> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://jennyrice.gitbook.io/wrd-418-legal-writing/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://jennyrice.gitbook.io/wrd-418-legal-writing/chapter-2-what-is-legal-reasoning/assignment.md).

# Assignment

Plan a debate in which you argue for or against a conclusion using either deductive reasoning (syllogism) or analogical reasoning (comparison to precedent). 

I will assign your group to one of the hypotheticals below. Your group will need to do the following. 

<mark style="background-color:$success;">**Step 1: Draft arguments for both sides using both deductive and analogical reasoning.**</mark>

* <mark style="background-color:$success;">**For Deductive Reasoning:**</mark> Apply the rule directly to your hypo's facts to reach a conclusion.
  * Major Premise:
  * Minor Premise (supported by precedents):
  * Conclusion:
  * Supporting points for debate:
  * Use the precedents to support your argument.&#x20;
* <mark style="background-color:$success;">**For Analogical Reasoning**</mark>**:** Compare your hypo to the past cases.
  * Base Point (precedent):
  * Similarities to hypo case:
  * Differences from hypo case:
  * Argument for treating them the same or differently:
  * Supporting points for debate:

<mark style="background-color:$success;">**Step 2: Draft arguments for**</mark><mark style="background-color:$success;">**&#x20;**</mark>*<mark style="background-color:$success;">**both sides**</mark>*<mark style="background-color:$success;">**&#x20;**</mark><mark style="background-color:$success;">**using both forms of reasoning.**</mark> &#x20;

#### <mark style="background-color:$success;">**Step 3: Anticipate Counterarguments**</mark>

* Identify one argument the opposing side might make.
* Write a brief rebuttal using the same reasoning method (deductive or analogical).

#### <mark style="background-color:$success;">**Step 4: Prepare for Class Debate**</mark>

* Present:
  1. Your main arguments.
  2. Rebuttal to the opposing view.

***

## <mark style="color:$danger;">**Hypothetical #1**</mark>

**Rule:** *Dog owners are strictly liable for injuries caused by their dogs if the dog was unleashed in a public park.*

**Precedents:**

* **Case A:** *Smith v. City Park* — A dog ran loose and bit a passerby. The court held the owner strictly liable because the dog was unleashed.
* **Case B:** *Lee v. City Park* — A dog was leashed and accidentally caused a minor injury when bumping into someone. The court held the owner **not liable** because the dog was under control.

**Facts:**\
Taylor’s dog was in the park on a long retractable leash. While walking, the dog lunged at a jogger and caused a bite wound. Taylor argues the dog was “under control” because it was on a leash. The jogger claims Taylor is liable under the park’s rule.

## <mark style="color:$danger;">**Hypothetical #2**</mark>

**Rule:** No amplified music is allowed in residential neighborhoods after 10 PM.

**Precedents:**

* **Case A:** *Johnson v. City* — A neighbor played loud music through speakers at 11 PM. Court held the rule was violated.
* **Case B:** *Reed v. City* — A neighbor played acoustic guitar softly at 9 PM. Court held no violation occurred.

**Facts:**\
Morgan plays a small Bluetooth speaker on their porch at 10:15 PM. The sound is faint but audible to neighbors. A neighbor files a complaint. Morgan argues the music is not “loud” enough to violate the rule.

## <mark style="color:$danger;">**Hypothetical #3**</mark>

**Rule:** Employees must wear closed-toe shoes in the workshop area for safety reasons.

**Precedents:**

* **Case A:** *Miller v. Factory* — An employee wore sandals and suffered a minor foot injury; the court held the dress code was violated and safety measures justified.
* **Case B:** *Jones v. Factory* — An employee wore sneakers with reinforced toes and no incidents occurred; the court held the dress code was followed.

**Facts:**\
Alex wears slip-on shoes with thin soles while working in the workshop. No injuries occurred, but a supervisor cites Alex for violating the dress code. Alex argues the shoes are sufficient for safety since they cover the toes.

## <mark style="color:$danger;">**Hypothetical #4**</mark>

**Rule:** No vehicle may be parked in fire lanes under any circumstances.

**Precedents:**

* **Case A:** *Davis v. City Parking* — A car was parked in a fire lane during peak hours; the court held the owner violated the rule.
* **Case B:** *Chen v. City Parking* — A delivery truck briefly stopped in a fire lane to unload groceries with hazard lights on; the court held this did **not** violate the rule.

**Facts:**\
Jordan, a Doordash driver, stops in a fire lane for three minutes to pick up an order from a café. A parking officer issues a ticket. Jordan argues that stopping briefly to complete a delivery is like the delivery truck in *Chen* and should not be considered a violation.