G. T. L. Rev. wrote:Actually, lots of profs will reduce your score for extraneous/incorrect arguments. For instance, if you wrote about strict liability for ultrahazardous activities when a product was involved (but no hazardous activity), my torts prof would've subtracted points.
While I generally agree that more analysis is better, there is no hard and fast rule, and OP's post is clearly just trolling.
I'll offer this: Law school exams should be written in pseudo stream of consciousness. I say "pseudo" because you shouldn't include irrelevant shit that's not implicated by the facts, but will inevitably cross your mind while you are narrowing the issue. Including this irrelevant shit is
counter-productive even if you dismiss it with valid reasoning, and even if your professor doesn't deduct points for including irrelevant or incorrect info. This is so for at least two reasons: (1) The opportunity cost of spending your time on nonsense as opposed to relevant analysis that's implicated by the facts, and (2) the danger of confusing, boring, or appearing to your professor that you don't know what you're talking about.
Summary: Columbia Law = Troll