ELEMENTS B POWER POINT SLIDES Class #19 Wednesday, October 12, 2015

Music: Schumann, Piano Concerto in A Minor (1849) Grieg, Piano Concerto in A Minor (1872) Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra (2004) Conductor: Sir Colin Davis Pianist: Murray Perahia

LOGISTICS CLASS #19 Ghen Briefs (Uranium): Due Sat 8 pm For Formatting & Briefing Technique – Graded Kesler Brief Available for Pick-Up – Compare to Sample Kesler Brief Online – Instructions for Briefing Trial Court Cases (59-60) – Instructions for Written Assignments/Briefs (IM21-22) – Sample Taber & Bartlett Briefs (online later today)

LOGISTICS CLASS #19 Ghen Briefs (Uranium): Due Sat 8 pm For Understanding Substance of Ghen – Intro to Whaling Cases & Glossary (60-63) – Self- Quizzes on All Four Whaling Cases – DQs & Class Discussion on Custom in Taber/Bartlett (+ Slides from Today) – DQs on Swift Class Discussion & Slides for Friday (as far as we get) Note DQ 2.13: “Several Considerations” re When to Treat Custom as Binding (Find at least 3)

LOGISTICS CLASS #19 Review Problems (Course Materials p ) Examples of Old XQ1 & XQ2 Start Doing Some in Class Next Week Cover in DF Sessions: One a Week that We Won’t Do in Class – This Week (Fri/Mon): (Posted) Problem 2D First Possession of Computer Program Based on 1997 Exam Q1 (on course page) – DF Coverage Going Forward Posted on Course Page

LOGISTICS CLASS #19 Starting Oil & Gas Friday I’ll Lecture Through Westmoreland – Difficult Case to Understand Both re Gas Extraction and Business Transaction – Read Through for Plot; Don’t Try to Brief – Look at in Advance & Try to Be in Class Because Presentation Will Primarily Be at White Board (Almost No Slides)

LOGISTICS CLASS #19 Group Written Assignment #2 I’ll Post Feedback on Assignment #1 as Available; Goal is at Least One Question from Each Sub- Assignment I’ll Take Qs in Class Again Next Monday & Friday QUESTIONS NOW?

HISTORIC PROBLEM: Ratione Soli & Assignment #2 Ratione Soli: An unowned wild animal that enters privately owned land is considered the property of the landowner while it remains on the parcel. No help to either party in Assignment #2. No help to either party in Assignment #2.

HISTORIC PROBLEM: Ratione Soli & Assignment #2 while it remains on the parcel. Ratione Soli: An unowned wild animal that enters privately owned land is considered the property of the landowner while it remains on the parcel. No help to either party in Assignment #2. No help to either party in Assignment #2. – Trap-Owner must get stronger form of property rights while the animal is on his land, or he loses claim as soon as animal crosses property line.

HISTORIC PROBLEM: Ratione Soli & Assignment #2 unowned Ratione Soli: An unowned wild animal that enters privately owned land is considered the property of the landowner while it remains on the parcel. No help to either party in Assignment #2. No help to either party in Assignment #2. – Killer cannot claim property rights via Ratione Soli if Trap-Owner owns the wolverine under the First Possession cases when the animal crosses property line. Killer must rely on Escape Cases instead.

HISTORIC PROBLEM: Ratione Soli & Assignment #2 Ratione Soli: An unowned wild animal that enters privately owned land is considered the property of the landowner while it remains on the parcel. No help to either party in Assignment #2. THINK ABOUT IT & ME IF QUESTIONS

UNIT II: EXTENSION BY ANALOGY (WHALING CASES) Back To TABER

Taber v. Jenny BRIEF: ISSUE Does killer of whale lose property rights when it leaves the body of the whale in the ocean [on facts here] ? Does killer of whale lose property rights when it leaves the body of the whale in the ocean [on facts here] ? Parties/Case suggest several ways to resolve issue: – Law of Salvage (DQ2.04) (URANIUM) – Whaling Customs (DQ2.02) (URANIUM) – Common Law of Property

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.04: Salvage (URANIUM) Party finds property belonging to another (OO) adrift on open seas – Finder recovers property & returns to OO – Finder then receives standard “salvage” fee from OO Why not employed in Taber?

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.04: Salvage (URANIUM) Why not employed in Taber? Zone owners never claimed salvage rights – Zone didn’t behave like salvor (= return found goods and ask for $) – Rule: if try to adopt salvage property for own use, can forfeit salvage rights Note: Salvage is usually for goods found adrift, so not clear would apply here anyway

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.04: Salvage (URANIUM) Taber uses a comparison with the law of salvage (but not salvage itself) to support its result: Doctrinal Rationale: Law [of Salvage] says if property found adrift at sea, finder entitled to fee for salvage but not to property itself. Owner of property that is not adrift has an even stronger interest, so does not lose rights to finder.

Taber v. Jenny BRIEF: ISSUE Does killer of whale lose property rights when it leaves the body of the whale in the ocean [on facts here] ? Does killer of whale lose property rights when it leaves the body of the whale in the ocean [on facts here] ? Parties/Case suggest several ways to resolve issue: – Law of Salvage (DQ2.04) (URANIUM) – Whaling Customs (DQ2.02) – Whaling Customs (DQ2.02) (URANIUM) – Common Law of Property

Taber & Bartlett : Whaling Customs Generally Existence and Scope of Custom is Question of Fact: – Determine through testimony of experts & experienced whalers – We discussed in context of DQ1.03 – In exam Q, can think of as similar to application of a legal standard: Do facts meet standard for when custom applies?

Taber & Bartlett : Whaling Customs Generally Existence and Scope of Custom is Question of Fact Whether to Treat Applicable Custom as Legally Binding is Question of Law – Taber doesn’t address – Bartlett discusses hypothetically – Swift & Ghen provide legal framework

Quick Aside: Albers & Custom Case notes two fox-fur industry customs: – Tattooing registration # in ears – Killing by crushing or poisoning Case uses these customs as evidence of Finder’s Knowledge that fox had OO – Like similar Stonebraker point Monday re evidence of Finder’s Knowledge in Taber

Quick Aside: Albers & Custom Case uses industry customs as evidence of Finder’s Knowledge that fox had OO Unlike whaling cases, nobody claimed that industry customs should be treated as legally binding rules to determine who had property rights in the fox pelt. Thus, should not use Albers in discussions of Swift/Ghen standards for when industry customs should be treated as binding

Quick Aside: Albers & Custom we must so apply general principles in the light of custom, existing facts, and common knowledge, that justice will be done Having then neither statute nor applicable common-law rule governing the case, we must so apply general principles in the light of custom, existing facts, and common knowledge, that justice will be done. So the courts of England and the United States have acted from time immemorial, and so the common law itself came into existence. (2d Para. p.49)

Quick Aside: Albers & Custom Having then neither statute nor applicable common-law rule governing the case, we must so apply general principles [of law] we must so apply general principles [of law] (in the light of [= taking into account what we know about] custom, existing facts, and common knowledge), (in the light of [= taking into account what we know about] custom, existing facts, and common knowledge), that justice will be done that justice will be done. QUESTIONS?

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.02: Customs (URANIUM) Custom: If a dead whale is found adrift, “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.” Why Might Such a Custom Develop?

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.02: Customs (URANIUM) Custom: If a dead whale is found adrift [without an anchor], “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.” Why might this custom have developed? (1) PRACTICAL CONCERNS RE INDUSTRY/LABOR Whales often escape mortally wounded by harpoons Don’t want to waste value of whale to industry (DKNPacific) If killer doesn’t arrive in time necessary for finder to capture, arrange and cut, – Probably too far away to find whale anyway – F has put in signif. labor

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.02: Customs (URANIUM) Custom: If a dead whale is found adrift [without an anchor], “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.” Why might this custom have developed? (1)PRACTICAL CONCERNS RE INDUSTRY/LABOR (2) CERTAINTY/EASE OF APPLICATION Nice clear line for industry to use. After cutting in, distinct whale converted to fungible whale parts, hard to separate from rest of parts already stored in ship

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.02: Customs (URANIUM) Custom: If a dead whale is found adrift, “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.” DQ2.02: Is this custom consistent with the law of escaped animals?

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.02: Customs (URANIUM) Is custom consistent w law of escaped animals? a dead whale is found adrift Custom: If a dead whale is found adrift, “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.” Underlying potential conflict only arises when Underlying potential conflict only arises when – 1 st ship has killed whale & can prove (e.g., w marked harpoons) – 2d ship finds whale dead & afloat

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.02: Customs (URANIUM) Is custom consistent w law of escaped animals? a Custom: If a dead whale is found adrift, “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.” Can view from two different angles Can view from two different angles – 1 st ship RETAINS whale carcass if they catch up to it before 2d ship cuts in. – 2d ship ACQUIRES whale carcass (& 1 st ship LOSES it) if 2d ship cuts in before 1 st ship catches up.

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.02: Customs (URANIUM) 1 st ship RETAINS whale carcass if they catch up to it before 2d ship cuts in. Consistent w law of escaped animals? Not abandoned. Not abandoned. Marked w harpoons & F’s knowledge from quick claim. Marked w harpoons & F’s knowledge from quick claim. Maybe not NL b/c pursuing & short time & distance. Kesler. Maybe not NL b/c pursuing & short time & distance. Kesler.

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.02: Customs (URANIUM) 2d ship ACQUIRES carcass (& 1 st ship LOSES it) if 2d ship cuts in before 1 st ship catches up. Consistent w law of escaped animals? ARGUMENTS YES: If 1 st ship not present, could say returned to NL without sufficient marks or pursuit (more like Mullett than Kesler) Could say by the time F cuts in: F has invested a lot of labor (Be Careful re F’s Labor) Insufficient evidence that OO had or could get control Likely a lot of distance from kill to find

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.02: Customs (URANIUM) 2d ship ACQUIRES carcass (& 1 st ship LOSES it) if 2d ship cuts in before 1 st ship catches up. Consistent w law of escaped animals? ARGUMENTS NO: OO spent labor to pursue & mortally wound Could be pretty short period of time before losing property rights F aware that another whaler had some claim

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.02: Customs (URANIUM) 2d ship ACQUIRES carcass (& 1 st ship LOSES it) if 2d ship cuts in before 1 st ship catches up. Consistent w law of escaped animals? POLICY REASONS SUPPORTING CUSTOM (Benefits Industry. Albers.) Strong Policy to have Someone in Industry Recover Valuable Carcass if Possible Any Given Whaler as Likely to be Winner as Loser (Unlike Albers/Kesler)

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.02: Customs (URANIUM) Custom: If a dead whale is found adrift, “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.” DQ2.02: Is this custom consistent with the law of escaped animals? Questions on Analysis?

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.02: Customs (URANIUM) Custom: If a dead whale is found adrift, “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.” DQ2.02: What is the relevance of the custom to the facts of Taber?

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.02: Customs (URANIUM) Custom: If a dead whale is found adrift, “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.” Relevance to Taber? Doesn’t apply because whale not adrift.

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.03 (URANIUM) Captain Bennett of the Massachusetts : Goes on board Zone with Captain Cook of Hillman to demand bone and oil. Uses “violent and abusive language” to Captain Parker of Zone in Parker’s own cabin (causing Parker to throw Hillman’s anchor overboard!!) Significance? (besides clear need for anger management training)

(URANIUM) Taber DQ2.03 (URANIUM) Captain Bennett of the Massachusetts : Goes on board Zone with Captain Cook of Hillman to demand bone and oil. Uses “violent and abusive language” to Captain Parker of Zone in Parker’s own cabin (causing Parker to throw Hillman’s anchor overboard!!) Suggests Zone’s conduct way out of line Could be evidence going to finding that custom doesn’t apply to anchored whales. Could be evidence going to notion that expert finder here should know that OO likely to return

Taber v. Jenny BRIEF: HOLDING Court says OO retained property rights – Doesn’t apply custom or salvage. – Rather seems to rely on ordinary (non- animals) rule that you don’t lose property rights simply by losing control of object. – Applies to dead whales at least … where there are “clear marks of appropriation” and little time passed.

Taber v. Jenny BRIEF: Narrow Holding Killer of whale doesn’t lose property rights when it leaves the body of the whale in the ocean where: killer anchors whale leaving marks indicating killer’s identity; killer returns as soon as practicable to collect whale; and finder of whale sees identifying marks and knows whale is less than 12 hours dead

Taber v. Jenny BRIEF: Possible Broader Holding Killer of whale doesn’t lose property rights when it leaves the body of the whale in the ocean where killer leaves marks of appropriation and is gone only for a short time.

Taber v. Jenny BRIEF: Possible Supporting Policies See Sample Brief for Full Formulations Rule doesn’t reward knowing finder, who had clear info whale belonged to someone else. Rule rewards labor of killer who, in addition to the capture, did all in his power to mark whale and return ASAP. Rule protects industry by not providing incentives for whaling ships to try to “find” other ships’ kills instead of trying to kill more whales of their own. Questions on Taber?

UNIT II: EXTENSION BY ANALOGY (WHALING CASES) ON To BARTLETT: OXYGEN for Brief & DQs RADIUM for DQs

(OXYGEN) Bartlett v. Budd BRIEF : (OXYGEN) Statement of the Case Bartlett and others, … ? sued Budd and others … ? for [Cause of Action]? seeking [Remedy]?

(OXYGEN) Bartlett v. Budd BRIEF : (OXYGEN) Statement of the Case Bartlett and others, owners of a ship (CP) whose crew killed and anchored a whale sued Budd and others … ? for [Cause of Action]? seeking [Remedy]?

(OXYGEN) Bartlett v. Budd BRIEF : (OXYGEN) Statement of the Case Bartlett and others, owners of a ship (CP) whose crew killed and anchored a whale sued Budd and others, owners of a ship (E) whose crew found and took the whale for [Cause of Action]? seeking [Remedy]?

(OXYGEN) Bartlett v. Budd BRIEF : (OXYGEN) Statement of the Case Bartlett and others, owners of a ship (CP) whose crew killed and anchored a whale sued Budd and others, owners of a ship (E) whose crew found and took the whale for conversion (see last sentence of case) seeking [Remedy]?

(OXYGEN) Bartlett v. Budd BRIEF : (OXYGEN) Statement of the Case Bartlett and others, owners of a ship (CP) whose crew killed and anchored a whale sued Budd and others, owners of a ship (E) whose crew found and took the whale for conversion (see last sentence of case) seeking damages for the value of the whale.

(OXYGEN) Bartlett v. Budd BRIEF : (OXYGEN) Procedural Posture Decision after a trial. (See Briefing Instructions for Trial Court Cases)

(RADIUM) Bartlett v. Budd Facts : DQ2.05 (RADIUM) DQ2.05: Crew of E found “the whale adrift, the anchor not holding…” Might mean either: a.The rope or chain connecting the anchor to the whale has broken, so the anchor is no longer attached to the whale; (OR) b.The anchor is still attached to the whale but is no longer lodged in the seabed.

(RADIUM) Bartlett v. Budd Facts : DQ2.05 (RADIUM) DQ2.05: Crew of E found “the whale adrift, the anchor not holding…” Might mean either: a.The rope or chain connecting the anchor to the whale has broken, so the anchor is no longer attached to the whale; (OR) b.The anchor is still attached to the whale but is no longer lodged in the seabed. Which of these is true in Bartlett? How do you know?

(RADIUM) Bartlett v. Budd Facts : DQ2.05 (RADIUM) DQ2.05: Anchor Not Holding” Means …? “[T]he right to this whale appears to stand on the same footing as the right to the anchor attached to it, which was very properly restored to its owner” (p.66, 3d para.) Anchor was still attached to whale but not to the sea bottom.

(OXYGEN) Bartlett v. Budd BRIEF : (OXYGEN) Apparent Factual Disputes: How Does Court Resolve? 1.Is there a custom that a whale found adrift with an anchor attached belongs to the finder? 2.Did 1st Officer of CP notify E’s crew of his claim “on the spot”?

(URANIUM) Bartlett v. Budd BRIEF : (URANIUM) Factual Disputes/Findings? Factual Dispute: Is there a custom that a whale found adrift with an anchor attached belongs to the finder? Finding of Fact : No. Custom does not apply so long as there are marks of appropriation other than harpoons. Parties disputed whether 1st Officer of CP notified E’s crew of his claim BUT – The court never resolved the dispute, suggesting it was irrelevant. – Thus, you should not include it in this section of the brief.

(RADIUM) Bartlett v. Budd Facts : DQ2.06 (RADIUM) DQ2.06: Key Factual Differences from Taber (When Whale Carcass Found) Waif & Irons Gone from Carcass Whale Adrift Longer Time Before Whale Found – Taber: Less Than 12 Hours – Bartlett: Afternoon  Next Morning OTHERS?

(RADIUM) Bartlett v. Budd Facts (RADIUM) DQ2.06: Other Factual Differences from Taber Behavior of 1 st Ship’s Crew (per Choopani) – Details Different than in Taber No evidence crew had to leave when they did No evidence waited to ensure anchor held – Consistent with Other Factual Differences, Suggests Labor of OO Less Good

(RADIUM) Bartlett v. Budd Facts (RADIUM) DQ2.06: Other Factual Differences from Taber Whale in Bay, Not Open Ocean – CP argued matters b/c custom doesn’t apply Court doesn’t need to resolve Finds custom doesn’t apply anyway b/c of anchor – Maybe Limits Where Whale Can Drift (Helps OO) Could say not NL b/c some restraint Could say like AR b/c prevents carcass from getting too far away

(RADIUM) Bartlett v. Budd Facts : DQ2.06 (RADIUM) DQ2.06: Significance of Differences Under Animals Escape Cases? Waif & Irons Gone from Carcass?

(RADIUM) Bartlett v. Budd Facts : DQ2.06 (RADIUM) DQ2.06: Significance of Differences Under Animals Escape Cases? Waif & Irons Gone from Carcass – Marking/Notice Less Strong – BUT Anchor Still Attached Whale Adrift?

(RADIUM) Bartlett v. Budd Facts : DQ2.06 (RADIUM) DQ 2.06 Significance of Differences Under Animals Escape Cases? Whale Adrift o Maybe Natural Liberty o Increase in distance o Less likely OO will find o Less effective labor by OO Longer Time Before Whale Found (Few Hours v. Next Morning)?

(RADIUM) Bartlett v. Budd Facts : DQ2.06 (RADIUM) DQ2.06: Significance of Differences Under Animals Escape Cases? Longer Time Before Whale Found (Few Hours v. Next Morning)? Time itself a factor in some escape cases Less likely OO will return (which F may be able to determine) Maybe less effective labor by OO (slower return)

(RADIUM) Bartlett v. Budd Facts : DQ2.06 (RADIUM) DQ 2.06: Significance of Differences Under Animals Escape Cases? All Differences Make Case Stronger for Finder (except maybe Bay) Sufficient Thus, Key Q in Bartlett is Whether Differences Together are Sufficient to Change Taber Result Court Decides They Aren’t & Follows Taber

Taber v. Jenny BRIEF: ISSUE Does killer of whale lose property rights when it leaves the body of the whale in the ocean where …. [for example] – killer anchors whale leaving marks indicating killer’s identity – killer returns as soon as practicable to collect whale – finder of whale sees identifying marks and knows whale is less than 12 hours dead?

Bartlett v. Budd BRIEF: ISSUE Does killer of whale lose property rights when it leaves the body of the whale in the ocean where …. [for example] – killer anchors whale but the anchor doesn’t hold; and – whale found the next day adrift with anchor attached?

(OXYGEN) Bartlett DQ : Customs (OXYGEN) Custom: If dead whale found adrift, “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.” In Taber, custom didn’t apply b/c whale not adrift. In Bartlett, whale was adrift, but court still does not apply it, because of factual finding above: Custom does not apply where anchor still attached.

(OXYGEN) Bartlett DQ2.07: Customs (OXYGEN) Custom: If dead whale found adrift, “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.” anchor In Bartlett, whale was adrift, but court still does not apply it, because custom does not apply where anchor still attached. harpoons Why is anchor different from harpoons? DQ2.07: Custom does apply if harpoons still attached to whale. Why is anchor different from harpoons?

(OXYGEN) Bartlett DQ2.07: Customs (OXYGEN) Custom: If dead whale found adrift, “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.” anchor harpoons DQ2.07: Custom does not apply where anchor still attached to whale, but does apply if harpoons still attached. Why is anchor different from harpoons? Anchor is proof killer had actual possession of whale, and therefore earned property rights (under 1 st Possession animals cases). BUT can lodge harpoons in whale without ever taking actual possession.

(URANIUM) Bartlett DQ2.08: Customs (URANIUM) Bartlett determines that there is no custom giving a dead whale found adrift with an anchor attached to the finder. The court then says (top p. 67): “ And if it were not so, there would be great difficulty in upholding a custom that should take the property of A and give it to B under so very short and uncertain a substitute for the statute of limitations, and one so open to fraud and deceit.” DQ2.08 This Means…?

(OXYGEN) Bartlett DQ2.08: Customs (OXYGEN) Bartlett determines that there is no custom giving a dead whale found adrift with an anchor attached to the finder. The court then says (top p. 67): “And if it were not so, there would be great difficulty in upholding a custom that should take the property of A and give it to B under so very short and uncertain a substitute for the statute of limitations, and one so open to fraud and deceit.” DQ2.08 This Means…?

(OXYGEN) Bartlett DQ2.08: Customs (OXYGEN) “[T]here would be great difficulty in upholding a custom that should take the property of A and give it to B under so very short and uncertain a substitute for the statute of limitations, and one so open to fraud and deceit.” Bartlett (in dicta) provides first example of an argument for refusing to treat a particular industry custom as law (we’ll revisit in Swift & Ghen).

Bartlett v. Budd: Possible Policy Rationale The court said that a rule that treated whales that had recently gone adrift differently from anchored whales would be imprudent because it would take property rights from the OO in a very short time period and would encourage finders to lie about what they found or to fraudulently set the whale adrift.

Bartlett v. Budd: Possible Policy Rationale The court said that a rule that treated whales that had recently gone adrift differently from anchored whales would be imprudent because it would take property rights from the OO in a very short time period and would encourage finders to lie about what they found or to fraudulently set the whale adrift. Thus, the court held that anchored whales would remain the property of the OO for at least some period of time even when the anchor didn’t hold.

Taber & Bartlett : The “Escaped” Carcass Issue No Relevant Custom Salvage Inapplicable Anchored Whale Remains Property of OO – Forever? Taber & Bartlett = Short Time Frame – Result unclear if longer time frame; policy against wasting resource might change result

Taber & Bartlett : The “Escaped” Carcass Issue As “Animals Cases” in XQ1, Treat as Escape Cases w Info About: Marking & Finder’s Knowledge Time/Distance Labor/Industry

Taber & Bartlett : The “Escaped” Carcass Issue QUESTIONS?

FINAL EXAM QUESTIONS 1 & 2 XQ2: “Discuss Whether Animals Cases Are Good Tools to Use in New Scenario” – Testing Ability to Analyze When/Whether Analogy is Useful – Should Utilize Three Approaches We’ll Work With in Unit Two (& Group Assignment #3) Significance of Factual Similarities/Differences Usefulness of Doctrine Usefulness of Alternatives

Argument By Analogy Three Common Approaches Described in Course Materials: 1.Significance of Factual Similarities & Differences 2.Usefulness of Doctrine 3.Usefulness of Alternatives

Argument By Analogy Bottom Line: Not asking if ACs are a perfect tool for the new context, but discussing how good a tool they are.

Argument By Analogy Bottom Line: Not asking if ACs are a perfect tool for the new context, but discussing how good a tool they are. Swiss Army Knives & Barbie’s Eye Shadow

Argument By Analogy Three Common Approaches Described in Course Materials: 1.Significance of Factual Similarities & Differences: How Close is Job Here to Jobs Tools Were Designed For? Similar Enough to Make Them Work? 2.Usefulness of Doctrine: How Well Can These Tools Do This Job? Well Enough? 3.Usefulness of Alternatives: What Other Sets of Tools Could We Use for This Job? Would They Work Better?