Paddavaton you mentioning salient facts, you are

focusing on the legal analysis. Not on the evaluation of the law in light of the
facts. Of course, you would not make the mistake of thinking that
However, the basic rule is that you should discuss the facts in the 'E:' section of
your essay. When it comes time to begin writing that section, don't start with a
general recitation of the facts. Instead, just

1. Start applying the law already introduced in L to the PQ facts,

a. Beginning with the general principles that must be established to
satisfy the Cs prima facie case
'E': justifying inclusion of every legal reference in 'L'.
If you can't draw a direct link from a PQ fact to any of the cases + statutes, then
reconsider whether you should include that fact in your essay.
This is what is meant by having the facts in the back of your head as you write/plan
the law section of your paper.
Don't introduce a case/statute unless it relates to a fact you intend to discuss.
If you take the time to think about the evaluation step before you begin writing,
then you know that you are introducing each of your cases and statutes for a
reason. The `E.' step is when you explain that reason.
WRITING TIPS
Reference cases/statute explicitly as you evaluate your facts.
'L' section should be longer than 'E'.

Summary
1. Discuss the issues that are primarily in dispute
a. Apply facts primarily in dispute to general legal standard.
2. Then focus on explaining how the facts apply to the more specific cases
that flesh out the bare bones of the general precepts of law.
a. Because L' explained these cases are merely more specific
manifestations of the general standard, often can get by without
evaluating the facts with reference to the general cases.
3. Or show how PQ facts fall under the general rule, but not the more nuanced
cases.
a. This means C fails to meet the required standard for the prima facie
case.
b. Use your judgment as you balance what needs to be said versus what
can be implied

Step 4 CLEO: The Outcome

To implement the fourth step of CLEO properly, you must understand:

(1) What 'outcome' means under the CLEO system; and

How PQ would be decided by a court. Tie up loose ends and come to a final
determination about which part of the preceding argument controls the disposition
of the case, to the extent not already done so.
Concluding essay with a SINGLE SENTENCE stating resolution of dispute
because
1. Examiners want to see a clear conclusion at the end of an essay. 'On these
facts, the claimant will prevail and will receive damages in X amount'
2. E + L might not make outcome as clear as need be
Exception to the rule of brevity
If your 'L' and 'E' steps contain a lot of sophisticated and complex arguments that
make it difficult (as a matter of substance/style) for you to weigh up the opposing
strands in that portion of the essay. Might be better discussing or recapping the
weight of the various points in the final paragraph.
o E.G: 6 legal points needed to be proven, but only 2 elements proven. Could
make bit longer
Difficult To Conclude: EXTREMELY RARE SHOULD CONCLUDE
Not enough factual information to come to a reasoned conclusion or when your
'L' step suggests that the state of the law is either too close to call or not
determinative of the particular question. RARE. PREFER TO COME TO A
CONCLUSION
(2) The need for an outcome in legal writing.
GIVE ONLY honest opinion about the dispute rather than trying to force the
decision one way or another, to read better.
Just because the question directs you to advise one party doesnt mean that you
should try to persuade the reader that that party should/will prevail
If C likely to lose, say so. May be able to identify and exploit certain
weaknesses in the other side's case
o But don't overestimate your client's chances of success. BUT MUST
COME TO A CONCLUSION.
CLEO: 2 stages:
1. Planning stage: Work your way through the potential claims, legal
authorities and factual analyses; come to a preliminary decision about who
will win the case.
2. Writing stage: Present best arguments after discarding more
tangential/minor points.
3. Then shape your legal and factual discussions with this outcome in mind so
that you can have as brief a concluding paragraph as possible (optimally one
line long).

a. One sentence that identifies the legal outcome of the dispute.

i. EXCEPTION: If I want include a short discussion about
potential reform or the direction in which the law is moving.
1. Save more theoretical points until the end of essay, place
them in a short paragraph following your stated
outcome.
a. IF YOU HAVE TIME, NOT NECESSARY
i. Actually DONT DO IT CAN
BACKFIRE.
1. ONLY DO IT IF THERE IS ANY
POSSIBLE SCOPE
MAKING CHANGES HALF-WAY:

1. Either go hack and amend your preceding language through inserts or

scratch-outs or
2. Change your analysis going forward, indicating how your thinking has
changed as a result of X case or Y fact

Adapting CLEO to 'Discuss' questions

(I) What a 'discuss' question is asking you to do;

Analyse a quotation/controversial statement.
Introduce relevant legal authority

 May need to discuss the relationship between ideas from different parts of the
syllabus,
Major purpose of a 'discuss' question is to give you an opportunity to discuss
legal theory, legal reform and legal history
Use cases + materials to support theoretical, rather than practical, arguments.

3 Types of Discuss Questions

1. Legal theory
Legal theory evaluates why the law is the way that it is. Can identify by way it
Asks you whether a certain course of action is wise or just or fair.
Or identify what rights or interests are at stake and to weigh them up.
Evaluate some statement, event or course of action.
o Must ascertain what was done, why it was done and whether the
result is worthwhile.
The type of legal theory that you will need to introduce and evaluate in a
`discuss' question has to do with why the court or legislature acted as it did.
o The ideas will be contained in judicial opinions and legislative
documents (White papers, parliamentary debates, committee
reports), academic books and articles. Legal academics may
sometimes resort to jurisprudential ideas in these works, argue about
competing policy interests, and attack the empirical assumptions
underlying the policy arguments.
Discuss' question: you should do the same
Legal theory is all about weighing up competing interests.
1. Take a position and defend it;
2. Walk your reader through the analysis in order to persuade him or her that
your conclusions are correct
2. Legal reform
Recent changes in the law/ to the propriety of + need for changes in the
future. To identify these questions; they ask about interests or rationales
supporting/ opposing the change, suggesting the need to discuss legal
theory.
But the focus will be on the state of the law before and after the reform efforts.
'Reform' or 'change' in the text or will refer to a recent legislative shift.

Recent Amendment to Law:

If you are answering a question about a recent amendment to the law, E.G:
1. Know what the law was (and why) AND

2. How it has changed (and why).

3. Weigh up the facts and the policy interests to see whether the change was
successful.
Allow your analysis to be guided by the question itself.
Law is about analysis, not about memory recall. Use the information you
have learned as the building blocks for your own unique analysis.
Future reform:
Theoretical/policy reasons why change should occur + which cases/statutes are
currently causing problems. This shows why you cant answer a legal reform
question only with legal theory
Legal reform Q: use same kinds of analyses and materials that you did in legal
theory questions.
Find discussions about the need for success of legal reform in judicial opinions,
legislative papers and academic works.
Cite to any and all of these sources to support your arguments.
Take a position about the merits of the different viewpoints,
o Identifying strengths + weaknesses of others' analyses before forming
your own conclusions. Base your discussion on these outside sources.
3. Legal history
Legal reform asks about sudden change in direction of the law due to legislative
action. Discuss how a certain area of law has changed over time.
1. A legal history question might also ask whether a certain case can still be
said to be good law in light of recent developments. Or
2. Discuss if 2 strands of law are growing closer together/farther apart.'
Unlikely that a `discuss' question will be set unless your reading list contains at
least one highly relevant article or item of supplemental reading.
Additional reading distinguishes 1st from 2nd.
Citing additional sources improves quality of your analysis and demonstrates
that good legal arguments are based on precedent.
Guided less by what you know, more by what is relevant to the question.
o Pick the best information to include in your essay.
st
1 identify themselves by the number + quality of references to additional
reading. This is especially true with 'discuss' questions.

(2) Structuring your 'discuss' essay;

Format in CLEO: 5 paragraphs
o First introductory paragraph - CLAIM,
o 3 substantive paragraphs - LAW + EVALUATION

o Conclusion - OUTCOME
Could be 6-7 if necessary.
Idea is to group your thoughts into 3 major points, preferably of equal weight.
Usually you lead with your strongest argument +
Progress to your weakest argument, but there may be times when you alter that
strategy:
o E.G: if one element needs to be established as a threshold matter
before you can proceed to the later elements. Each of 3 points must
be supported by case law, statutory law, scholarly commentary.
Could try to organise your points into groups of 3 within each major heading, but
don't push the structure for merely mechanical reasons.
(1) Introduction Paragraph:
State what you intend to argue about the claim + how essay is organised.
Dont spend a lot of time setting the stage for your argument/giving
background information;
o All of that should be in your substantive paragraphs.
o If the info isnt critical to your argument + doesn't fall into 1 of
substantive paragraphs, then omit it as irrelevant to this particular
essay.
o Remember, what you leave out is as important as what you put in.
Journalists use the 'inverted triangle' approach to writing. They lead
with their broadest, most important point and progress downwards to
their least important point. Do same with essays.

(3) Adapt 4 CLEO steps to 'discuss' questions.

(A) Claims in discuss questions: overarching theme/ point of essay.
Every answer (PQ/discuss) has to build an argument + take a perspective on the
issues discussed; it cant be absolutely indifferent to the merits of the different
viewpoints. Need to he objective in evaluation of the opposing arguments but
have to come to some conclusion about which approach should prevail.
Base your arguments on your beliefs and on the facts and law, as you know them

If CLAIM is the basic overarching response to the question, then

Sub-issues are the 3 main points in support of your claim.

Sub-issues are support rather than merely as points to be made, since

goal is to build an argument rather than just present objective
information in written form.

Legal Argument Similar To a Novel

1. A legal argument opens with some sort of stage-setting device (a CLAIM),
2. Builds the tension through point + counter-point
argument ('L' + 'E),
3. Then reaches its climax + denouement (the outcome
plus any additional points to he made in the conclusion).
a. Have to build an argument to an inescapable
conclusion. Dont plotlines of their essays are
virtually flat

Stages
1. Identify claim; use precise words of the question.
a. Define terms use terms of question.
b. Figure out what cases, statutes and articles relate to those terms and
issues; only use those, which are pertinent.
(B) Law in discuss questions
Cases, statutes scholarly monographs, articles, legislative reports papers. Case +
textbooks if necessary.
Compare + contrast: harmonise + distinguish 2 competing strands of legal
thought.
Use cases + statutes to illustrate hypothesis
Use commentators, with cases. Weigh up arguments of both.
Use critical thinking skills to decide what cases + articles are best suited for
terminology of question.
o Examiners want to see what type of analogies you can draw to
different areas of law, what materials you present to support your
thinking and how you evaluate those materials.
(C) Evaluation in Discuss questions
Use the precise words of the question as you evaluate the legal authority I have
presented. Tie evaluation close as possible to question.
May want to combine CLEO 2 step method if preparation stage was properly
done, so can avoid repetition.
(D) Outcome in discuss questions
Tying together various strands of argument to give a final answer to the question.

 If 5 paragraphs: 3 substantive paragraphs, each with its own main point +

supporting ideas
Final paragraph weighs the relative merits of the 3 substantive discussion points +
indicate how the question should be resolved. Type of summary paragraph.
Remember to walk the reader through your analysis step by step - do not merely
state your conclusion.
New Points In Concluding Paragraph:
Dont suggest new points in conclusion.
Unless some suggestions for reform (if the question itself was not about reform
measures) or provide practical arguments about the likelihood of the suggested
action (E.G: the likelihood that political pressure would lead to a certain
outcome).
Similar to adding a hit of theory to the final paragraph answering a PQ:
showing your knowledge of the related issues, though remain focused on the
main points.
Quote from a reputable source gives a slightly different spin on the question or
on the issue.
Make a point about reform in a question that is not primarily about reform, or a
point about the theory of the law in a question that is not primarily about
theory.
Demonstrate a hit of legal realism and suggest how the issue would play out in
practice. Some ideas that can work some of the time; they will not work all the
time.

Go Through IB DISCUSS POINTS: ADD these things to what I already

know