Problem questions can feel overwhelming at first. There are lots of facts, multiple parties, and often several legal issues woven together.
But once you understand what examiners are really looking for, they become far more manageable.
A strong problem answer is not about writing everything you know on the topic. It is about:
- Identifying the correct legal framework
- Applying the law carefully to the facts
- Working methodically through each required element
- Reaching a reasoned conclusion
Below is a practical structure you can use.
Photo by Andy Barbour
Step 1: Start with the Right Structure (Not Just IRAC)
Students are often told to use IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion). That is helpful – but it is rarely the structure for the entire answer.
IRAC works well for a single-issue problem.
Most undergraduate problem questions, however, involve:
- Multiple elements of an offence
- A multi-stage legal test
- Several criteria for a remedy
- Or different potential claims and defences
In these cases, your overall structure should follow:
The legal elements, test, or criteria you are required to satisfy.
Think of it like a checklist.
For example:
- Negligence → Duty, Breach, Causation, Remoteness
- Murder → Actus reus, Mens rea
- Misrepresentation → False statement, Fact, Inducement, Loss
- Judicial review → Illegality, Irrationality, Procedural impropriety
Your answer should mirror that structure.
Step 2: Use IRAC Within Each Element
Once you have identified the relevant elements, then use IRAC within each one.
In other words:
Element 1
- What is the legal rule?
- What case law sets out the test?
- Apply it to the specific facts.
- Conclude whether that element is satisfied.
Then move to:
Element 2
And repeat the process.
This keeps your answer:
- Organised
- Logical
- Easy for the examiner to follow
- Clearly analytical
You are effectively ticking off each requirement of the legal test in turn.
Step 3: Apply, Don’t Just Describe
One of the most common mistakes in problem answers is describing the law without applying it.
For example:
Weak approach:
The test for breach is whether the defendant fell below the standard of the reasonable person.
Stronger approach:
The test for breach is whether the defendant fell below the standard of the reasonable person. Here, leaving the equipment unattended in a public area is likely to fall below that standard, particularly given the foreseeable risk of harm to passers-by.
The key question to ask yourself repeatedly is:
How does this rule operate on these specific facts?
Step 4: Address Counter-Arguments
Good answers do not assume everything is straightforward.
If there is ambiguity in the facts, acknowledge it:
- “A court may find…”
- “However, it could be argued that…”
- “This may depend on whether…”
This demonstrates legal reasoning rather than rote learning.
Step 5: Keep Conclusions Clear and Provisional
Your conclusion does not need to be dramatic or overly certain.
Problem questions are about likelihood and reasoned analysis.
Instead of:
The defendant is definitely liable.
Write:
On balance, it is likely that the defendant would be found liable for negligence.
Precision and caution are signs of strong legal judgment.
A Simple Checklist Before You Submit
Ask yourself:
- Have I structured my answer around the correct legal elements?
- Have I addressed each element explicitly?
- Have I applied the law to the facts every time?
- Have I avoided long descriptive passages with no analysis?
- Have I reached a reasoned conclusion for each issue?
If you can answer yes to these, you are in strong territory.
Final Thought
Problem questions are not memory tests. They are structured reasoning exercises.
The strongest answers:
- Follow the legal test methodically
- Use IRAC within each element
- Show calm, logical application
- Make the examiner’s marking easy
Think of your answer as a clear checklist in motion – not a stream of consciousness.
If you would like help breaking down a specific problem question, or practising this structure in a live session, feel free to get in touch.