TheSectionsofanIRAC[edit]IssueTheIRACstartswithastatementoftheissueorquestionathand.IntheissuesectionofanIRACitisimportanttostateexactlywhatthequestionoflawis.[edit]RulesTherulessectionofanIRACfollowsthestatementoftheissueathand.TherulesectionofanIRACisthestatementoftherulespertinentindecidingtheissuestated.Rulesinacommonlawjurisdictionderivefromcourtcaseprecedentandstatute.Theinformationincludedintherulessectiondependsheavilyonthespecificityofthequestionathand.Ifthequestionstatesaspecificjurisdictionthenitispropertoincluderulesspecifictothatjurisdiction.Anotherdistinctionoftenmadeintherulesectionisacleardelineationofrulesthatareinholdingandrulesthatareobiterdicta.Thishelpsmakeacorrectlegalanalysisoftheissueathand.Therulessectionneedstobealegalsummaryofalltherulesusedintheanalysisandisoftenwritteninamannerwhichparaphrasesorotherwiseanalyticallycondensesinformationintoapplicablerules.[edit]Application/AnalysisTheapplication/analysissectionofanIRACappliestherulesdevelopedintherulessectiontothespecificfactsoftheissueathand.ThissectionusesonlytherulesstatedintherulessectionoftheIRACandusuallyutilizesalltherulesstatedincludingexceptionsasisrequiredbytheanalysis.Itisimportantinthissectiontoapplytherulestothefactsofthecaseandexplainorarguewhyaparticularruleappliesordoesnotapplyinthecasepresented.Theapplication/analysissectionisthemostimportantsectionofanIRACbecauseitdevelopstheanswertotheissueathand.[edit]ConclusionTheconclusionsectionofanIRACdirectlyanswersthequestionpresentedintheissuesectionoftheIRAC.ItisimportantforthemethodologyoftheIRACthattheconclusionsectionoftheIRACnotintroduceanynewrulesoranalysis.Thissectionrestatestheissueandprovidesthefinalanswer.[edit]CriticismIRAChasmanyproponentsandopponents.ThemainargumentsoftheproponentsoftheIRACmethodologysayitreduceslegalreasoningtotheapplicationofaformulathathelpsorganizethelegalanalysis.Sinceanorganizedlegalanalysisiseasiertofollowandreduceserrorsinreasoning,therefore,theproponentsarguethattheIRACisaveryusefultool.TheopponentsoftheIRACfallintotwocategories.ThefirstcategoryarethosewhoobjecttousinganIRACbecauseofitsstrictandunwieldyformat.MostofthesecriticsofferanalternativeversionoftheIRACsuchasMIRAT,IDAR,CREAC,TREACC,CRuPAC,ISAACandILAC.EachnewiterationissupposedtocurethedefectsoftheIRACandoffermoreorlessfreedomdependingupontheformat.AverygoodexampleofsuchanalternativeformatistheCREACwhichissaidtooffermoreclarityandcongruity.Theyarguethisbasedupontherepetitionoftheconclusioninthebeginningandtheendwhichissaidtoleavenodoubtastothefinalanswerandoffercongruitytotheoverallreasoning.Italsohasanexplanationoftherulessectionwhichhelpsdelineaterulesintostatingtherulesandexplainingtherulesforfurtherclarity.ThesecondcategoryofcriticsoftheIRACsaythatittendstoleadtooverwriting,andoversimplifyingthecomplexityofproperlegalanalysis.Thisgroupbelievesthatagoodlegalanalysisconsistsofathoughtful,careful,wellresearchedessaythatiswritteninaformatmostamiabletothewriter.Theimportanceofanopenformatamiabletothewriterissupposedtoletthelegalreasonersconcentrateonexpressingtheirargumenttothebestoftheirabilitiesinsteadofconcentratingonadheringtoastrictformatthatreducesthisfocus.[edit]AnExampleIRACAgenericIRAConalawschoolexamwouldconsistofananswertoaquestion.ThefollowingexampledemonstratesagenericIRACasananswertoaquestion.PersonAwalksintoagrocerystorean...
