For torts, where we had a word limit, I combined rule and application into one.betasteve wrote:But, could also depend on how responses are worded. I.eCE2JD wrote:
Also, saying things like: "How could you POSSIBLY write that much??? You must have just been writing bullshit for the last 3000 words..." is essentially admitting that you didn't spot as many issues as other people. So basically, you got a lower grade.
You lose.
Student A: Negligence is the breach of a duty that causes harm. Duty is ... Breach is ... Cause is ... Harm is ... Here, X's had a duty because ... X breached that duty by ... X is the actual cause because ... X is the proximate cause because ... Y suffered the injury .. Thus X is negligent to Y.
Student B: X is negligent to Y. X had a duty, which was ... and he breached by ... Further, X's actions were the cause (prox and actual) of Y's injury because...
Student B will have covered same stuff, but with less words. Don't need a full description of what a fucking duty is, when there was a special relationship, or something. Building elements into analysis is a way to be more dense, and get points faster. My guess is that most people with these inflated word counts describe the entire cause of action, then apply it to facts.
Another example would be describing in detail every element for adverse possession despite facts clearly showing he didn't meet one of the elements at all. I mean if it's grey, then of course you apply the law, but if just isn't there, you aren't going to get points for restating BLL.
For exams with no word limit, I just spew out the full description of the BLL first, and then move on to applying it to the facts. I type at about 125 WPM on average, and I have practiced writing the BLL over and over before the exam, so I can dump that on the exam page real easy. I think this is why my word counts are so high. It can't hurt to be over detailed with BLL if you have the time.
