Session Notes: Synthesized Topic Sentences, Application Sections, and Drafting Strategy
Deadlines and class setup
Deadline: Oct 7 is the cutoff for having taken the post-test for the score of 88.
Reminder to link your account to the class using the class code; the class code is on page 16 of the syllabus.
Special linkage check for students: there are three students mentioned; if your last name begins with A, or if the last letter of your first name is a, double-check that you are linked correctly (the instructor notes to verify linkage in those cases). If your name does not end in a, you can skip that specific check.
Mastering the Rule Book interactive exercises require entering the buzz code; make sure you’ve completed those on page 17.
The instructor hasn’t yet checked who completed that exercise; plan to verify soon.
Today’s agenda and general workflow
Focus for today: debrief synthesized topic sentences (STS) for a few minutes.
Then discuss the structure of application sections.
Overall timeline: for Tuesday, students will draft the application section and conclusion for the Brewer memo.
Tuesday class format: begin with a rapid debrief and checklist review so students can self-critique and evaluate their drafts; most of Tuesday will be an in-class writing workshop.
Students should bring laptops; headphones/earplugs allowed if you want more silence; carrels and tables on the Second Floor are available for quiet work; TA circulation to answer questions.
The goal of Tuesday: assemble and refine the draft in-class; final revised IRAC (the entire piece) due by 5:00 PM on Wednesday with feedback provided on the whole draft rather than on pieces.
Next Friday: new fact pattern with authorities; this is the second ungraded practice with a quicker turnaround; not in pieces—it's a full write.
The following Tuesday: another full draft to TAs for feedback; two weeks from today you’ll receive your first graded assignment.
Administrative note: Indigenous Peoples’ weekend is a long weekend; plan ahead for deadlines to avoid a rush.
Timeline and upcoming milestones
Tuesday: first draft of Brewer application section and conclusion due (the time is tight due to the long weekend; note it’s a Tuesday morning deadline, with a potential 11:12–11:15 window mentioned in class).
The instructor will hold mandatory conferences all that week to discuss drafts, questions, and potential revisions.
After conferences, revisions will occur and the subsequent week’s work will be due, moving on to the next topic.
Two weeks from today: first graded assignment returned after you’ve had a chance to revise using conference feedback.
Brightspace posting: the graded assignment will be posted there; it will not be a hand-up submission.
Brewer assignment and in-class planning
Brewer assignment: two big questions to answer in the application section—whether the evidence supports burglary, using the weather vs. intrusion framework.
You should organize your Brewer application around the two elements: weather protection and intrusion protection.
Signposts and road maps: plan to use signposts (First, Next, Then) to guide readers through the analysis; plan to clearly signal transitions between weather-focused discussion and intrusion-focused discussion.
The role of the rule: the application section should be organized around the rule language (i.e., whether a space is designed to protect against weather or intrusion) and then apply facts to satisfy those elements.
Analogical reasoning: use when beneficial to bolster the analysis (e.g., compare to analogous cases); integrate without over-relying on case quotes; focus on facts that are similar to your current fact pattern.
Counterpoints: anticipate opposing arguments; present counterpoints and then respond to them; you can place counterpoints within the same paragraph or separate them as a separate section, but make sure they are clearly connected to the overall argument.
Organization: best practice is to organize by rule first, then integrate analogies; avoid starting with a string of case comparisons; you should show how the facts satisfy each rule element before bringing in analogous cases.
You may use two subsections for weather and intrusion, or you may decide to structure around each element of the rule (as in weather, then intrusion). Either approach is acceptable, but organizing by rule elements tends to be clearer and more methodical.
For drafting, consider isolating the rule language as a framework, then fill in with topic sentences that map to those rule elements and connect to the facts of Brewer.
Synthesized Topic Sentence (STS) assignment: key takeaways
STS should synthesize across multiple cases and hold the reader’s attention by signaling what they will learn next, not merely restating the rule.
If you find yourself restating the rule, pivot to a sentence that dovetails off the last rule statement and adds meaning that the reader doesn’t already know from the rule section.
Examples discussed: focusing on how the court evaluates the existence and strength of physical barriers; emphasizing whether protection is more than incidental; linking the design and extent of barriers to the outcomes in the cases.
Student reflections from discussion examples:
Gabrielle: focused on a physical barrier aspect and used it to introduce the other cases rather than restating the rule.
Kelly: noted risk of restating the rule and attempted to start with what the court looked for (extent of barriers, actual protection) and then add meaning via dovetailing.
Margaret: used one STS sentence to cover both analogous cases, then discussed incidental protections; highlighted the challenge of whether one sentence can cover two distinct sections.
Practical tip: when drafting, think about whether your STS will introduce a single idea for multiple cases or if you will need separate topic sentences for distinct cases; in this class focus is on one synthesized STS sentence per set of analogous cases.
The STS should set up the reader to expect discussion of the rule’s elements (e.g., extent of physical barriers; whether the protection is actual or incidental) and then illustrate how the cases demonstrate those elements through facts.
Some students suggested starting with a space that protects against weather or intrusion and then discussing what types of things the court looks at (e.g., physical barriers, whether protection is actual rather than incidental).
Key concepts for application sections
Rule-based reasoning (RBR): apply the exact language of the rule to the client’s facts; explicitly connect facts to each element of the rule; do not simply restate the rule. You must show how facts satisfy each part of the rule.
Analogical reasoning (AR): compare or contrast your case with analogous cases to bolster the analysis; use when the rule is complicated or when similar/dissimilar facts can illuminate the outcome.
Policy reasoning: mentioned as an important skill to be explored in the spring; not a primary focus for this semester.
When to use which: always use rule-based reasoning; use analogical reasoning when there are analogous cases or when the rule is complex and benefits from comparison.
The role of the facts: in the application section, you must discuss the facts that support each element of the rule; avoid purely conclusory statements without fact support.
Organization: begin with a framework built on the rule, then use topic sentences to road-map the analysis (signposts), and weave in analogical reasoning where helpful; anticipate counterpoints and address them.
Signposts and road maps: signposts are short topic sentences inside each paragraph indicating the focus (e.g., “Regarding substantial steps,” “Regarding intent to operate”); road maps guide the reader through the structure of the analysis.
Scaffolding techniques: outline or diagram your rules first, then create bullet-point topic sentences for each paragraph that map to these rules; this helps ensure the analysis remains organized and reachable for the reader.
Structure and organization tips from the Billington samples (and discussion)
Some samples use road maps and signposts effectively, helping readers follow the analysis; others are less organized, relying too heavily on case-by-case comparisons without a clear rule-based framework.
Ideal approach (as discussed): organize by rule elements first, then weave in analogies; present counterpoints where relevant and conclude succinctly for each major issue.
Common pitfalls observed:
Starting with case-by-case comparisons rather than outlining the rule-based structure.
Overly long blocks of analogical reasoning without tying back to the client’s facts and rule elements.
Failing to connect facts to each element of the rule (conclusory statements without evidentiary support).
Mixing weather and intrusion discussions in ways that confuse which facts support which elements.
Effective features seen in the strongest samples:
Clear road maps or signposts that indicate where the analysis is going (e.g., a first section on intrusion, then on weather, with separate signposts for each).
Explicit mapping of facts to rule elements; facts are used to demonstrate satisfaction or failure of each element.
Separate but integrated use of analogical reasoning to compare with analogous cases, while keeping the primary focus on the client’s facts.
A counterpoints segment that acknowledges opposing arguments and then provides a reasoned rebuttal or limitation.
Application section: organizing for Brewer (practice guidance)
Core rule to apply: a structure is designed to protect persons or property against weather or intrusion.
Potential road map / signposts for the Brewer application:
Roadmap option A: Weather; Intrusion (two main subsections).
Roadmap option B: Element-by-element (Weather element, Intrusion element) with separate mini-subsections.
Signposts to use:
First, this paragraph discusses weather protection and whether the space protects against weather.
Next, this paragraph discusses intrusion protection and whether the space protects against intrusion.
How to use facts in the Brewer section:
For each element (weather/intrusion), discuss specific facts that show met and not met.
It is acceptable to reuse some facts for both elements if they support both requirements, but you must clearly tie each fact to the element it supports.
Structure and cohesion tips:
Start with a rule-based decomposition to anchor the discussion (what counts as protection against weather or intrusion).
Build topic sentences that frame the discussion for each paragraph (e.g., “Weather protection is satisfied by X factors; the space provides Y and Z protections, as evidenced by…”).
Integrate analogical reasoning by comparing the current facts to analogous cases, focusing on the similarities and differences relevant to the rule elements (not just the outcomes).
Include counterpoints: acknowledge a plausible opposing interpretation and explain why your interpretation is stronger in light of the facts.
Conclude succinctly after addressing each element and present a concise overall conclusion.
Example approach for weather subsection (hypothetical):
Topic sentence: The space provides weather protection if it includes a cover that shields occupants from rain, sun, and wind, and if the design shows intentional protection beyond incidental shelter.
Fact-support: describe latticework, gaps, and any features that show intentional protection versus incidental shelter; explain why these satisfy the weather element.
Analogical reference: compare to a case where a similar feature was held not to protect against weather, explaining the critical distinctions.
Counterpoint: consider the argument that gaps or incidental shelter could suffice; rebut with design intent and the protection extent.
Mini-conclusion: summarize whether weather protection is satisfied for the Brewer space.
Example approach for intrusion subsection (hypothetical):
Topic sentence: The space protects against intrusion if access is physically deterred by barriers that require meaningful effort to breach.
Fact-support: discuss the barriers (e.g., latticework, gaps, the need to cut through) and how they functionally restrict entry.
Analogical reference: contrast with a hog pen example where low fences and lack of protection fail the intrusion element.
Counterpoint: consider arguments that some gaps are too large or that access could be easily gained; address why those points do not undermine protection here.
Mini-conclusion: summarize whether intrusion protection is satisfied for the Brewer space.
Final overall Brewer conclusion: tie the weather and intrusion conclusions together to determine whether the space is a structure under the rule, and provide the recommended charge or outcome (e.g., whether to charge with a class B or C prime, depending on jurisdictional framing).
Practical tips for drafting and feedback during the two-week window
Start by diagramming or outlining the rules and the elements to create a clear internal structure for the application section.
Use signposts to guide the reader through weather and intrusion analyses and to signal transitions between sections.
Prefer a clean, rule-first organization rather than a purely case-centric outline; only bring in case analogies where they meaningfully illuminate the rule elements.
When integrating analogical reasoning, focus on specific facts that map cleanly onto the elements of the rule, not on broad generalizations.
When discussing counterpoints, present at least one clear opposing argument and provide a reasoned response.
Be concise in the conclusion; after thorough analysis of weather and intrusion, deliver a succinct overall determination.
In-court style guidance: in the application section, avoid introducing new information; rely on facts and cases already discussed in the analogous cases section; refer to cases by party names rather than generic terms when citing.
Avoid over-reliance on repeating case outcomes; emphasize how the facts align with or diverge from the rule and the implications for your client.
For in-class exercises: bring laptops for drafting; use carrels on the Second Floor for quiet work; plan to engage with TAs as you draft.
Quick reference: common terminology used in class discussions
Synthesis Topic Sentence (STS): a single opening sentence that introduces the synthesis of how multiple cases illustrate the rule and its elements.
Rule-based reasoning (RBR): applying the exact language of the rule to the client’s facts.
Analogical reasoning (AR): drawing parallels or distinctions between the client’s facts and those of other cases.
Signposts: explicit statements in paragraphs that indicate the current focus (e.g., First, Next, Regarding weather, Regarding intrusion).
Road map: a guiding outline within an STS or paragraph that tells the reader where the argument is headed.
Counterpoints: acknowledged opposing arguments and subsequent rebuttals within the analysis.
Facts-to-rule connection: explicit explanation of how each fact satisfies (or does not satisfy) a particular element of the rule.
Final notes and expectations
You will draft the Brewer application section and conclusion on Tuesday for in-class feedback; a full revised IRAC is due by Wednesday at 5:00 PM, with feedback provided on the entire revised piece.
Expect a new fact pattern with authorities on the next Friday for a second ungraded practice, followed by a short drafting workshop and then a subsequent in-class draft revision.
The two-week timeline leads up to your first graded assignment; plan ahead for holidays and the Indigenous Peoples’ weekend.
The class emphasizes organization, signposts, and a robust integration of rule language, facts, analogies, and counterpoints to produce a clear, persuasive, and well-supported application section.