3rd
Where’s Waldo?
So part of arguing is being able to dissect an issue, tease out the true conflicts, and construct an argument from the pieces, but another part of arguing is via analogy, drawing from arguments in analogous subject matter, perhaps matters we have already solved successfully, with special attention to how they are alike and how they differ. Granted, they’re not mutually exclusive, but the former almost entirely relies on analytical thinking, which I think is generally more of an innate skill, but the latter is something you can work on more concretely by learning every argument for every issue that we have ever dealt with. Enter law school… I wonder if some of my professors are too focused on teaching us how to “think analytically” than making sure we understand the different arguments on each side of each issue and how they relate to each other. Maybe it’s just because we’re only two weeks into law school.
