I have a homework question. The way the questions are phrased are like this. Is Acuna consistent with the pleading philosophy of rule 8? With Swierkiewicz? with Bell Atlantic? Can you argue that the technique in Acuna has textual support in rule 11?
From my understanding all of these questions can be answered with a yes or no. There is no mention of explaining your reasoning or anything. I always thought that lawyers should answer questions in as few words as possible. Would I screw myself over by just answering yes or no, and then commenting that the question as phrased only requests a one word answer.
Or would it be better to mention that “if I follow the exact nature of the questions this would be my answer”, give list of yes or no
and then write I assume the policy behind the assignment is to get my reasoning behind these answers and then proceed to write the assignment with my answers and reasons
“Is” question at minimum requires a yes or no, Is today monday? Is this thread neglecting to answer a question I asked?
If the question was phrased: “How” is Acuna consistent or inconsistent with rule 8? Then clarification is a necessary aspect of the answer.
I’m just seeing If I can justify with legal reasoning writing yes or no, hoping that I’ll get extra credit for that.
You will not get extra credit. No professor is going to think you are clever for doing this. They are going to think you are annoying and fail you. Is blah blah consistent with blah blah means you write why it is or is not consistent.
It would be trolling if the Professor didn’t answer a question I asked in class with a yes or no and then made a big deal about phrasing questions, and how if you want a question with a real answer don’t phrase it so someone can answer yes or no.
Maybe I’m just bitter about that lol.
But seriously thanks for the advice It’s prolly better to not try to be too clever (lazy in some of your opinions smart ass in others) and just answer the question.