The law problem question is the defining assessment of an LLB and most law modules, and it is marked on something students consistently under-deliver: legal application. Faced with a fact pattern, many students write everything they know about the law and then assert a conclusion. That earns a modest mark at best. A strong answer uses the IRAC method to argue, step by step, how the relevant law applies to the precise facts in front of them — weighing authorities, addressing counter-arguments, and reaching a conclusion that actually follows from the analysis. This guide works through a complete example using an illustrative scenario, then gives you the method and structure to apply to your own. The disciplined reasoning it demands underpins any strong case study, but law formalises it into IRAC.
Key points
- Use IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) — the universal structure for problem questions.
- The marks are in Application — arguing the law against the facts, both ways.
- State the rule with authority — statute and decided cases, correctly cited.
- Address each legal issue separately with its own IRAC cycle.
- Use the correct citation style (usually OSCOLA in the UK).
What a law case study assesses
A law problem question tests whether you can think like a lawyer: spot the legal issues hidden in a set of facts, identify the governing law, and apply it to predict a likely outcome — advising the parties as a practitioner would. Examiners assess four things: issue-spotting (did you find every relevant legal question?), knowledge of the law (do you state the rules accurately, with authority?), application (can you argue how the law resolves these facts, including the other side’s case?), and conclusion (is your advice reasoned and appropriately hedged?). The defining error is the “essay dump” — reciting the law in the abstract instead of applying it. A problem question does not ask what the law is; it asks what the law does to this client’s situation. Our law assignment help page covers the wider range of legal writing, but IRAC is the engine of the problem question.
Identify the precise legal question(s) the facts raise.
State the relevant law: statute and case authority.
Argue how the rule applies to these specific facts — including counter-arguments.
Reach a reasoned conclusion / advise the party on the likely outcome.
IRAC and its variants
IRAC has close cousins; choose the one your tutor prefers, but the logic is identical:
| Method | Stands for | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| IRAC | Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion | The standard, all-purpose structure |
| CRAC | Conclusion, Rule, Application, Conclusion | Leads with the conclusion — common in advocacy and US courses |
| CREAC | Conclusion, Rule, Explanation, Application, Conclusion | Adds an explicit Explanation step to unpack the rule before applying it |
| ILAC | Issue, Law, Application, Conclusion | Identical to IRAC; “Law” replaces “Rule” (common in Australia) |
Whichever label your course uses, the marks always sit in the Application step. Everything else exists to set it up.
A complete worked example (illustrative scenario)
The scenario below is fictional and simplified to demonstrate the method. Real answers must apply the current law of your jurisdiction with accurate, up-to-date authority, cited in OSCOLA (or your required style). Verify all legal authorities before relying on them.
The facts
Daniel, a café owner, mops his floor during opening hours but puts out no warning sign. Priya, a customer, slips on the wet floor, falls and breaks her wrist. She wants to know whether she can claim compensation from Daniel. This is a classic negligence problem question, and we will work it through using IRAC. Note that a full answer would address each element of negligence as its own IRAC cycle; for brevity we focus on the core analysis.
I — Issue
The issue is whether Daniel is liable to Priya in the tort of negligence for the injury she sustained — specifically, whether he owed her a duty of care, breached that duty, and thereby caused her loss. Framing the issue precisely, as a legal question tied to the facts, sets the agenda for everything that follows. Vague issue statements (“the issue is negligence”) lose marks; precise ones (“whether Daniel breached his duty of care by failing to warn of the wet floor”) earn them.
R — Rule
State the law with authority. Negligence requires a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and causation of damage. The existence of a duty is assessed using the established tests derived from the leading authorities; the standard of care is that of the reasonable person in the defendant’s position; and breach is judged by weighing factors such as the likelihood and seriousness of harm against the cost and practicability of precautions. Causation requires that the breach caused the loss (the “but-for” test) and that the damage was not too remote. Each rule should be supported by the relevant case or statutory authority and cited correctly — this is where accurate legal knowledge is demonstrated.
A — Application (where the marks are)
Now apply the rule to the facts, arguing both sides:
| Element | Applying the law to the facts |
|---|---|
| Duty of care | As an occupier serving customers, Daniel plainly owes a duty of care to lawful visitors such as Priya — a well-established category, so duty is unlikely to be contested. |
| Breach | A reasonable café owner mopping a floor during opening hours would foresee the risk of slipping and would put out a warning sign or cordon the area. The cost of a sign is trivial against the foreseeable risk of injury, so failing to warn strongly suggests a breach. Counter-argument: Daniel might argue the floor dries quickly and the risk was minimal — but the absence of any warning makes this hard to sustain. |
| Causation | But for the wet, unmarked floor, Priya would not have slipped; the injury is a direct and foreseeable result, so causation and remoteness are satisfied. Counter-argument: Daniel might allege contributory negligence if Priya was, say, running — but nothing in the facts suggests this. |
Notice what the Application does: it does not restate the law — it argues it against the specific facts, raises the counter-arguments a good lawyer would anticipate, and shows why they fail. That two-sided reasoning is the single biggest source of marks in a problem question.
C — Conclusion
Conclude with reasoned advice: on the facts, Priya has a strong claim in negligence against Daniel, as duty, breach and causation all appear satisfied and no convincing defence arises on the facts given. A good conclusion is decisive but appropriately hedged — “Priya is likely to succeed” rather than an absolute guarantee — because legal outcomes turn on evidence and argument. Crucially, the conclusion must follow from the Application; a conclusion that contradicts your own analysis is a classic, costly error.
“A problem question never asks what the law is. It asks what the law does to these facts — and the answer lives entirely in the Application step.”
Issue-spotting: the skill that wins problem questions
Before you can apply the law, you have to find the issues — and missed issues are unrecoverable marks, because no amount of brilliant analysis of the wrong question will help. Strong issue-spotting is methodical, not intuitive. Read the facts at least twice: once for the story, once for the law. Pay close attention to changes of state in the facts (someone signs, pays, leaves, is injured), because legal consequences usually attach to events. Annotate the fact pattern, marking each party and each potential cause of action against them. Ask, for every party, “what claim might they bring, and against whom?” and “what defence might be raised?” Watch for facts that seem irrelevant — examiners rarely include detail by accident, and an odd fact (Priya was wearing headphones, say) is often a deliberate hook for a sub-issue such as contributory negligence. A reliable sign of a first-class answer is that it spots and disposes of the minor issues as well as the obvious central one, allocating its depth in proportion to each issue’s importance.
Arguing both sides: the application technique
The single behaviour that most reliably lifts a problem-question mark is arguing both sides in the Application step. Weak answers assert one outcome; strong answers reason toward it by first making the best case for each party. The practical technique is to take each contested element of the claim and ask, in turn, “how would the claimant argue this is satisfied?” and “how would the defendant argue it is not?” — then explain which argument is stronger on the authorities and why. This mirrors how law is actually practised: a good lawyer anticipates the opponent’s case. It also protects you when the facts are genuinely ambiguous, because you can show the marker that you have seen the difficulty rather than glossed over it. Crucially, two-sided application is not fence-sitting: you still reach a conclusion. You simply earn it by defeating the counter-argument rather than ignoring it. Where the law itself is unsettled, acknowledge the competing lines of authority and argue for the position you find more persuasive — that is exactly the higher-order reasoning postgraduate examiners reward.
Case study vs problem question vs case note
Law students meet three related but distinct tasks, and confusing them costs marks. A problem question (the focus of this guide) gives you a fact scenario and asks you to advise the parties using IRAC. A case note asks you to summarise and critically evaluate a single decided case — its facts, the ratio decidendi, the reasoning and its significance. A case study in the broader sense may ask you to analyse how an area of law operates in a real or hypothetical context, blending doctrinal analysis with evaluation. The IRAC structure is the backbone of the problem question and a useful discipline for the others, but always check which task you have been set: writing a beautiful case note when the brief asked for advice to a client will not score, however well written.
Authority and OSCOLA citation
Law is an authority-driven discipline: an assertion without a source carries no weight. Every rule you state should be anchored to its authority — the relevant statute section or the decided case — and every authority must be cited correctly. In the UK and many Commonwealth jurisdictions this means OSCOLA (the Oxford University Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorities), which has precise conventions for case names, neutral citations, statutes and secondary sources, all in footnotes rather than in-text. Citing accurately is not pedantry; it demonstrates that you can locate and handle primary legal sources, which is a core legal skill in its own right. Keep your authorities current, too — relying on a case that has been overruled or a statute that has been amended is a serious substantive error, not just a referencing slip. See our OSCOLA referencing guide for the detail.
How to structure the answer
- Brief introduction — identify the parties and the area(s) of law engaged.
- Issue — the precise legal question(s), taken one at a time.
- Rule — the relevant law with authority.
- Application — argue the law against the facts, including counter-arguments.
- Conclusion — reasoned advice on the likely outcome.
- Repeat the IRAC cycle for each separate issue, then give an overall conclusion.
- OSCOLA footnotes — accurate, current authority throughout.
Undergraduate vs postgraduate expectations
At undergraduate (LLB) level, examiners want correct issue-spotting, accurate statements of law with authority, genuine two-sided application, and reasoned conclusions. At postgraduate (LLM) level, the bar rises: deeper engagement with conflicting authorities and academic commentary, awareness of how the law is developing or is contested, comparative or critical perspectives where relevant, and more sophisticated handling of ambiguity in the facts. Postgraduate markers reward students who can argue the harder, less settled points rather than the obvious ones. Whatever your level, re-read the question and your module learning outcomes, and calibrate the depth of analysis accordingly.
Common mistakes that cost marks
- The “essay dump” — reciting the law instead of applying it to the facts.
- One-sided application — ignoring the counter-arguments and defences.
- Missing issues — failing to spot every legal question the facts raise.
- Stating rules without authority — assertions with no case or statute.
- A conclusion that does not follow from the application.
- Outdated or wrong authority — citing overruled cases or amended statutes.
- Poor OSCOLA — inconsistent or incorrect legal citation.
Related guides
Frequently asked questions
Need help with your law case study?
Our law writers solve problem questions with rigorous IRAC application, accurate authority and correct OSCOLA citation — original, well-argued and on time.
