analogical reasoning on exams? Forum

[kswiss]

My Civ Pro and Ks profs are heavy on the common law doctrinal stuff and pretty lax on the rules. 80% of my civpro class was personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and the Erie doctrine. Her only previous exam had a few questions about the actual rules but only in the multiple choice, and the main essay question was almost completely PJ/SMJ/Erie.

I'm wondering if I should use analogical reasoning in the main essay. It seems like it would probably be over and above the typical answer, but I don't know if it is worth the time to get familiar with the facts of each case so that I could successfully analogize. Right now I have a good grasp on the concepts and the rationales behind rules, outline is complete, open book, and I've been taking practice exams. It feels like I can answer the questions just fine without getting too into the cases by just applying the holdings, but I don't know if I should be concentrating and going over the top.

There is no model answer and the prof has been pretty sketchy as to what she expects.

[solidsnake]

Cases/judicial opinions are there to help explain application of the rules and/or to carve out exceptions thereto for some reason or another. If your exam gives you a fact pattern that doesn't seem to fit into rule A or B, analogizing (from both sides) the hypo to cases you've read in class will help get you there. Reasoning by analogy is just one more tool in your arsenal (albeit a big one) to demonstrating your mastery of the material and tools of argumentation (translation: racking up points).

[kswiss]

No idea wtf you are talking about.

By analogical reasoning I mean talking about cases that we have studied and pointing out differences/similarities in the facts as reasons why the holding should/n't apply to the fact pattern.

Sorry for my horrible sentence writing.

[LurkerNoMore]

No idea wtf you are talking about.

By analogical reasoning I mean talking about cases that we have studied and pointing out differences/similarities in the facts as reasons why the holding should/n't apply to the fact pattern.

Sorry for my horrible sentence writing.

This isn't over and above. This is what exam answers are supposed to do.

[BriaTharen]

No idea wtf you are talking about.

By analogical reasoning I mean talking about cases that we have studied and pointing out differences/similarities in the facts as reasons why the holding should/n't apply to the fact pattern.

Sorry for my horrible sentence writing.

This isn't over and above. This is what exam answers are supposed to do.

[rayiner]

No idea wtf you are talking about.

By analogical reasoning I mean talking about cases that we have studied and pointing out differences/similarities in the facts as reasons why the holding should/n't apply to the fact pattern.

Sorry for my horrible sentence writing.

This isn't over and above. This is what exam answers are supposed to do.

Right. You'll rarely get something on an exam that's exactly like a case you studied.

[Wavelet]

Depends very much on the professor. Also, analogical reasoning tends to be more important in some classes (Constitutional Law) than others (Criminal Law).

[beach_terror]

Depends very much on the professor. Also, analogical reasoning tends to be more important in some classes (Constitutional Law) than others (Criminal Law).

My crim teacher puts a premium on this, FWIW.

[joobacca]

Depends very much on the professor. Also, analogical reasoning tends to be more important in some classes (Constitutional Law) than others (Criminal Law).

i agree. and i feel civ pro is more like con law than crim in that respect.