bridging the writing gap between law school & the bar exam ...
home
experience
services
publications
testimonials
the blog
news
faqs
resources
contact us
BAR/BRI of minnesota students :: winter 2006
simulated exam :: mpt
Copyright (c) 2005-2006 Write2Pass. All Rights Reserved.
email us today for an essay assessment & consultation
info@write2pass.com
mpt :: score distribution
mpt :: top 5 common mistakes
1. cite: While citations are not necessary, they are encouraged when there are several different rules, statutes and cases given to you in the library. (Remember that the MPT can include authorities that are not relevant, so applicants simply do not want to include every legal authority contained in the library.)

2. quote: Applicants are encouraged to incorporate specific language from the pertinent legal authority. Doing so serves two major purposes. First, it shows the examiners that applicants have determined the important language in the law, rule or case. Second, incorporating specific language bolsters the arguments and conclusions reached by applicants.

3. heading format: The examiners provided applicants with an instruction sheet that sets out the format to be used for the heading for each arguments. Applicants must strictly adhere to these instructions.

4. follow instructions: The examiners also provided applicants with instructions regarding the format of the brief, including express directions not to include a summary of facts. Many applicants started their brief with a lengthy introduction. While the instructions did not explicitly prohibit an introduction, it is likely that examiners would categorize the introduction as a summary of facts. Applicants should be aware of other expressed instructions given by the examiners.

5. organization: If the task memo does not provide applicants with an organizational approach, applicants should organize their legal analysis document issue by issue if it is objective, or argument by argument if it is persuasive. Here, applicants should have examined the issues surrounding Ripka and Fusco separately. Applicants who examined these two individuals together typically had incomplete discussions as they tried to discuss issues that were common to both of them.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9%
24%
33%
18%
9%
5%
0%
mpt :: average scores
evidence :: 3.2 (out of 7)
This page has been created by Tommy Sangchompuphen for the benefit of students enrolled in the Winter 2006 administration of the BAR/BRI of Minnesota review course. Please direct all comments and questions regarding this site to Tommy Sangchompuphen at tommys@write2pass.com.
score         percentage