Being able to answer the call of the question, spot the issues, recall the relevant legal principles, and remember key phrases is a genuine victory. However, your analysis or application is incomplete if the facts that support a counterargument or weaken part of your argument are never used to present the opposing perspective. If you do not put that reasoning in writing, the reader will conclude that you never saw or considered the argument, and you may lose points in the analysis section. This skill develops over time. With practice, you will become more adept at recognizing when a counterargument is warranted and when the facts are insufficient to support one either way. Be patient with yourself and learn from your mistakes. Each mistake helps you progress, or at the very least shows you a different way information can be presented. What feedback have you received about presenting the other side of an argument?
Where is your conclusion? “Everyone knows that ‘A’ will not succeed. Further, my previous discussion shows that. Therefore, I never included any conclusion.” This may be true, but readers typically expect you to state your conclusion explicitly based on your analysis. Your conclusion may follow logically from your arguments, but the reader still expects you to say who is liable, who prevailed, who is guilty, and so on. If a professor expects you to begin with a conclusion, it may be because they want you to think through the entire problem before you reach a conclusion. Consider jotting a reminder at the start of your response so that you remember to include a conclusion.
As with everything, you may need to adjust your approach for a particular professor, so learn their expectations and meet them. At the same time, make sure you have mastered the underlying skill so that you can perform it whenever you are asked.
(Goldie Pritchard)
