So are you saying that you don't mind hypotheticals, hypothetically, but you didn't like this one?
One thing E. left out, which might benefit from being explained, is that lawyers are trained to argue by giving them hypotheticals to argue about, taking one side, and then the other. So, as the daughter of a lawyer, she was probably trained to do that, possibly without realizing it.
But no law school hypothetical ever has enough in it to completely solve it, and when I was in law school we got extra points for imaginative solutions which brought in outside possibilities to flesh out the solution. E.g. the example I am so fond of, the man hitting a child. If that's all the hypo is, it's impossible to solve creatively. You have to say, well, could the child be on fire? Does he have something stuck in his throat? Does he have an insect on his body? Is the man the child's father and is he disciplining the child? Has he gone too far, and should he be sent for counseling? Is he a stranger assaulting the child? And that's how you would approach it. If you automatically assume the obvious, assault, that's not wrong, but it's not a good solution.
I like arguing hypos, myself. But then, I am a lawyer. |
