Example: "Negligence requires duty and breach" (missing causation, damages)

Diagnosis: Count elements in source cases. Does the rule statement have all?

Feedback: "Your rule has elements 1, 2, 3. You're missing element 4, which [cases] require."

Teach: Model reading a multi-element case and extracting all elements into the rule statement.

Example: "Negligence requires intent to cause harm" (wrong—negligence doesn't require intent)

Diagnosis: Read the case. Compare to student's rule. Ask: "Does the case actually say this?"

Feedback: "The case says [X]. Your rule says [Y]. Notice the difference? [Clarification of correct rule]."

Prevent: Require case annotations. Check rule statements before students draft application.

Example: "Case A says X. Case B says Y. Case C says Z." (No unified rule)

Diagnosis: Look for multiple sentences starting with "Case [name] says." No integrated rule statement.

Feedback: "You've listed three cases. Integrate them: The rule requires X (from Case A), Y (from Case B), and Z (from Case C)."

Teach: Model how to combine three rules into one synthesized statement. Use graphic organizer if helpful.

Example: "The defendant breached duty." (No facts or explanation)

Diagnosis: Application section is very short. Can you identify which facts prove the conclusion? If not, it's conclusory.

Feedback: "You state X. Now show me how facts prove X. Use: '[Fact] shows [element] because [connection to legal standard].'"

Teach: Model weak vs. strong application. Emphasize: application is where legal thinking happens.

Example: Arguments only why plaintiff wins; no acknowledgment of counterargument

Diagnosis: Read application. Is there any acknowledgment of the other side's argument? If not, it's one-sided.

Feedback: "You said X. But couldn't [other party] argue Y? How would you respond? Add that counterargument and your response."

Teach: Model debate structure: Thesis → Antithesis → Synthesis. Make counterargument a rubric point.

Example: "The defendant was negligent" (no specific facts cited) or "There was breach" (doesn't cite which contract term or how it was breached)

Diagnosis: Count factual references. Can you remove facts and the argument still makes sense?

Feedback: "State your conclusion, then cite specific facts that prove it. Use: The fact that [specific fact] shows [element] because [connection to rule]."

Teach: Have students highlight facts in their application. Emphasize: legal analysis is matching facts to law.

Example: Missing conclusion, rule explanation, application, or closing conclusion

Diagnosis: Check each CREAC component. Present? Conclusion clear? Rule explained? Application shown? Conclusion restated?

Feedback: Identify which component is missing: "Your opening doesn't state your conclusion" or "Where's your rule explanation?" or "You need application to show facts meet the rule."

Prevent: Require CREAC template use. Model structure repeatedly. Make each component a rubric point.

Example: Paragraph jumps topics without transitions. Sentences don't connect logically.

Diagnosis: Read paragraph. Do sentences relate? Can you see the logic flow? Is there a topic sentence?

Feedback: "This sentence about X doesn't connect to the previous sentence about Y. Add a transition word (therefore, however, etc.) to show how these relate."

Prevent: Require outlining. Use peer review for flow assessment.