TRY ME!
Legal Search Term Explanation
Summary
The search term Write /20 law % hoffman likely searches for write within 20 words of law and hoffman. The ! Symbol is used for searching alternate word endings. Effective policy arguments often focus on systemic efficiency. A silent fact comparison assumes facts not in the opinion. Aligning language involves using multiple authorities to support a point. Id. Is used for the same source as the previous citation. Fact emphasis highlights influential facts in court opinions. Case distortions involve misinterpretation of precedents. Good legal writing leads with facts and analysis. Counter arguments by highlighting weaknesses and reframing facts. Framing rules to win involves connecting rules directly to outcomes.Full Conversation
****
A.
Searches for “write” within * sentences of “law” and “hoffman"
B.
Searches for “write” within * words of “law” and “hoffman”
C.
Searches for “write” within * sentences of “law” but not including “hoffman”
D.
No idea!
The search term "Write /* law % hoffman" seems to be a combination of specific keywords and symbols used for a specialized search, possibly within a database or search engine that supports such syntax. The most likely interpretation is:
B. Searches for “write” within * words of “law” and “hoffman”
This syntax is common in advanced search queries where a number following a slash (/) typically indicates proximity in terms of words.
If you have more questions or need assistance with a legal topic, feel free to ask!
B. Searches for “write” within * words of “law” and “hoffman”
This syntax is common in advanced search queries where a number following a slash (/) typically indicates proximity in terms of words.
If you have more questions or need assistance with a legal topic, feel free to ask!
What does "!" operate to do in a search?
A.
Search for alternate endings to a word.
B.
Search for alternate words.
C.
Search for terms within the same paragraph.
The "!" in a search query typically operates to:
A. Search for alternate endings to a word.
This is often referred to as truncation or wildcard use in search engines or databases, allowing you to search for various endings of a root word. If you have more questions, feel free to ask!
A. Search for alternate endings to a word.
This is often referred to as truncation or wildcard use in search engines or databases, allowing you to search for various endings of a root word. If you have more questions, feel free to ask!
Which of these would be the most effective policy argument for most legal audiences?
A.
Urging the court to give relief to a client because they will be fired from their job otherwise
B.
Arguing that courts can handle future matters more efficiently if a certain approach is taken.
C.
Pointing out the multiple mistakes an attorney made in formatting a filing
Case Rating: *
The most effective policy argument for most legal audiences would likely be:
B. Arguing that courts can handle future matters more efficiently if a certain approach is taken.
This argument appeals to the systemic efficiency and benefits for the court, which can be persuasive in legal settings.
The most effective policy argument for most legal audiences would likely be:
B. Arguing that courts can handle future matters more efficiently if a certain approach is taken.
This argument appeals to the systemic efficiency and benefits for the court, which can be persuasive in legal settings.
*
What is a silent fact comparison?
A.
A fact is mentioned in an opinion but not actually applied or used as part of its reasoning.
B.
No fact appears in a case opinion or author authority, but the decisionmaker assumes it exists.
C.
Facts appear in the parties' filings but not in the opinion.
D.
No idea!
Case Rating: *
A "silent fact comparison" typically refers to option B: "No fact appears in a case opinion or author authority, but the decisionmaker assumes it exists." If you have any other legal questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
A "silent fact comparison" typically refers to option B: "No fact appears in a case opinion or author authority, but the decisionmaker assumes it exists." If you have any other legal questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
What is aligning language?
A.
Using authority that is from the same jurisdiction.
B.
Looking for language in multiple authorities that, taken together, combine to bolster a point.
C.
Looking for language within a case opinion that supports your position.
D.
No idea!
Case Rating: *
Aligning language refers to option B: "Looking for language in multiple authorities that, taken together, combine to bolster a point." This involves searching for similar wording or arguments across different legal sources to strengthen a legal argument. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask!
Aligning language refers to option B: "Looking for language in multiple authorities that, taken together, combine to bolster a point." This involves searching for similar wording or arguments across different legal sources to strengthen a legal argument. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask!
Is the following statement true or false?
An “id.” may be used anytime a source is cited in the prior sentence.
Case Rating: *
The statement is false. "Id." can only be used when the previous citation refers to the exact same source (including page number, if applicable), not just any source cited in the prior sentence.
The statement is false. "Id." can only be used when the previous citation refers to the exact same source (including page number, if applicable), not just any source cited in the prior sentence.
Is the following statement true or false?
Fact emphasis is about reasoning based on what facts a court emphasized the most (or least) in its opinion.
Case Rating: *
True. Fact emphasis involves analyzing how a court's reasoning is influenced by the facts it highlights most or least in its opinion.
True. Fact emphasis involves analyzing how a court's reasoning is influenced by the facts it highlights most or least in its opinion.
Is the following statement true or false?
Case distortions refer to precedent that ignored key facts raised by the parties.
Case Rating: *
False. Case distortions typically refer to the misinterpretation or selective interpretation of legal precedents, not necessarily due to ignoring key facts raised by the parties.
False. Case distortions typically refer to the misinterpretation or selective interpretation of legal precedents, not necessarily due to ignoring key facts raised by the parties.
Is the following statement true or false?
Good legal writers typically lead with persuasive policy.
Case Rating: *
False. While persuasive policy can be important, good legal writers typically lead with facts and legal analysis to establish credibility before incorporating policy arguments.
False. While persuasive policy can be important, good legal writers typically lead with facts and legal analysis to establish credibility before incorporating policy arguments.
What are some key ways you can counter opposing arguments?
You may select more than one option.
A.
Find weaknesses, omissions, and hedging language to highlight
B.
Attack the personal credibility of lawyers because of mistakes they made
C.
Restating only as much of an opposing argument as needed to explain why it's wrong
D.
Affirmatively reframing law or facts to deal with counters from the outset
Case Rating: *
To counter opposing arguments effectively, you can:
- Find weaknesses, omissions, and hedging language to highlight (Option A).
- Restate only as much of an opposing argument as needed to explain why it's wrong (Option C).
- Affirmatively reframe law or facts to deal with counters from the outset (Option D).
These strategies focus on the argument itself rather than personal attacks.
To counter opposing arguments effectively, you can:
- Find weaknesses, omissions, and hedging language to highlight (Option A).
- Restate only as much of an opposing argument as needed to explain why it's wrong (Option C).
- Affirmatively reframe law or facts to deal with counters from the outset (Option D).
These strategies focus on the argument itself rather than personal attacks.
Which of these is the best example of framing rules to win?
A.
"The rule of joinder requires three elements to be met."
B.
“So long as the plaintiff includes allegations supporting the elements of her claim, she wins.”
C.
"The standard of harm requires a showing of actual damages before relief may be granted."
Case Rating: *
The best example of framing rules to win is:
B. "So long as the plaintiff includes allegations supporting the elements of her claim, she wins."
This statement directly connects the rule to the outcome, making it clear and compelling for legal arguments.
The best example of framing rules to win is:
B. "So long as the plaintiff includes allegations supporting the elements of her claim, she wins."
This statement directly connects the rule to the outcome, making it clear and compelling for legal arguments.
Start a new chat