Law students generally find legal writing to be frustrating and confusing. However, when students attempt to apply these principles to legal writing exercises, particularly in the context of exam writing, the results often are disappointing. I believe the problem involves trying to teach two different skills simultaneously, but without differentiating between them, particularly in substantive courses. I identify these two skills as problem solving and advocacy.
Problem solving is the process of logical deduction.
Like the good detective, we start with the question posed and proceed to follow clues to the solution. We identify the issues, ferret out the legal rules and principles, and then apply them to the facts to reach conclusions. We must keep an open mind and consider all possibilities, even when they lead to a dead end. Once we have completed that process, tied up all the loose ends, and exhausted all the leads, we reach the logical conclusion and realize how the problem should be solved. Perhaps the assignment is to explain how the answer was reached.