Let's say one of the issues is a battery claim... and say the "harmful contact" is obvious but the intent element may not be... Do you still bring a fact in to support that the contact was harmful? Do you dutifully make out a prima facie case or just talk about the contentious issue, doing something like including "since the contact was harmful"
Nothing is ever obvious on a law school exam. “Since the contact was harmful” is a conclusion you won’t get any points for. Explain why the contact was harmful, if its obvious then do it quickly, but don’t make assumptions/conclusions without explaining why you came to that assumption/conclusion or your leaving points on the table.
so in a case where the "harmful contact" was a gunshot, something like "since the gunshot was clearly harmful contact..." then if the real issue is intent... go from there...?
I'd have to see the hypo to give you a better answer, but yea if your running down the list of elements of battery in your asnwer, you want to adress each one, but if its obvious you don't need to say to much, so for hamrful conatct elemnt "the gunshot wound to the chest represnts the harmful contact elemnet.." next elemnt of battery. So I, R (each element, obviouse elements sate why and move on) A - focus on your intent issue/elemnt then C. That way you show the prof you know all the elements without just doing a C for harmful conatct and moving on.
So my answer might look something like this:
Is D guilty of battery for shooting P in the leg? A prima facia case of the tort of battery requires establishing (1) Harmful or offensive contact, (2) With the P’s person, (3) Intent, (4) Causation. Here we have harmful contact because the builit struck P in the leg causing him to fall to the ground bleeding. Additionally the builit fired from D’s gun struck P’s person in the leg. However, on the element of intent balh, blah. Then address causation. Then end with “Therefore, given that D;s actions of shooting P in the leg meet all the lements of the tort of battery D is likely to be found liable in this case.”