Answering a Hypothetical Using the IRAC Method
The procedure for answering a hypothetical fact pattern in this course is to use the IRAC method. After reading a fact pattern given in class, as homework or as part of a test; the student then uses the following approach in analyzing the hypothetical for a grade:
I = What is the legal issue?
R = What is the rule (law)?
A = What is the analysis and rationale?
C = What is the conclusion or outcome?
The IRAC method is highly structured consisting of four parts, each of which is labeled and graded but weighted differently:
Plaintiff п vs. Defendant Δ
1. I = the issue presented by the hypothetical, stated as a one-sentence question answerable only by yes or no (30%)
2. R = the rule of law of the case, stated in one sentence (10%)
3. A = your analysis and reasoning justifying who should win (50 %)
4. C = your conclusion of the issue answerable by yes or no, because… (10%)
The name of the parties, if provided, should be placed at the beginning of each answer to a hypothetical and underlined. Where there are multiple parties use a separate IRAC for each pair. Where names are absent use Plaintiff vs. Defendant A, B, C …
For example: John Smith vs. Ted Williams; John Smith vs. Cindy Williams
In answering a hypothetical, it is crucial to identify the issue presented for the court to decide. The issue presented in each hypothetical is usually quite specific and should be asked in a one-sentence question that is answerable only by yes or no.
For example, the issue statement “Is the PGA Tour, Inc. liable?” is too broad. A proper statement of the issue would be, “Does the Americans with Disabilities Act require the PGA to accommodate Martin by permitting him to use a golf cart while playing in PGA tournaments?” Another way to state the issue is, “Under the ADA, does PGA fail to provide reasonable accommodations when it denied Martin’s request to use a golf cart while competing?” Still, another way to present the issue can be, “Whether PGA violated the ADA when it denied Martin his request to use a golf cart while playing in PGA tournaments.”
In setting forth the answer to the hypothetical, you must state the complete rule of law at issue in the case. This could be a provision in the federal or state constitutions, a federal or state statute, or other law that is presented in the case.
Besides spotting the issue, the analysis is the most important part of your answer and is thus more heavily graded. Your rationale for your conclusion may be based on the specific facts of the hypothetical, public policy, prior law, or other matters. There are always competing interests in every case thus there is always a point and a counter-point, an argument and a counter-argument, on one hand and on the other. Your analysis must therefore present both sides as you reason and justify who should win. It is in the analysis where you apply the rule of law to the facts of the hypothetical.
The conclusion is the decision reached by the student acting as judge. It should be yes or no stating who wins and why. (Yes, because… or No, because…)
Use the following example as reference for answering future hypothetical fact patterns.
PGA Tour, Inc. vs. Martin
I = Issue: Does the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require the PGA to accommodate Martin by permitting him to use a golf cart while playing in PGA tournaments?
R = Rule: The ADA requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities where such role does not cause an undue burden on the employer.
A = Analysis: On one hand, the PGA has an interest in making its tournaments as fair as possible and on an equal playing field for all its competitors. On the other hand, the use of golf carts is not a fundamental character of the game of golf having not been in existence when the game was invented. Moreover, the PGA’s “walking rule” is only peripheral to the game of golf and not a fundamental part of golf. Other than the PGA rule, there is no rule of golf that forbids the use of golf carts. Furthermore, PGA’s argument fails because it is impossible to guarantee that all players in golf will play under exactly the same conditions, so allowing Martin to use a golf cart gives him no advantage over the other golfers. Besides, Martin, because of his disease, will probably suffer more fatigue playing golf using a golf cart than other golfers will suffer without using a cart. Allowing Martin to use a golf cart will not fundamentally alter the PGA’s highest-level professional golf tournaments.
C = Conclusion: Yes, because Martin was disabled and golf courses are “public accommodations”, both covered by the act, which requires reasonable accommodation and doing so would not cause an undue burden on PGA.
