考过雅思的都了解Band Criteria，就普通法案例分析考试来说，打分的标准如下：
写作风格 - 工作以流畅和创造性的方式用恰当的形式表达，精确使用英语。
结构 - 结构构思良好且清晰标示。段落之间清晰关联，创造了一个无缝的作品。对问题的讨论与它们的重要性成比例。
理解 - 对法律有权威性的知识，并且清楚地掌握了法律运作的更广泛背景。
应用 - 令人信服地将法律应用于问题，并得出复杂的结论。还可能对替代场景和结论进行推测，这些推测以精确性推断。
批判性分析 - 有说服力地评估了关键论点的强弱，并进行了非常好的批判性分析/评估。
研究 - 广泛引用初级和次级资料来支持观点，并且评估了这些资料的价值。
Problem-based questions答题的主要任务：
First, what can you do to learn to recognize "forks" when they appear on your exams?
Second, and equally important, you need to know what to do with the "forks" when you find them. (what are the crucial compenents of writing exam answers that help you move forcefully from spotting forks to analyzing issues and suggesting results.)
There is so much ambiguity in any rule structure that rote application will seldom get you anywhere.
You need to know not only the rules. You also need to know all the places where the rules don't yet settle all the questions likely to arise.
[Outline course around foundational forks in the law and recurring forks in the facts. Perhaps the curcial forks in the course, would also detail some of the underlying policy arguments that might push conrts towards one doctirne or the other.]
Practice writing questions is to put yourself in the mind-set where rules that seemed clear may suddenly seem more ambiguous and open-ended.
One common class technique will be for a professor to ask whether tow cases decided by the same court are inconsistent.
Nitty-gritty disputes about doctrinal issues that appear on exams are almost always connected to the big themes of the course. You'll miss the whole point of the question if you don't see how this interpretive issue is linked to the broader theme.
