What are the two parts of applying the law in CRAC?

What are the two parts of applying the law in CRAC?

• A. Identify cases and apply to facts
• B. Enumerate rules and select the strongest argument
• C. Analyze policy implications
• D. Apply the law to the client's facts and explain why opposing counsel is incorrect

Answer: (D)

In CRAC, the applying phase has two pieces: you apply the law to the facts and you address why the opposing position isn’t correct. Start by taking the rule and showing how it fits the client’s facts—walk through the rule’s elements or tests and explain how the facts satisfy each part, so the rule leads to your client’s outcome. Then strengthen the argument by addressing counterarguments: explain why the opposing counsel’s interpretation or application of the rule fails in light of the facts and the law. This rebuttal helps prove why your client’s position is the persuasive one under the rule. Other options miss this focus. Identifying cases and applying to facts is more about locating authorities rather than performing the direct rule-to-facts analysis. Enumerating rules and picking the strongest argument is a construction task, not the step that shows how the law actually operates on the facts. Analyzing policy implications moves beyond the legal application to broader considerations, which isn’t the core of applying the law to the facts or counterarguments.

In CRAC, the applying phase has two pieces: you apply the law to the facts and you address why the opposing position isn’t correct. Start by taking the rule and showing how it fits the client’s facts—walk through the rule’s elements or tests and explain how the facts satisfy each part, so the rule leads to your client’s outcome. Then strengthen the argument by addressing counterarguments: explain why the opposing counsel’s interpretation or application of the rule fails in light of the facts and the law. This rebuttal helps prove why your client’s position is the persuasive one under the rule.

Other options miss this focus. Identifying cases and applying to facts is more about locating authorities rather than performing the direct rule-to-facts analysis. Enumerating rules and picking the strongest argument is a construction task, not the step that shows how the law actually operates on the facts. Analyzing policy implications moves beyond the legal application to broader considerations, which isn’t the core of applying the law to the facts or counterarguments.