The Rule of Legal Analysis

Law students are told to 'argue both side of the issue,' in the

analysis. Students interpret this advice, by writing, "Plaintiff

will argue ..... Defendant will argue .........," througout their

essays.

Not at all effective.

Think about it. Plaintiff will argue.. that they are right.

Defendant will argue.. that plaintiff is wrong.

There often is no REAL ANALYSIS in such a student essay.

THE GOSSIP TECHNIQUE.

An effective Gossip will never start out saying something bad about

someone. Gossip's are familiar with Gould's Second Law of

HumanDynamics. They know that if they say something bad about Bo

right of the bat, the reaction of the Gossipee will be to respond

that Bo is a good guy, through Gould's Second Law "Every Human

Action Will Induce an Equal and Opposite Reaction."

Therefore, a good Gossip always starts out saying something Good

about Bo.

For example, "Bo is a great guy. You should see how much he does

for charity. On most days, you would be hard pressed to find a more

caring and wonderful guy..."

Now, by the time the gossip gets a few sentences into how great Bo

is, the other person is begging the Gossip to "give them the dirt on

Bo."

Likewise, the Gossip Technique.

Take the breaking and entering aspect of burglary. If you have want

to conclude this issue by saying a breaking and entering was

present, then you start first by reasoning there is NO breaking and

entering:

To Wit:

"At first glance, it appears as though a breaking did not occur, as

defendant did not break anything, and they only opened a screen door

before walking in the house."

Makes sense. The above is exactly what the defendant will assert.

And you are not wasting time with the empty phrasing of "Defendant

will argue.."

Now, quickly pivot, and go in the opposite direction: