Back

How To Use IRAC In AS Level Law Without Sounding Robotic In AS Level Law

Views 1

IRAC Is A Structure, Not A Script

  • Students think IRAC = robotic formula.

  • A* students use IRAC as a hidden skeleton.

  • IRAC must guide your answer, not control it.

  • Flexibility inside structure = natural flow.

  • IRAC used wrong → repetitive → predictable → low marks.

  • IRAC used right → sharp → precise → examiner-friendly → A*.

Understanding IRAC Properly

I = Issue

  • Identify legal problem.

  • One line only.

  • No storytelling.

  • No repetition of question.

  • Use legal vocabulary.

  • Issue must be narrow, not broad.

  • Each issue = separate IRAC cycle.

  • Long answers = multiple IRAC cycles stacked.

R = Rule

  • State legal rule in one or two lines.

  • Add case authority with short ratio.

  • No long descriptions.

  • No case facts unless essential.

  • State rule in legal language.

  • Present rule before application every time.

A = Application

  • Short, factual, direct.

  • Use names from scenario.

  • Show how rule fits facts.

  • Avoid theoretical discussion.

  • No vague phrases (“he is wrong”).

  • Tie every sentence to rule.

  • Use linking phrases (because, therefore, this means).

C = Conclusion

  • One line only.

  • Must follow logic of application.

  • Not a summary.

  • Not optional.

  • Every IRAC cycle must end with a micro-conclusion.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Free Material

Why IRAC Feels Robotic For Students

  • Students write IRAC as fixed template sentences.

  • Students copy textbook structures.

  • Students force one big IRAC for entire question.

  • Students treat IRAC as mechanical.

  • Students use “Firstly, Secondly, Thirdly” repetitively.

  • Students do not break large issues into sub-issues.

  • Students over-explain rules (wasted words).

  • Students under-apply rules (lost marks).

A Law Uses MIRAC, Not IRAC*

MIRAC = Mini IRACs for each legal element.

Instead of one giant IRAC for whole question:

  • Duty → IRAC

  • Breach → IRAC

  • Causation → IRAC

  • Remoteness → IRAC

Meaning:
4 IRAC cycles = 1 full negligence answer.

This prevents repetition.
This prevents robotic structure.
This increases AO2 marks.

IRAC Variation: The A Flow Method*

Flow 1: I → R → A → C (Standard)

  • Use when issue is clear and simple.

Flow 2: I → R → A (No explicit conclusion)

  • Use for low-mark short answers where mini conclusion is obvious.

Flow 3: I → Rule 1 → Application 1 → Rule 2 → Application 2 → Conclusion

  • Use for layered issues (actus reus + mens rea together).

  • More natural flow.

  • Less repetitive.

Flow 4: Rule First, Issue Follows (R → I → A → C)

  • Use when question defines the issue itself.

  • Example: “Discuss whether D is guilty of GBH.”

  • No need to restate obvious issue.

These variations prevent IRAC from sounding like a template.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Free Material

How To Write IRAC Like A Students*

1. Keep the Issue Razor-Sharp

  • Wrong: “The issue is whether D is liable for negligence.”

  • Right: “Issue: Whether D owed V a duty of care.”

  • Even more precise: “Issue: Whether foreseeability establishes duty under Caparo.”

2. Write Rules Without Storytelling

Examples of good rule statements:

  • “A duty of care exists if harm is foreseeable, proximity exists, and fair, just, reasonable to impose (Caparo).”

  • “Assault occurs when D causes V to apprehend immediate unlawful force.”

  • “Causation requires D’s act to be the factual cause (White) and legal cause.”

3. Use Short Ratios

  • Donoghue v Stevenson — neighbour principle

  • Cunningham — subjective recklessness

  • Roberts — foreseeability of victim reaction

  • Pagett — third party reaction

  • Wagon Mound — foreseeable damage

4. Use Names From The Scenario

  • Instead of “the defendant”, use “Adam”.

  • Instead of “the victim”, use “Leena”.

  • Personal names create natural flow.

5. Apply In Micro-Sentences

  • “Adam failed to repair the hazard, making harm foreseeable.”

  • “Leena’s injury results directly from the broken tile.”

  • “Risk was obvious and easily preventable, showing breach.”

6. Remove Essay Language

Avoid:

  • “It can be seen that…”

  • “In my opinion…”

  • “Considering the aforementioned facts…”

Use:

  • “Therefore,”

  • “Because,”

  • “This means,”

IRAC Example: Negligence (A Style)*

Duty

  • Issue: Whether Adam owed Leena a duty.

  • Rule: Caparo’s three stages apply.

  • Case: Caparo v Dickman (three-stage test).

  • Application: Harm was foreseeable; Adam and Leena share proximity; imposing a duty is fair.

  • Conclusion: Duty likely exists.

Breach

  • Issue: Whether Adam breached the duty.

  • Rule: Reasonable man standard (Blyth).

  • Case: Blyth v Birmingham (reasonable man test).

  • Application: Failing to fix a broken tile falls below reasonable standard.

  • Conclusion: Adam breached duty.

Causation

  • Issue: Whether breach caused harm.

  • Rule: But-for test (White).

  • Case: White (factual causation).

  • Application: Without tile, injury unlikely.

  • Conclusion: Causation satisfied.

Remoteness

  • Issue: Whether harm was too remote.

  • Rule: Damage must be foreseeable (Wagon Mound).

  • Case: Wagon Mound (foreseeable damage).

  • Application: Wrist fracture foreseeable.

  • Conclusion: Not remote.

Total time: under 2 minutes.
Zero robotic tone.
Crystal clear flow.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Free Material

IRAC Example: Criminal Liability (A Style)*

Actus Reus

  • Issue: Whether D caused V’s injury.

  • Rule: But-for test applies.

  • Case: White.

  • Application: Without D’s punch, injury would not occur.

  • Conclusion: AR satisfied.

Mens Rea

  • Issue: Whether D intended harm.

  • Rule: Direct intent (Mohan).

  • Case: Mohan (aim or purpose).

  • Application: D aimed punch at V’s jaw = clear intent.

  • Conclusion: MR satisfied.

Causation (Breaks)

  • Issue: Whether medical treatment broke chain.

  • Rule: Chain breaks only if independent, unforeseeable, overwhelming.

  • Case: Roberts (victim reaction); Pagett (third-party acts).

  • Application: Treatment standard → chain intact.

  • Conclusion: No break.

How To Make IRAC Flow Naturally

1. Remove Formula Phrases

Avoid writing:

  • “The issue here is…”

  • “The rule states that…”

  • “In application…”

  • “In conclusion…”

Use natural transitions:

  • “Here,”

  • “This suggests,”

  • “Therefore,”

  • “Based on this,”

2. Write IRAC Cycles, Not IRAC Blocks

Do:

  • Issue → Rule → Application → Conclusion for each legal element.

Do NOT:

  • Dump all issues together.

  • Dump all rules together.

3. Use Signpost Words

  • “Firstly, duty…”

  • “Secondly, breach…”

  • “Thirdly, causation…”

  • “Finally, remoteness…”

Signposts guide the examiner without robotic tone.

IRAC Traps That Drop Grades

  • Writing rule before issue.

  • Writing conclusion without application.

  • Forgetting case authority.

  • Applying case facts instead of scenario facts.

  • Writing two rules back-to-back.

  • Not using mini-conclusions.

  • Making IRAC too long.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Free Material

Turning IRAC Into A Material: Advanced Skills*

1. Embed Evaluation Naturally

  • Add strengths/weaknesses inside application.

  • Example:

    • “Although public policy may limit duty (Hill), foreseeability remains strong.”

2. Alternate Sentence Length

  • Short rule sentence.

  • Medium application sentence.

  • Short conclusion sentence.

  • Creates rhythm.

3. Use Legal Verbs

  • “Impose”

  • “Establish”

  • “Demonstrate”

  • “Satisfy”

  • “Fulfil”

  • “Indicate”

Avoid weak verbs:

  • “Is”

  • “Was”

  • “Seems”

4. Avoid Over-Applying

Too much application feels robotic.
2–3 lines per element is enough.

5. Stack IRAC Cycles Textured

  • Use slightly different patterns each time.

  • Prevents mechanical tone.

A IRAC Checklist*

  • Issue = clear, narrow.

  • Rule = short, legal vocabulary.

  • Case = precise ratio.

  • Application = uses scenario names.

  • Conclusion = mini, logical.

  • Variation = natural flow.

  • Tone = structured but not templated.

  • No storytelling.

  • No long intros.

  • No repeating information.

Hunain Zia

Hunain Zia has previously achieved considerable success in the high-school educational stream, gaining a massive 154 Total A Grades and 7 Major Distinctions, a process in which he broke/ set 11 different world records, including the most A grades ever achieved, most subjects ever appeared in, most distinctions, gaining distinctions across two separate boards (Pearson Edexcel and CAIE) within the same year/ ever, and even 19 hours of constant examination. All records stand intact today. Hunain pursued his Honors Accounting Degree from the prestigious Bentley University, and then completed an LLB (in Honors) from University of London. Currently, he manages multiple social and commercial projects, has founded digital streams and works tirelessly in the education sector.

Educate A Change focuses on truly bringing change in the educational sector worldwide. All our courses are designed to ensure success, and provide complete preparation without requiring any other external material. Therefore, it takes away the expense of academies, books, past paper compilations and other miscellaneous items. Instead, by just the courses we offer, the student can prepare fully for the best grades in their CAIEs, Edexcel and other high-school exams. The earnings from our course-sales are invested in social projects and growing the free educational activities of Educate A Change.