1. PRACTICE.While studying the substantive law is crucial for the essays and MBE, preparing for the performance test is all about doing. By the time test day rolls around, the doing—performing—of the performance test should feel like old hat to you.
2. ANSWER THE QUESTION.Sticking very closely to the assigned task is half the battle on the PT. Read the task memo as many times as you need to read it. Patiently. Then simply stick to what the memo has asked you to do, doing everything required and no more.
3. ONE STEP AT A TIME.It’s interesting how widely the model answers can vary from one another; some model answers even contain inaccurate statements of law. This variation demonstrates that doing the tasks like a competent and thoughtful professional and presenting your work product in the right package will serve you well, perhaps even more so that having the “right” answer.
4. STAY COOL; DON’T FREAK OUT.Part of what the PT tests is your ability to handle uncertainty. If you can simply carve out a reasonable response to uncertainty, you can pass. While the other portions may select for mastery of the law, the PT selects for those who can master themselves.
5. KEEP IT SIMPLE.The easiest way to adhere to all of the above rules is to adhere to this one. Be very simple in your approach. If you can’t see the big picture, do a good job on the parts that you can see. If you don’t know what the whole thing should look like, simply do whatever step you do see needs to be done.
1. Remember that your essay is being graded by a human being.Many people studying for the bar exam get so caught up in memorizing obscure rules and rigid outlines that they forget the basics of writing a decent essay. An essay is not an outline. It is not an unprocessed mass of all the things you know about a topic. Instead, it is a communicationbetween you and the reader. Write like a human being who is writing to another human being!
2. Establish and maintain the correct tone.The tone used in writing an essay is different from that used in writing a performance test deliverable. In an essay, write as though you are addressing an educated person who knows little about law but who can be brought up to speed by a clear, concise explanation. Thus, you want to mention basic principles briefly without belaboring them and then move on to cover the specifics of the present stimulus.
3. IRAC works.There is a reason why the IRAC ( issue, rule, application, conclusion) structure is taught in virtually every legal writing class: it works. Some people complain that this structure is too rigid. But the fact is that you are not writing an essay to become a famous author. You are not trying to appeal to the masses. You are trying to get points and pass the bar exam. Well-written IRAC applied to each of the major issues is a good way to get that job done.
NOTE: BarRev created the ILFAC™ method, because that method scores higher and allows students to move faster. The ILFAC™ method is still the best choice, but IRAC works if done well.
4. Get some points right up front.A one-paragraph “roadmap” of the major issues and what you are going to say about them makes a good first impression on the reader. If the reader knows in advance that he or she is going to get high-quality work from you, he or she is more likely to be in a receptive frame of mind while reading the remainder of your essay. Use this psychology to your advantage.
5. Hit the right stride and stick with it.You must develop an internal gauge for the right mix of reading time, organizing time, and writing time. Don’t get yourself backed into a corner by over-analyzing, but don’t rush into writing without any sort of plan. Finding the right balance is a matter of practice, review, and more practice.
The naturalist fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which it is argued that, since something occurs in nature, that thing is morally acceptable. An example of the naturalist fallacy would be:
Rape occurs in nature. Not only do humans commit rape, but other species commit rape as well. Therefore, rape is acceptable.
While few people would hazard the above argument in polite society, millions of modern citizens use the exact same argument in a different context:
Killing and eating animals occurs in nature. Not only do humans kill and eat animals, but other species kill and eat animals as well. Therefore, killing and eating animals is acceptable.
In technical terms, this fallacy consists of an unwarranted shift between descriptive premises (e.g., rape occurs) and a prescriptive or normative conclusion (e.g., rape is okay). The argument is accordingly invalid. A way to undermine a naturalist fallacy argument is to point out that mere occurrence of an event does not make it right. For instance, in the first example above, the argument is undermined by pointing out that our society has almost universally agreed that rape is unacceptable, even though it occurs.
Bird
2. False Dichotomy Fallacy
The false dichotomy fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which two alternative conclusions are assumed to be the only two possible conclusions. An example of the false dichotomy fallacy would be:
John is not an atheist. Therefore, he must be a Christian.
The reasoning is flawed because there are many more than two philosophical or religious positions available to a person. In the context of justifying and perpetuating inhumanity, the false dichotomy fallacy is used in a variety of ways, such as:
Going without protein is not healthy. Therefore, we must eat animals.
In technical terms, this fallacy consists of an unwarranted assumption that there is a disjunctive (i.e., “either/or”) relationship between two terms (e.g., one must either be Christian or atheist). The argument is accordingly invalid. A way to undermine a false dichotomy argument is to point out that there is a third possible conclusion, one which can occur without either of the first two possible conclusions occurring.
For instance, in the first example above, the argument is undermined by pointing out that it is possible for a person to be neither an atheist nor a Christian but rather a Muslim.
3. Name-Of-God Fallacy
The name-of-God fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which it is argued that, since a seemingly atrocious act is committed in the name of religion, patriotism, science or some other cause, the act is acceptable. An example of the name of God fallacy would be:
The World Trade Center was destroyed and thousands of people died, but this action was committed in the name of God. Therefore, this action was acceptable.
This form of reasoning is unfortunately common in its usage today. The reasoning is flawed because a person’s motivation for committing an act is not sufficient to justify the act itself. Other examples include:
These dogs were intentionally drowned, but this action was committed for the advancement of science. Therefore, this action was acceptable.
These prisoners were intentionally tortured, but this action was committed in the name of patriotism. Therefore, this action was acceptable.
In technical terms, this fallacy consists of an unwarranted shift from descriptive premises (e.g., the subjective intentions of a perpetrator) to a prescriptive or normative conclusion (e.g., a seemingly atrocious act is not atrocious). The argument is accordingly invalid. It may actually be worse than a bare ends-justify-the-means argument, since the name-of-God fallacy may be used even in the absence an “end” worth pursuing. A way to undermine a name-of-God argument is to point out that an atrocious act remains an atrocious act even when committed by someone who thinks that he or she is serving a cause or ideal.
4. Irrelevant Distinction Fallacy
The irrelevant distinction fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which it is argued that, since a difference between two cases can be perceived, different treatment of the two cases is justified. An example of the irrelevant distinction fallacy would be:
Women and men have different chromosomes. Therefore, the legal system should treat women and men differently.
The reasoning is flawed because a mere scientific difference is not by itself sufficient to justify institutionalized legal discrimination. Other examples include:
These people are from a different culture. Therefore, they are inferior to us.
Humans are generally smarter than other animals. Therefore, only humans deserve rights.
These animals were intentionally burned alive, which would be a crime if committed at home. But these animals were intentionally burned alive in a university laboratory; therefore, this act was not a crime.
It is wrong to eat cats or dogs. But cows have hooves rather than paws. Therefore, it is not wrong to eat cows.
In technical terms, this fallacy is simply one of relevance, i.e., the argument assumes without warrant that the premises offered have probative value with respect to the conclusion. The argument is accordingly invalid. Arguments employing fallacies of relevance are particularly easy to shoot down by following the irrelevant premises to some bizarre conclusion. For instance, in the first example above, the argument can be undermined by pointing out that if a mere chromosomal difference were enough to require legal distinction, then every unique individual (except for genetically identical twins) would have to have a one-person legal system made specially for them. Such a situation would render the notion of a “legal system” largely meaningless.
5. Appeal to Tradition
The appeal to tradition fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which it is argued that since a seemingly atrocious act is part of a tradition, the act is not an atrocity. An example of the appeal to tradition fallacy would be:
Female genital mutilation (euphemistically called “female circumcision”) seems like an atrocity. But since female genital mutilation is part of the African tradition, female genital mutilation is not an atrocity.
The reasoning is flawed because the mere fact that an act has become a tradition does not make that act acceptable. Other examples include:
Torturing a trapped bull to death seems like an atrocity. But since bull “fighting” is a Spanish tradition, bull “fighting” is not an atrocity.
Torturing an animal to death seems like an atrocity. But this form of torture is part of our religious tradition. Therefore, this form of torture is not an atrocity.
In technical terms, this fallacy is simply one of relevance, i.e., the argument assumes without warrant that the premises offered have probative value with respect to the conclusion. The argument is accordingly invalid. Arguments employing this fallacy can be easily shot down by demonstrating that many traditions have already been abolished because they were, despite being traditions, obviously immoral. Human slavery would be a classic example.
6. Perfect-Voting-Record Fallacy
The perfect-voting-record fallacy is a flawed method of reasoning in which it is assumed that a small set of issues that were expressly considered represent all possible issues that could have been considered. An example of the PVR fallacy would be:
The terrorist regime of Q commits thousands of acts of terrorism every year, but only once has the Q leadership considered a limitation on terrorism. This limitation—which provided that suicide-bombers should not eat garlic—passed unanimously. Therefore, the terrorists of Q have a perfect voting record on terrorism.
While most people would not be duped by the above argument, many well-meaning activists go for the following argument and even use it themselves:
The meat-eaters of political party J kill and eat several thousand animals each year, but only a few limitations on animal-killing have been considered. These limitations—which provide that animals to be killed must not be caged in veal crates—have been unanimously supported by the meat-eaters in political party J. Therefore, the meat-eaters in party J have a perfect voting record for animals.
In technical terms, this fallacy consists of reliance on an unrepresentative sample. Specifically, the argument ignores the potentially thousands of issues that could have been addressed but were not. The argument is accordingly invalid.
A way to undermine a perfect-voting-record argument is to point out that one cannot be said to have a “perfect voting record” on a subject when one has simply failed to vote at all on the major issues pertaining to that subject. For instance, the ancient Sumerians probably never held a vote on the militarization of space, but to conclude that they therefore had a “perfect voting record” on the militarization of space would be bizarre.
7. Misplaced Burden Fallacy
The misplace burden fallacy is a flawed method of reasoning in which the burden of persuasion is initially placed on the wrong side of a debate or legal battle. An example of the MB fallacy would be:
The plaintiff bears the burden of proof and persuasion in the American legal system. But, today, we’re going to pretend that the burden is on the defendant anyway. And since the defendant hasn’t proven his case, he loses.
No lawyer would allow such nonsense to slip by in court of law, but many well-meaning citizens, even animal rights activists, fail to confront this commonly held view:
Torturing and killing of the innocent is universally recognized as wrong. But, today, we’re going to pretend that torturing and killing of the innocent is right anyway. And since those who oppose such torture and killing haven’t proven their case, they lose.
In technical terms, this fallacy consists of replacing a premise known to be true with a premise known to be false. Specifically, the argument places the initial burden on party A, even though it is known that party B actually bears the initial burden. The argument is accordingly invalid.
Make no mistake: the burden of persuasion belongs on those who favor killing and torturing of the innocent, not on those who oppose it. And that burden will never be successfully carried. Which is why the global transition to veganism is not only desirable but inevitable.
(Original article publication date: January 24, 2010 (Cruelty-Free))
First, let’s make one thing clear: I can’t cook. I appreciate good food and truly admire folks who can bring together a fine meal (and sure do like to be invited to their houses—hint, hint!), but I am not such a person. And that’s putting it mildly. . . .
This reality caused me a bit of concern when I first adopted a vegan diet. My only motivation for going vegan was that veganism is the ethical choice. But, like most people in our culture, my eating habits until that time had relied largely upon dead animals (i.e., meat) and animal-exploitation products (e.g., milk, butter and eggs). Without any real cooking or food preparation skills and without being able to rely upon the same old menu, I remember pouring that last gallon of milk down the drain and thinking, “Wow, I sure I hope I’ll figure out a way to eat enough to survive.”
Surprise, Surprise
As it turns out, eating well—and eating better than I ever had before—has not been an issue. A vegan diet—much to my surprise—turns out to be easier, safer and healthier than an animal-based diet. And one company that is doing its part to make a vegan diet also a convenient diet is Sequel Naturals, which is based in Vancouver, BC, with U.S. offices in Blaine, WA.
Vega
Sequel produces a line of vegan convenience foods called Vega. Formulated by Ironman triathlete Brendan Brazier, Vega offers a wide variety of ready-made vegan meals that come in forms such as an energy bar or a powder that can be mixed with water. Here’s a quick guide.
Vega Whole Food Energy Bar
Sequel’s Vega Energy Bars condense a whole lot of nutrition into a small package. The size of a standard candy bar, the Vega Energy Bar includes ten grams (10g) complete raw protein, six grams (6g) dietary fiber, and four-and-a-half grams (4.5.) of Omega 3 and 6 essential fatty acids. Available in chocolate, berry, and natural flavors, I have thoroughly enjoyed incorporating Vega Energy Bars into my diet as an easy way to get in a good meal while on the go.
My favorite is, of course, the chocolate Vega Energy Bar. And, since it’s often hard to find any vegan chocolate items, I’ve particularly appreciated discovering Sequel’s chocolate offering as both a yummy and good-for-you way to get my chocolate fix.
Left: My favorite super-model, Kitty Witty Bang-Bang, showed up at the shoot while I was photographing the Vega Energy Bar.
Vega Complete Whole Food Health Optimizer
Sequel’s Vega powder is practically a feat of food engineering. Coming in a thirty gram (30g) serving that can be mixed with eight ounces of water to form a complete meal, the Vega Complete Whole Food Health Optimizer blows away my previous expectations of what a convenience meal could be. To wit, this supercharged supplement provides:
Calcium equivalent to five (5) cups of milk
Fiber equivalent to seven (7) slices of bread
Omega 3 equivalent to six (6) ounces of dead salmon flesh
Potassium equivalent to six (6) bananas
Iron equivalent to twenty-nine (29) ounces of dead cow flesh
and a whole lot more
Moreover, two packages of the Vega Complete Whole Food Health Optimizer provide 100% of RDI of vitamins and minerals. Such is the power of a convenience food that has been extremely well designed.
Other Offerings
The Vega line from Sequel also includes the Vega Whole Food Vibrance Bar (Green Synergy, Chocolate Decadence, and Wholesome Original flavors), Vega Antioxidant EFA Oil Blend, and Vega Whole Food Smoothie Infusion. All these products include the same kind of plant-based nutrition that makes the other Vega products special.
My recommendation: a strong buy. For more information, visit the Vega website from Sequel at http://www.myvega.com.
(Original article publication date: August 18, 2009 (Cruelty-Free))
I’m departing from the usual topic for this column to provide a review of a conference I attended on Friday, April 24, 2009.
Hosted at the Fish Interfaith Center of Chapman University, the event was entitled “Do Unto Others . . . A Conference on Animals and Religion”. This conference—the first of its kind in Southern California—was put together by a group of scholars who have taken on the name of “Interreligious Voices for Animal Compassion” (or just “IVAC”), including Zandra Wagoner, Beth A. Johnson, and Ronald L. Farmer.
The conference was a wonderful experience, and I sincerely hope that this one will be the beginning of an annual (at a minimum) tradition.
Some Highlights
The facility itself, particularly Wallace All Faiths Chapel, was certainly conducive to the kind of thoughtful discussion and contemplation that the day provided. Beginning at 9:00am, this hall was filled with wonderful harp music that began the day and was interspersed between speakers for the first hour.
Introductory speakers provided some background regarding how the conference came about as well as quotes and a series of personal statements pertaining to animals in the context of spirituality. These speakers were followed by a first keynote speaker, Jay McDaniel, Director for the Steel Center for the Study of Religion and Philosophy at Hendrix College in Arkansas and author of numerous books, including the classicOf God and Pelicans: A Theology of Reverence for Life.
Jay’s talk not only set forth a number of powerful intellectual insights regarding animals and how they are viewed in the world’s major religions but also allowed glimpses into his personal experiences related to animals and how these experiences have shaped his own world view of the value of life. Jay has a knack for being able to address high philosophy and self-effacing humor simultaneously, which made his presentation a delight that went by too quickly.
Beth Johnson and Jay McDaniel prepare for a vegan dinner.
In between the morning events, participants mingled with representatives from a number of different animal-related organizations, including Animal Acres founder and Farm Sanctuary pioneer Lorri Houston
.
Shelley Harrison and Lorrie Houston take a break between sessions.
The Christian Vegetarian Assocation had a display providing a wide variety of literature, as did Peta, and the conference organizers also provided display copies of about forty key books in the field.
After breaking for a vegan lunch, conference-goers chose two out of six different one-hour workshops to attend consecutively during the afternoon. I personally attended a session called “Inside the Trenches: An Evangelical Looks at Animal Compassion,” which was led by Presbyterian Minister Reverend Mark Bruner, and “Schweitzer and the Animals”, which was led by Dr. Marvin Meyer, Chair of the Religious Studies Department and Director of the Albert Schweitzer Institute at Chapman. Both sessions were excellent, and I wished I had been able to attend all six.
Thereafter, the conference reconvened as a single group for a panel discussion featuring McDaniel, Johnson and Wagoner. This portion was one of my favorite parts of the day, since the flexibility of the format allowed for a great deal of spontaneous discussion and Q&A between the conference-goers and featured speakers.
That evening, we all gathered for a vegan feast in a different location on the Chapman campus. The dinner was fabulous, and I thoroughly enjoyed getting to meet the people at my table. We shared light-hearted stories regarding being vegan in a world that eats dead animals as well as discussed strategies on how to get the word out about the pervasive cruelty in our culture. I found it encouraging and uplifting to be around like-minded folks.
Batting clean-up hitter for the day was the vivacious Karen Dawn, author ofThanking the Monkey: Rethinking the Way We Treat Animals, which has received numerous accolades, including that of being among the “Best Books of the Year” according to the Washington Post. Like Jay, Karen is somehow able to discuss grave–and sometimes heartbreaking–matters and yet remain fun, witty and charming while doing it.
Karen Dawn discusses her fowl friends at the evening banquet.
Overall, the event was a smashing success. I hope there are many more to follow.
Biographer 
You must be logged in to post a comment.