Now we're going to look at a representative good answer provided by the state of New York. And like we did with the analysis above, we'll go prompt by prompt, noting what this answer did well and what it could have done even better. Again, this is a good answer, a really good one, in fact.

First, let's just take a look at the overall structure of the first prompt. Remember that our goal is for every written answer to have four parts and in the same order every time. Conclusion, rule, application conclusion. CRAC. Just following that recipe over and over will really help you rack up points on the MEE.

Remember I said that I want your approach to the MEE to be mechanical and automatic to the point where you're not so much writing an essay as just assembling an answer? That's what I mean.

Now, this essay doesn't exactly do that on prompt 1. It starts with a numbered header, "Bank v. State A in federal court." And that's fine if it's there to help the test taker remember what's what, but it's not going to score any points with the grader. And then the first real sentence here is an issue statement rather than a conclusion.

So, right away, we can tell that this essay is doing IRAC instead of CRAC. You might find that, as you're writing the essay, the IRAC formula is easier to follow because you might have to write out the rule paragraph and the application paragraph before you discover your conclusion. That's perfectly fine. Use your first paragraph to state the issue. But it's a super quick fix to edit that first paragraph once you're done with your essay to transform what you initially wrote as an issue into a conclusion, something with the word "because" in it.

For example, instead of "The issue is whether this action is permitted under the Eleventh Amendment," this test taker could have just said, "This suit against State A cannot be maintained because of," and there's that key word "because," indicating your reasoning, "the Eleventh Amendment." Or even better, "because the Eleventh Amendment gives states immunity against suits for money damages."

And it's always good to go ahead and bold or underline that sentence or sentences just to make it super clear for the grader that right here, you've earned your points. Having said that, I'll give the test taker here some credit for noting correctly in the issue statement that the issue here is about the Eleventh Amendment. That's not something that the prompt itself says, so the test taker probably did pick up some points there.

Now, these next two paragraphs are just fantastic. Truly impressive work. The first one is a superb statement of the applicable rule, which, as we discussed above, is the key to this prompt. The last sentence of the paragraph states the main point, "Citizens of the state or other states are not permitted to sue a state directly for damages," and then enumerates the exceptions before it.

Probably could have done that in the other order, I guess, but really great substance for a rule paragraph. In fact, it even notes the rule of Hans v. Louisiana, that even in-state citizens can't sue states for money damages.

The next paragraph I like as well, because it starts off, as all my favorite application paragraphs do, with the word "Here." That tells the grader that you're about to zero in on the fact pattern and also gives you a mental cue for what to do next.

As we discussed earlier, there's really not much application to do on this prompt. This answer goes a little above and beyond by noting that there's no indication of waiver or a valid federal statute abrogating immunity. Those are two things that aren't in the fact pattern, in other words, but would have mattered if they were.

I don't love the next paragraph, which starts, "Furthermore." It's not exactly wrong. State officials are generally immune from money damages when acting in their official capacities, but it's also not responsive to the prompt, which asked whether the bank can maintain a suit in federal court against State A for damages.

The superintendent is the focus of the next prompt, so all this could have been held for that. I think the test taker probably just got carried away here or else felt nervous about having not written enough. But again, once you're done, you're done. Move on.

And finally, and this is really nitpicky, the final C in CRAC, the second conclusion, should be in its own paragraph. So that last sentence, which starts with "Therefore," which is great, that's how it should start, should also be on its own line.

The second prompt sets up a lot like the first in terms of its structure, so I won't belabor the point too much. Again, we want the first part of our written answer to be a conclusion, that's the first C in our C-R-A-C, and ideally a reason as well, something with a "because" in it. Here, the test taker starts with the issue instead, and that's not bad.

The answer does correctly identify the Eleventh Amendment as a relevant issue, which gives the grader something to work with. But it would be pretty easy to come back, even after writing the rest of the answer, and transform that into a bolded conclusion sentence, like "The bank's suit against the state superintendent can be maintained because the Eleventh Amendment, or the doctrine of Ex parte Young, permits parties to seek injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacity."

The next paragraph states the rule and does a good job of conveying all the substance. One thing just to note here is that it says, "as mentioned above," and refers the grader back up to the first prompt. That's not a bad trick if you're really being asked to repeat a rule. And that does sometimes happen, like if back-to-back prompts ask you about two different parties' liability under the same rule. You wouldn't need to repeat the rule for the second party.

But that can also be a signal that maybe you should reorganize your answers. Here, as we noted a minute ago, the "furthermore" sentence in the first prompt is really unnecessary there and would fit more naturally down here under the second prompt.

After that, we get a great application paragraph. It starts off with "Here" and states the very few relevant facts necessary to justify the application of Ex parte Young, and really that's where the application should stop. I'd just jump straight to the "In conclusion" sentence, which is a nice summary, but this test taker goes on to argue that the bank does, in fact, have standing, and that's fine, I suppose.

The rule and the analysis here is correct, but again, it's not particularly responsive to the prompt, which was really focused on injunctive relief and the state superintendent. So this standing analysis would apply equally to the first prompt or the third. So it just feels kind of tacked on here. Again, maybe the test taker was just feeling a need to say a little more. Still, really strong answer on prompt 2.

Let's move on to prompt 3. Again, we're starting off with an issue statement that could easily be made into a conclusion. And here I'm just making one up based on this test taker's own analysis of the rule: "State A's statute is likely constitutional because it will probably survive the applicable balancing test under the Dormant Commerce Clause."

The rule statement here should be set off in its own paragraph just to make things as easy as possible for the grader, but otherwise this one does a great job introducing the Dormant Commerce Clause and the two major rule categories that it contains.

That last sentence could be a little more precise. It's not really whether the law places an undue burden on interstate commerce, but rather whether the burdens on interstate commerce are clearly excessive compared to the putative local benefits. But that's just a matter of getting the weights right on the balancing test.

This next paragraph, which is really long and should be broken in half, is a great illustration of how to tackle a two-part rule, or a rule and a sub-rule, or alternative rules.

Remember that there are two categories under the Dormant Commerce Clause: one for protectionist statutes and one for those that incidentally burden interstate commerce. This test taker recognizes that; they're both stated in that rule paragraph. And then the test taker proceeds to apply them both, one after the other, with two back-to-back applications and conclusions.

In fact, you can even see that because there are two "here" statements. I'd set those off into two different paragraphs, I think, just to make it super clear. The first one is terrific, a great showing of why the statute isn't protectionist for purposes of the Dormant Commerce Clause. And it wraps up with a "Therefore," actually two of them, which again is great.

The second one is also really, really strong. After two prompts that called for basically no use of the fact pattern, the test taker here has deployed a whole bunch of facts, not, you'll note, the precise figures and dollar amounts, but that's okay.

And the test taker does a really good job of showing both sides, which is crucial when you're applying a balancing test like this one. A nice way to make that easy on the grader is to do as this one does and use phrases like "on the other hand," because that both says and shows that you're applying the rule.

It would have been nice to wrap this up with a good, clear "therefore" statement, like the final C in our CRAC structure, instead of the "however," but the sentence there is pretty strong. It says, "It likely will pass the balancing test and be upheld." It would just be more clear if there were a "therefore" before that.

What comes after that is really more like a flourish. The test taker goes on to explain why neither of the major Dormant Commerce Clause exceptions are available here, and also why the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV isn't applicable either.

I mean, it's almost just showing off at this point. The test taker clearly knows their stuff and this kind of thing certainly wouldn't count against the final points, but I wouldn't expect you to pick up all of that, especially the Privileges and Immunities point.

So, overall, this is a truly superb answer.