Description:
Write an (I)RAAC arguing that John was not speeding, i.e., he was travelling at a reasonable speed under the circumstances. The problem is embedded in the last few slides of the video/PowerPoint. Remember, you first must write the Rule (from the statute that I made up). Next paragraph is a description of case A. You begin with a topic sentence that introduces the case and gives the holding (For instance, in Case A, the court held that ….” Then give facts of the case on which the court determined that the speed was reasonable under the circumstances. Then next paragraph – write a persuasive argument that John was driving at a reasonable speed by showing how the facts of John’s case are very similiar to the facts of Case A. The topic sentence is very important and must refer the reader back to the rule on which you are going to base your argument (“John will argue that he was driving at a reasonable speed under the circumstanceses …”). Then compare the case A facts to show how they are similiar to John’s facts. If you convince the judge that the facts are similar enough to Case A, then the judge must give the same holding as Case A, i.e., that John was driving at a reasonable speed (precedent). So, here again are an outline of the paragraphs:
Rule Paragraph:
Analogous case paragraph describing Case A (with good introductory topic sentence
Paragraph for John’s argument by fact comparison with Case A (again with good topic sentence based on the rule)
Vey brief Conclusion sentence or paragraph.
You must use the above paradigm. It is the one lawyers recognize, even if the problem is much more complex than this one. but still must conform to the RAAC paradigm.
And remember, you are only writing the analysis (argument) section, so do not give an outline of the facts nor a restatement of the issue.