Getting to Maybe question Forum
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:03 pm
Getting to Maybe question
Chapter 4, Section 3.b. - Broad vs. narrow purposes
I understand the concept of spin vs. counter-spin and floodlight vs. laser beam, but I don't understand its application to exams. "Broad vs. narrow purposes" seems out of place in the chapter. What am I missing?
I understand the concept of spin vs. counter-spin and floodlight vs. laser beam, but I don't understand its application to exams. "Broad vs. narrow purposes" seems out of place in the chapter. What am I missing?
- Heartford
- Posts: 427
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:02 pm
Re: Getting to Maybe question
Ugh. I can't answer your question because I stopped reading that book after like 5 pages, but I was stuck in a class taught by one of the authors and this question reminds me of how torturous it was.
-
- Posts: 1396
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:50 pm
Re: Getting to Maybe question
It is possible to well in law school without reading that book. Just saying.
-
- Posts: 7921
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm
Re: Getting to Maybe question
Getting to Maybe: realize there are ambiguities in the law and they will be tested in the exam, argue both ways.
-
- Posts: 5507
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm
Re: Getting to Maybe question
NotMyRealName09 wrote:It is possible to well in law school without reading that book. Just saying.

Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:03 pm
Re: Getting to Maybe question
Glad you have it down. Perhaps you could be the one to answer my question.beach_terror wrote:Getting to Maybe: realize there are ambiguities in the law and they will be tested in the exam, argue both ways.
- YourCaptain
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:26 pm
Re: Getting to Maybe question
You miss the point; at the end of the day, see the ambiguity, argue both ways, come to a conclusion, explain the conclusion.UML wrote:Glad you have it down. Perhaps you could be the one to answer my question.beach_terror wrote:Getting to Maybe: realize there are ambiguities in the law and they will be tested in the exam, argue both ways.
There's no need to pay attention to "floodlights" (I don't even recall what that's in reference to). Seriously, don't make it so complicated. Focus on keeping track of the BLL and significant minutiae that influenced decisions instead of GTM
-
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:42 pm
Re: Getting to Maybe question
Put down your copy of Getting to Maybe and start reading your Torts assignment.UML wrote:Chapter 4, Section 3.b. - Broad vs. narrow purposes
I understand the concept of spin vs. counter-spin and floodlight vs. laser beam, but I don't understand its application to exams. "Broad vs. narrow purposes" seems out of place in the chapter. What am I missing?
End thread.
- Naked Dude
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 3:09 pm
Re: Getting to Maybe question
or tortious amirite?Heartford wrote:Ugh. I can't answer your question because I stopped reading that book after like 5 pages, but I was stuck in a class taught by one of the authors and this question reminds me of how torturous it was.