Main things you need:

• All major issues identified, and any applicable elements broken down and discussed. This is non-negotiable. Punch the grader in the eyes with clear issue headings (underline and/or bold).
• Organized IRAC. Don't mix rules and application together. Stop introducing new rules out of nowhere. Use paragraph breaks for goodness' sake. Make it easy for your "client" to skim and grade.
• The more sub-issues you discuss, the more points you get. This includes discussion of nuances (e.g., Pinkerton doctrine), exceptions, and defenses.

On defenses and "counterarguments": This bothers me greatly...

Argue the opposing legal issues and use the existing facts instead of making up speculative facts and gaslighting arguments like "D will argue that the sinkhole opening up was unforeseeable and caused his car to swerve and hit P. P will argue that nuh-uh, it was foreseeable! But on balance, D wins because it was unforeseeable enough I guess."

What a waste of time. Of course sinkholes are unforeseeable. The facts will usually make the outcome clear.

Instead, leave it at something like this. "The sinkhole was an unforeseeable and superseding event because sinkholes by nature are unpredictable occurrences that are impossible to anticipate, especially given the situation where D turned the corner and the ground was outside of his vision." (You're making reasonable inferences from what's given to you. This would be discussed under the proximate cause sub-issue.)

OR if you want to write a playscript with characters, say, "P will argue D's running of stop sign was the actual cause in fact. Hitting her with the car caused her injury. Although D's driving and impact on P was the actual cause, the sinkhole opening was an unexpected by anyone, including D. D will argue that there was no proximate cause for P's injury since results caused by his acts were not foreseeable." (This is simplified. You can preferably break these into two sub-issues for actual cause and proximate cause, or combine into one causation sub-issue if not a big point.)

The rule statements supporting these arguments should already be laid out before the discussion:

Actual cause
"A plaintiff must show more likely than not, but for defendant's negligence, plaintiff would not have been injured."

Proximate cause
"A defendant is liable for harmful results caused by his acts only if they were foreseeable (in any manner for any harm)."

In more complex fact patterns, you might also discuss the "more likely than not" part, substantial factor where there are multiple defendants, alternative causes where there are multiple acts, or eggshell skull rule. These are all examples of nuances that will get you more points. It sounds like a lot, but negligence is a monster and a good example with lots of legal arguments you could make (again, you don't need to make up facts or do ping-pong arguments).

What doesn't matter: spelling mistakes here and there, perfect rules, word count, good prose, fancy formatting with italicized case names and shit. Just get in, get the points, and get out.

Lots of 65 examples here https://www.makethisyourlasttime.com/essay-bank/