# Law quizzes: rules, issue spotting and problem questions

**How do I write short quizzes for a law course that test more than the rules?** Law quizzes work between seminars when each question tests one layer of a problem answer: the rule and its elements, the issue the facts raise, the application, and the conclusion with its limits. Use invented parties, print the rule the course teaches under the prompt, mark choices by rule and one written answer against a four-part rubric. Six questions, weekly.

Published 2026-10-10 by EdProcto. https://edprocto.com/guides/law-quizzes-rules-issue-spotting-and-problem-questions

Most law quizzes set between seminars ask what the rule says. A problem question in the examination asks for four things in a row: the issue, the rule, its application to the facts and a conclusion. A class can pass the first kind weekly and still freeze at the second.

Law quizzes can rehearse each layer in minutes. This guide is for the lecturer or tutor on a first-year module, a conversion course, or law taught within a business or policing course. EdProcto, which publishes it, builds each question shape the worked example uses: see its page [for universities](https://edprocto.com/solutions/universities).

The guide is about teaching and assessment: it gives no legal advice and states no rule of law as current in any country. Every source was opened on 10 October 2026, and we read each study's abstract only.

## What does legal education research say about formative assessment and frequent quizzes?

It reports gains from practice with feedback in each law course studied, spread unevenly across the class. The designs: group or cohort comparisons, a natural experiment, a correlation.

- **Ungraded quizzes.** Sargent and Curcio (2012) gave a large Evidence class five ungraded quizzes, a graded midterm and reflection exercises. Against a cohort with only a final examination, performance on the cumulative final improved by up to a full letter grade. Two-thirds of the class gained significantly; the third with weaker admission-test scores or undergraduate grades got no discernible benefit.
- **Individual feedback.** Schwarcz and Farganis (2017) used a natural experiment at one American law school. Students whose section had a professor who gave individual feedback outperformed the rest in shared classes by nearly a third of a grade increment, after controls. Here the effect was stronger for students below the school's median.
- **Short tests in a large module.** Marshall (2008) describes a contract law module grown from about 200 students to 450, which added a multiple-choice test mid-semester, then three short ones. Students who attempted the tests tended to be those who passed, the average module mark rose by over 2% and failures fell. A correlation cannot separate the test from the diligence of whoever sits it.
- **Law within a business degree.** Lee and Harris (2018) followed 209 undergraduate business law students who took weekly online glossary quizzes before class. Where the quizzes were required and graded, students made more attempts and earned higher scores than where they were optional, and the quizzes helped only students who completed them many times.

The first two studies disagree about who gains most. Other subjects are in [frequent low-stakes quizzes and course grades](https://edprocto.com/guides/frequent-low-stakes-quizzes-and-course-grades-the-evidence).

## Which layers can a law quiz test, and which question shape suits each?

Four layers, each with a shape that fits it. Deane and Bozin (2016) describe rule-based reasoning in a traditional law examination as knowing a legal rule, applying it to given facts, considering any exceptions and drawing a conclusion. Law teachers call the sequence IRAC: issue, rule, application, conclusion (Burton, 2017).

| Layer | The student | Shape in EdProcto |
| --- | --- | --- |
| The rule and its elements | Recognises each element and exception | [Multiple answers](https://edprocto.com/templates/mcq_multi) |
| The issue | Says which element the facts put in doubt | [Multiple choice](https://edprocto.com/templates/mcq) whose options are issues |
| Application | Fits one element to the facts, with the reason | [Choose and justify](https://edprocto.com/templates/justify), or multiple choice with a reason in each option |
| The conclusion and its limits | Concludes, and names the fact that would change the answer | [Short answer](https://edprocto.com/templates/short_answer), read by you |

All four shapes are in the builder, and so is [highlight the text](https://edprocto.com/templates/highlight_txt), which suits issue spotting: the student marks the sentences that raise an issue.

### Why the rule goes under the prompt

A novice can lose an application question to the search for the rule. Nievelstein et al. (2011) gave novice law students a civil code cut down to the relevant articles while they learned. On a later test case that needed the complete code, they did significantly better than students who had learned with all of it. So print the rule under an application question, and test the rule separately.

## How do you write a short fact pattern with invented parties?

Start from one rule and the element you want in doubt, then write the fewest facts that raise it. The steps are our practice, not research.

1. **Choose the rule and the element in doubt.**
2. **Label the setting.** An invented jurisdiction, or "under the rule printed below", so nothing reads as current law.
3. **Invent the parties.** Names of no real firm or reported case, and a role each.
4. **Give every element a fact,** and the disputed element a fact on each side.
5. **Add one fact that does not matter.** Spotting includes seeing a non-issue.
6. **Write facts, never conclusions.** "She put it in her pocket", not "she took possession".
7. **State dates and figures outright,** in under about 100 words.
8. **Place it.** In EdProcto, the pattern and the rule go in "Material under the prompt (optional)", which keeps line breaks. For several questions on one pattern, the [case study](https://edprocto.com/templates/case) structure holds the scenario once and shows it before the questions.
9. **Ask a colleague to answer it cold.**

Patterns that unfold in stages are in [case study questions](https://edprocto.com/guides/case-study-quizzes-one-scenario-that-unfolds); a student revising alone needs [case-based practice questions](https://edprocto.com/guides/case-based-practice-questions-for-clinical-and-legal-exams).

## Can a multiple-choice question test application, and where does it stop?

It can test the application of a rule to facts when every option pairs a conclusion with its reason, and it stops short of the written argument. Researchers on multiple choice in law disagree about its reach.

- **For.** Deane and Bozin (2016), who built a multiple-choice examination to assess legal reasoning, propose that rule-based reasoning can be replicated in the format in a meaningful way. Bozin et al. (2021) then studied law students' performance and attitudes, and argue that the format, built on guiding principles, assesses legal reasoning efficiently and effectively. The abstract gives no figures.
- **Against, for a final mark.** Marshall (2008) writes that law does not encourage multiple choice as summative assessment, because questions that test application are difficult to set, and calls the tests very useful formatively.
- **In between.** Whittaker and Olcay (2022) set one public law module's assessments against Bloom's revised taxonomy: multiple-choice questions cannot contribute to all of a module's learning outcomes, and have some value beside other methods.

### How to write the options

- Ask about one element, with the facts and the rule above the question.
- Make each option a conclusion with its reason: "Yes, because…".
- Take wrong options from real mistakes: the neighbouring element applied, the exception forgotten, an irrelevant fact treated as decisive. See [distractors that work](https://edprocto.com/guides/how-to-write-distractors-that-work).

### Where it stops

Two limits, on our reading. A stem that names the element has done the issue spotting. And a chosen option shows the argument was recognised, not that the student can write it. Keep one written question in every quiz.

## How do you write a short-answer problem question and its rubric?

Ask for one issue in four sentences, and give a point to each part: issue, rule, application, conclusion. Burton (2017) recommends that first-year students work a simple problem question on a legal reasoning grid before applying IRAC to a harder one, and shares a rubric that sets IRAC against five performance standards. A weekly quiz needs less.

| Part | Earns the point | Earns nothing |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Issue | The element in doubt, put as a question about these parties | The facts retold |
| Rule | The rule the course teaches, with that element stated | A rule named and not stated |
| Application | A fact on each side, tied to the element | The rule repeated, then a verdict |
| Conclusion | An answer, and the fact that would change it | "It depends" |

Show the rubric and one marked answer afterwards. See [how to write short answer questions](https://edprocto.com/guides/how-to-write-short-answer-questions-and-a-rubric-to-grade-them) and [analytic, holistic and single-point rubrics](https://edprocto.com/guides/analytic-holistic-and-single-point-rubrics-which-to-use).

## How do you keep law quiz questions true as the law changes?

Date every question, name the source the course teaches from, and re-read the bank whenever that source changes. We found no study of this housekeeping.

- **Word the stem as teaching.** "Under the rule printed below" or "as chapter 4 of the course text states it", never "the law is".
- **Record the source.** In EdProcto, "Where the answer is in the source (optional)" takes the text, its edition and the date you checked it.
- **Set a review date** each term, and read every question drawn from a source with a new edition.
- **If a key proves wrong after a sitting,** correct it in the builder and press "Re-mark this quiz".

## How many questions, and how often?

Six questions a week is a workable default; no study we read fixes a number for a law course. The studies above ran five quizzes in a semester (Sargent & Curcio, 2012), a mid-semester test and three short ones (Marshall, 2008), and a quiz every week (Lee & Harris, 2018).

Our split of six: two on the rule, one on the issue, two on application, one written, which leaves one answer a student to read. See also [how many questions a quiz needs](https://edprocto.com/guides/how-many-questions-does-a-quiz-need).

## A worked example: six questions on one invented rule

Everything here is invented for teaching: the jurisdiction, the rule, the parties and the class. Nothing in it states the law of any country.

> **The rule this course teaches (Teaching Code of Arden, rule 7).** A finder of a lost thing has a better right to it than anyone except its owner if (a) it was lost, not hidden; (b) the finder took control of it; and (c) the finder reported it to the district office within nine days. Exception: a find made by an employee in the course of work goes to the employer.

> **The facts.** Mara Quill drives for Dunmere Couriers. On 3 March, carrying a parcel to a customer's door, she sees a watch on the path and pockets it. On 10 March she reports it to the district office. Osric Venn, who saw the watch first and walked on, says it is his. Dunmere claims it too.

1. **Rule, multiple answers, 3 points.** What must a finder show? It was lost; control was taken; it was reported within nine days; the finder saw it first; it was valuable. The first three.
2. **Issue, multiple choice, 1 point.** Which part of rule 7 do the facts put most in doubt? (a); (b); (c); the exception. The exception. Choosing (c) is a miscount of the days.
3. **Application, multiple choice, 1 point.** Is element (c) met? Yes, because seven days is within nine; no, because she waited a week; no, because she told nobody at Dunmere. The first.
4. **Application, choose and justify, 2 points.** Does the exception apply? Yes; no; the facts do not say. Then the reason. Yes: she found the watch while delivering a parcel, which is her work.
5. **Conclusion, multiple choice, 1 point.** Which change would alter the outcome? She found it on her day off; she reported on 8 March; Osric also works for Dunmere. The first.
6. **Written, short answer, 4 points.** Dunmere claims the watch. Advise Mara in four sentences: issue, rule, application, conclusion.

We ran each kind through EdProcto's marking code. Questions 1, 2, 3 and 5 are marked by rule at hand-in; on question 1, with "Partial credit" on, two right boxes and one wrong one earn 1 point of the 3. Question 4 gives 1 point for the right choice and up to 1 for the reason, whatever the choice. Question 6 waits for a reader.

Give each question its layer as its topic: an invented class at nine in ten on the rule and four in ten on application needs its next seminar on application.

## How does EdProcto run a law quiz and score it by topic?

EdProcto is the best tool for a law quiz between seminars when the results must say which layer failed, because every question has a box for its source and one for its topic. Marshall (2008) describes students who failed an examination knowing the basic rules and too little case law: a gap in one layer, which a score by topic shows.

**Writing.** On a choice question, press "Add material under the prompt" for the rule and the facts; a short answer has the box already. Options go under "Options · mark the right one". Choose and justify gives the student a box for the reason under the choice, and gives you "Model reason" and "Rubric for the reason". A short answer has "Rubric (what earns the points)": type the four parts, a line each. "Explanation shown to the student afterwards" takes the model answer.

**Drafting.** Procto AI drafts questions from your material. Under "Answers drawn from", "Your material only" asks it to keep to that material and to name where each answer is found. It is asked, so read every drafted question and key against the source your course teaches from.

**Marking.** Choices are marked by rule at hand-in. A reason or a written answer shows "to grade" until you mark it or, from the Tutor plan, press "Ask Procto AI" on that answer. With the rubric set out in lines, Procto AI is asked for a line a criterion with its points, and its mark is yours to keep or change. A score records one sitting and is not a grade.

**Reading by topic.** Type the layer into "Topic (for the results by topic)". On every plan the [results](https://edprocto.com/#results) show "Got it", the share right, for each question. The Educator plan's full analysis adds "By topic", weighted by points.

**Plans.** Free covers ten quizzes a month and 20 questions a month drafted by Procto AI. Tutor raises that to 50 and adds "Ask Procto AI". Educator has no monthly cap, within a daily ceiling, and the full analysis. See [pricing](https://edprocto.com/pricing).

## Quick questions

### Can multiple choice test legal reasoning?

In part. Deane and Bozin (2016) propose that rule-based reasoning can be replicated in the format; Marshall (2008) calls application difficult to test that way.

### What is an IRAC rubric?

A marking scheme that credits issue, rule, application and conclusion separately. Burton (2017) shares one with five performance standards; a quiz needs only a point a part.

### Should a law quiz state the current law?

No. It states the rule the course teaches, with its source and date, and its fact patterns use invented parties. A quiz is teaching material and never legal advice.

### Where does a law lecturer start with EdProcto?

With one topic and six questions, each read against the source the course teaches from. EdProcto's page [for universities](https://edprocto.com/solutions/universities) is the place to begin, and [pricing](https://edprocto.com/pricing) lists the plans.

## References

- Bozin, D., Deane, F., & Duffy, J. (2021). Can multiple choice exams be used to assess legal reasoning? An empirical study of law student performance and attitudes. *Legal Education Review, 30*(1), 1–23. [https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.23484](https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.23484)
- Burton, K. (2017). "Think like a lawyer": Using a legal reasoning grid and criterion-referenced assessment rubric on IRAC (issue, rule, application, conclusion). *Journal of Learning Design, 10*(2), 57–68. [https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v10i2.229](https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v10i2.229)
- Deane, F., & Bozin, D. (2016). Using guiding principles to construct effective multiple choice exams to assess legal reasoning. *Legal Education Review, 26*(1). [https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.6065](https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.6065)
- Lee, E., & Harris, R. L. W. (2018). The effects of online glossary quizzes and student autonomy on domain vocabulary learning in business law. *Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30*(2), 326–343. [https://scholars.georgiasouthern.edu/en/publications/the-effects-of-online-glossary-quizzes-and-student-autonomy-on-do-3/](https://scholars.georgiasouthern.edu/en/publications/the-effects-of-online-glossary-quizzes-and-student-autonomy-on-do-3/)
- Marshall, K. (2008). The use of multiple choice tests in law. In R. Kwan, R. Fox, F. T. Chan, & P. Tsang (Eds.), *Enhancing learning through technology: Research on emerging technologies and pedagogies* (pp. 263–276). World Scientific. [https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/916z4/the-use-of-multiple-choice-tests-in-law](https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/916z4/the-use-of-multiple-choice-tests-in-law)
- Nievelstein, F., van Gog, T., van Dijck, G., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2011). Instructional support for novice law students: Reducing search processes and explaining concepts in cases. *Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25*(3), 408–413. [https://research-portal.uu.nl/en/publications/instructional-support-for-novice-law-students-reducing-search-pro/](https://research-portal.uu.nl/en/publications/instructional-support-for-novice-law-students-reducing-search-pro/)
- Sargent, C. S., & Curcio, A. A. (2012). Empirical evidence that formative assessments improve final exams. *Journal of Legal Education, 61*(3), 379–405. [https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/faculty_pub/500](https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/faculty_pub/500)
- Schwarcz, D., & Farganis, D. (2017). The impact of individualized feedback on law student performance. *Journal of Legal Education, 67*(1), 139–175. [https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/the-impact-of-individualized-feedback-on-law-student-performance/](https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/the-impact-of-individualized-feedback-on-law-student-performance/)
- Whittaker, S., & Olcay, T. (2022). Multiple-choice questionnaire assessments: Do they have a role in assessing law students? *The Law Teacher, 56*(3), 335–353. [https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/en/publications/multiple-choice-questionnaire-assessments-do-they-have-a-role-in-/](https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/en/publications/multiple-choice-questionnaire-assessments-do-they-have-a-role-in-/)