ELEMENTS B15: GROUP WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT #1
Sub-Assignment 1A3: Student Submissions & Prof’s Comments
(3) Briefly discuss which of these two arguments you think is stronger (and
why). If your team disagrees on this issue, briefly describe the different
positions team members have taken. (“Two/Three of us believe ,…The other
student(s) believe(s) …”)
In presentation below:
o Student submissions in Arial font roughly ordered from best to worst.
o I inserted letters and numbers as markers to reference in my comments.
o Suggested edits indicated by strikethroughs on text to be omitted and
[brackets around text to be added.]
o Red text = Accuracy Problems. Double strikethroughs indicate
significant inaccuracy.
o Blue text = Clarity/presentation problems
o Green text = passages not made relevant to topic.
o My Comments in Times New Roman Font directly follow each submission.
(A) When examining [Under] the rule of Shaw and the facts of this case, we find the argument
for the Frazier having property rights in the weasels to be [is] stronger than the argument that
the weasels are not Frazier’s property.
(B) (1) Although some weasels do escape, Frazier likely maintained his control as to
demonstrate he had no intent to abandon the weasel because the animal’s attempt to escape
does not represent his intent to abandon the weasel; rather, Frazier intentionally builds the traps
in order to maintain his control until he can retrieve the animals.
(2) Frazier has not lost control until the animals are free. While it may not be certain that the
weasels will escape, Frazier maintains his control over the trap when the weasels are still in
the hole.
(C) When Niles takes the weasels out of the traps, he may not be aware of how long the
weasels were there and can only assume that the weasels can escape before Frazier returns.
This assumption is inadequate to construe any intent to abandon the weasels in the traps
because the weasels are still in Frazier’s traps. Thus, Niles is only able to retrieve the weasels
because the animals are in the trap and under Frazier’s control.
(D) Furthermore, the trap consists of a four foot hole, leaves, and sticks. While the traps’
materials blend in with the surroundings, the cumulative number and depth of the holes likely
indicate that the holes are traps, and not naturally occurring phenomena. Thus, given that
Frazier’s holes are clearly traps, and the animals cannot immediately escape, Frazier
maintained his control as to show that he does not intend to abandon the weasels again to the
world at large.
(E) Due to Frazier bringing the weasels into his control and maintaining that control, Frazier
holds property rights in the weasels and as a result, Niles is committing larceny by taking
them.
Overall: Quite Solid (Best 2015 1A3)
Correct Use of Passage: Pretty Good Overall

1st Prong: Bring Into Power & Control: No explicit discussion until conclusion; need to briefly
defend prong is met even though you conceded it in 1A2.

2d Prong: Maintain Control: Some useful discussion of 2d prong, but a little bit of drift into
intent unconnected to maintain control.
Specific Supporting Arguments Presented:

(B) F Has Control While Weasels Are in Traps. Pretty Good Overall. Reasonable idea briefly
raised in 1A1. Shaw doesn’t say this explicitly, so need to defend more. Saying in (B1) that he
intended to maintain control doesn’t really help; intent by itself doesn’t satisfy the test.

(C) N Has Insufficient Info re Whether Weasels He Takes Will Escape: Solid. Clever new
idea. Could be a little clearer re N argument you are refuting (F’s behavior shows intent to
abandon some). Problem is, if N knows F’s trapping schedule, he might be able to figure out
which ones would escape.

(D) Holes as a Group Demonstrate Intent to Capture: Solid. New idea and good rebuttal to
1A2 argument that trap doesn’t appear man-made. Might be a bit more explicit as to how this ties
back to test.
Tie-Breaker Tasks
Focus on Topic: Passage  Property Rights: Quite Solid Overall.

Connects Arguments to Passage: Mostly Good.

Intro/Conclusion: Conclusion nicely notes that both prongs met; could do the same in the
Intro. Both should make clear that we are looking at F’s Property Rights at time N took
weasels. Not asked about larceny, so grren passage at end outside scope.
Which of Your Arguments is Stronger? Pretty good sense of comparing strength of arguments
you’ve already made.

Best Points from 1A1: You pick up a couple of points from 1A1; could also work with idea
that extent of his labor demonstrates no intent to abandon. Sensible giving up some of your
goofier ideas from 1A1.

Best Points from 1A2: Good responding to argument re look of the trap. Some response to
high escape rate; might address a little more directly. Might more directly address argument
that F could do more to maintain control.
New/Additional Points: (C) & (D) are new; (B) is explained more.
Explain/Defend Key Points: Some useful work in all three arguments, but all three could use a little
more explanation.
Accuracy: Good.
Writing/Presentation: A little wordy but generally clear.
(A) The argument for the weasels not being Frazier’s property is stronger.
(B)(1) The second part of the test for property rights of an animal ferae naturae is to maintain
control as to show that one does not intend to abandon the animal to the world at large. Frazier
failed to show intent to not abandon the weasels; he was aware of the low success rate of his
traps but chose not to improve them or check them more often.
(2) It was established that Niles knew that about half of the weasels were escaping from the
traps. It can be reasonably assumed that Frazier was also aware of this fact because there
was possibly physical evidence left behind by the escaped weasels, such as missing bait or
tracks on the walls of the hole. Overall, Frazier’s voluntary failure to check the traps in a
timely manner failed to demonstrate that he did not intend to abandon the weasels to the
world at large.
(C) Not only were the traps inefficient, but they also may have been unrecognizable as
Frazier’s property. In Shaw, one of the reasons that the court found that the fish inside the
net were the property of the net-owners was because anyone in the area could easily conclude
that the fishing nets privately belonged to someone. However, the traps in Frazier were made of
natural materials, such as dirt, sticks, and leaves taken from state-owned land. Thus, the traps
were not as obviously the property of a specific hunter in the community, as they could have
been made by an animal in the forest instead.
(D) Another reason the court found in favor of the net-owners in Shaw was because the nets
sufficiently captured a vast majority of the fish, where few, if any, could escape [under ordinary
circumstances]. In the present case, the traps do not meet the standard set in Shaw because
about half of the weasels consistently escaped from Frazier’s traps.
(E) Finally, the fish captured in Shaw were a food industry staple at the time and essential to
the public economy; in contrast, the wild weasels in the farming community of Ohio are seen
solely as a nuisance. Therefore, it is not as essential to preserve individual property rights over
weasels when the goal is to capture as many as possible versus benefitting the workers of a
fishing industry and the economy as a whole.
(F) Looking at the facts of this present case from a broader perspective, determining that the
weasels were not Frazier’s property will have a greater benefit to society. Weasels are
considered a nuisance and the court will aim to encourage more efficient ways of capturing the
greatest amount of animals that pose a detriment to the farming community. Frazier’s method of
catching the weasels is not efficient, so if Niles checks the traps more often, the percentage
of captured weasels will be increased overall.
(G) These points further explore the crux of the situation at hand and establish why there is
insufficient evidence or precedent for [that] the weasels [should not] to be considered Frazier’s
property. Thus, the arguments against Frazier’s property rights are stronger than the arguments
supporting Frazier’s property rights.
Overall: Quite Solid Overall. Quite a few concerns, but a lot of thoughtful points. (Probably 2d Best
2015 1A3)
Correct Use of Passage: Pretty Good.
 1st Prong: Bring Into Power & Control: Sensible to concede this; might do so more explicitly.

2d Prong: Maintain Control: Helpful to better connect points about demonstrating no intent to
abandon in (B) & (C) to failure to maintain control sufficiently.
Specific Supporting Arguments Presented:
 (B) F Aware of Problems & Doesn’t Fix = Intent to Abandon: Pretty Solid. More developed
version of argument made in 1C2. Nice defense of point that he must have been aware of
problems. Good noting he could either improve traps or check more often. As with 1st version of
argument, need to defend more that all this shows intent b/c why would he do all the work and
check regularly if he didn’t intend to capture some weasels.

(C) Traps Less Recognizable Than Nets: Pretty Good Overall. New argument; reasonable idea.
Helpful to tie to test more explicitly (again, goes to demonstrating intent not to abandon). Need
to explain more relevance to this set of facts:
o
Need to defend that the holes don’t provide notice: Maybe one four-foot deep hole could
be “natural,” but a whole bunch of them are likely man-made.
o
Need to explain why this should matter in this case where N knew F had made the holes.

(D) Escape Rate Too High: Pretty Good Overall. Slightly reworked version of argument from
1C2. General idea is solid, but need to specify which standard you mean or defend more that
50% capture rate is insufficient.

(E) Food Product v. Nuisance: Solid. New argument; clever idea. However, need to tie it back to
decision about whether 2d prong of test is met.

(F) F’s Method Inefficient Reward Better Labor: Pretty Solid. New argument; clever idea.
Again, need to tie it back to decision about whether 2d prong of test is met. Also, might anticipate
F arguing that N is free-riding on F’s labor and if he’s allowed to do that, F will stop trapping
altogether.
Tie-Breaker Tasks
Focus on Topic: Passage  Property Rights: A Little Uneven.
 Connects Arguments to Passage: (B) and (D) pretty clear. (C) is related but tie not made
explicit. (E) and (F) not tied back at all.

Intro/Conclusion: Might more explicitly reference in conclusion that you are arguing 2d
prong isn’t met. Might clarify in both Intro & Conclusion that we are concerned with F’s
Property Rights at time N took weasels.
Which of Your Arguments is Stronger? Some sense of comparing strength of arguments you’ve
already made although a lot of new points not really addressed to earlier arguments.
 Best Points from 1A1: Might deal with suggestion in 1A1 that effort put in by F to set traps
itself demonstrates intent not to abandon.

Best Points from 1A2: Good picking up both key 2d prong arguments from 1C2 and
improving them.
New/Additional Points: (C), (E), (F) new; (B) is defended more thoroughly; (D) doesn’t add much.
Explain/Defend Key Points: Solid in (E); Pretty good but room for more in (B) (C) (F). Thin in (D)
Accuracy: Several Concerns. Need to be a little more careful about how you word key points.
 (C) Traps inefficient: Problem is primarily with his checking. Traps keep all weasels under
control for 48 hours, which is better that nets in Shaw.

(C) One of the reasons: Need to be clear that court doesn’t say this explicitly.

(D) Bracketed phrase: I think you have to include this or statement is misleading.

(E) Essential to the Public Economy: Shaw doesn’t say this, so don’t make this strong a
statement.

(F) If N Checks More Often: No evidence ythis is so.
Writing/Presentation: Pretty wordy including some unnecessary passive voice.
(A) The argument in favor of Frazier’s ownership is stronger.
(B) (1) The language about ownership is more favorable to Frazier because it doesn’t enforce
[constitute] a bright-line rule. Interpretation is required to determine what constitutes power,
control, intent, and [to] abandon.
(2) In the interest of rewarding labor, these interpretations, at least in Shaw, seem to be
tailored toward favoring the original pursuer. Power doesn’t have to be absolute; control
doesn’t have to be overwhelming and ceaseless; and intent to abandon doesn’t require the
pursuer to prevent any and all possible escape. Rather, power can be as simple as being
able to take an animal caught in the trap or net laid. Control can mean taking away an
animal’s natural liberty because the animal is in a trap against its will. And a pursuer can
signal an intent not to abandon an animal by making a trap to capture it in, and then
following up on that trap and taking the animal.
(C) Setting a trap, even an imperfect one, points toward ownership of whatever wild animal ends
up in that trap.
(D) Additionally, the important facts of Frazier’s situation correlate with the facts in Shaw. Both
contain escapable traps, public property, and economic gain through theft.
(E) There is too much in Frazier’s favor to overturn a rule rewarding labor and fairness.
Overall: Pretty Solid
Correct Use of Passage: Pretty Solid. Good idea to focus on key terms of test. Could be a little clearer
that F has to meet two separate prongs and that “intent to abandon” matters only in the context of
“maintaining control.”
Specific Supporting Arguments Presented:

(B) Language of Test Should Be Read Broadly to Reward Trapper’s Labor: Quite Solid.
Really good new idea and some nice points about possible meaning of key terms. Helpful to
defend more that broad interpretation helps support labor and that your readings of key terms help
F (e.g., F doesn’t always follow up on particular traps well enough to “take the animal.” Should
that count against him?). Reference to NL needs explanation; not a term used in Shaw.

(C) Trapper Owns Animals So Long as Still in Trap: A Little Uneven. Quick version of good
idea raised in 1A1. Because Shaw never says this, need to defend it. If you think it flows from
broad interpretation of test in (B), need to make that much clearer.

(D) Facts of Hypo Similar to Facts of Shaw: Quite Uneven. New idea but no attempt to explain
why these facts are significant or to tie comparison here to passage in Q. Should be aware that
Shaw grants property rights to net-owners despite escapable traps on public property (not because
of them).
Tie-Breaker Tasks
Focus on Topic: Passage  Property Rights: Pretty Good Overall.

Connects Arguments to Passage: (B) is clearly well-connected; (C) and (D) are not.

Intro/Conclusion: In both, would be helpful briefly to reference subject passage and clarify
you are discussing F’s Property Rights at time N took weasels. Need to explain or connect use
of term “fairnesss” in (E).
Which of Your Arguments is Stronger? No sense of comparing strength of arguments you’ve
already made.

Best Points from 1A1: Not much reference outside of (C). Might be possible to incorporate
some of the facts you mustered on F’s behalf into discussion of how your broad interpretation
of tests applies to facts.

Best Points from 1A2: No direct response to claims that F failed to maintain control.
New/Additional Points: (B) and (D) are new; (C) essentially repeats without any new defense.
Explain/Defend Key Points: Solid for (B); very thin on (C) and (D).
Accuracy: Mostly Fine. Couple of relatively minor concerns:

(D) theft: Don’t use legal term without sufficient support. Even if court finds weasels to be F’s
property, might still find that N lacked necessary intent for larceny/theft.

(E) overturn a rule: Really not what would be happening if N wins. You could apply the rule
and still not find for F.
Writing/Presentation: Mostly fine; a few glitches.
(A) We believe that the argument stating that Frazier does not have property rights over the
weasels is stronger. The rule in Shaw states “to acquire a property right in animals ferae
naturae, the pursuer must bring them into his power and control, and so maintain his control as
to show that he does not intend to abandon them again to the world at large.” Although Frazier
clearly succeeded in complying with the first facet of this rule by confining the weasels in the
four feet deep holes, the control was not properly maintained.
(B) Shaw states that in order to properly maintain control, it is necessary to take
“reasonable precautions to prevent escape”. By not performing further actions to prevent
escape, after knowing that it was likely uninjured weasels could escape within two days, it
could be reasonably concluded that Frazier failed to maintain control of the weasels.
(C)(1) In Shaw, the fish that were taken from the nets were confined so that escape was not
impossible, but “practically impossible” and [the court (not the fish )] observed that “under
ordinary circumstances few, if any, of the fish escape”. In the present case, about 50% of the
weasels escaped by the time that Frazier returned to check and reset the traps, demonstrating
that escape was not “practically impossible”, but in fact likely.
(2) Unlike the fish confined to the nets in Shaw, there is no way of assuring that the
weasels Niles took from the traps would not have managed to escape within the twoday window.
(D) Thus, since Frazier did not properly maintain control as required by the rule in Shaw, he
most likely did not acquire [have] property right[s] in the weasels [when N took them.].
Overall: Pretty Solid
Correct Use of Passage: Pretty Solid.
 1st Prong: Bring Into Power & Control: Sensible to concede this.

2d Prong: Maintain Control: Connection to “reasonable precautions” is overstated, but
otherwise points focused on this prong are relevant.
Specific Supporting Arguments Presented:
 (B) F took no “further actions to prevent escape.” Pretty Good Overall. Reasonable idea but
essentially a rewording of points from 1C2. A couple of caveats as worded:

o
Need to acknowledge that he was checking traps every 4-5 days, which arguably is a
“further action.”
o
Need to defend that 50% capture rate is insufficient to meet test. Otherwise, no need for
further actions.
(C) Escape not practically impossible. Pretty Good Overall. Solid idea to focus on rate of
escape (and new comparing this to Shaw facts). However, case uses “practically impossible” as a
factual description of the net and does not explicitly set it up as a standard that a trap must meet.
Thus you need more defense that 50% escape rate is too great to meet the “maintain control”
standard. Point in (C2) is incorrect in a couple of ways (see accuracy) but also would need more
explanation to support your argument because central holding of Shaw is that trap-owner doesn’t
have to prove that animals can’t escape in order to get property rights.
Tie-Breaker Tasks
Focus on Topic: Passage  Property Rights: Quite Solid.

Connects Arguments to Passage: Good.

Intro/Conclusion: Good using passage in Intro and referring back to 2d prong in conclusion.
Helpful to make explicit in both that we are looking at F’s Property Rights at time N took
weasels.
Which of Your Arguments is Stronger? Some sense of comparing strength of arguments you’ve
already made.
 Best Points from 1A1: Might address point that he should be considered to have met the test
for weasels he is able to recover (particularly injured weasels)

Best Points from 1A2: (B) & (C) incorporate major points from 1C2.
New/Additional Points: (B) doesn’t add much; (C) looks at escape rate in a new way.
Explain/Defend Key Points: Some explanation in both (B) and (C) but room for more.
Accuracy: Several Concerns: Important not to understate F’s control or N’s ability to predict which
weasels F is likely to recover.
 Red phrase at beginning of (B) is off; Shaw does not articulate any connection between
“maintaining control” and “reasonable precautions.”

(B) within & (C2) within the two day window: same concern as in 1A2.

(C2): Unlike the fish: On its face, untrue. No way to assure that any particular fish would still
be in the net.

(C2) No way of assuring: Clearly untrue for injured weasels, which cannot escape. Might be
untrue for some injured weasels if you know F’s schedule.
Writing/Presentation: Wordy in a few places.
(A)(1) Three of us believe that Frazier did not obtain property rights in the weasels taken from
his traps.
(2) The fact that Frazier’s traps only managed to retain half of the weasels that entered did
not illustrate sufficient power and control over the animals.
(3) There were a number of other ways Frazier could have shown he intended to not
abandon the weasels by improving his power and control over them. For instance, Frazier
could have simply dug a deeper hole to ensure the weasels stayed in the trap to maintain
his control over the animal for a longer period of time.
(4) Additionally, Frazier’s infrequent checking of the inadequate traps did show intent to
abandon a number of the weasels to the world at large. Frazier made a conscious decision
not to check the traps in a timely manner, knowing that some weasels would escape.
(B) (1) On the other hand, [the fourth student] felt that Frazier did obtain property rights over
[some of] the weasels.
(2) The critical issue for [this student] was the trap’s ability to injure some weasels that
rendered them unable to escape. Since the injured weasels could not escape, the traps
provided Frazier with power and control while his infrequent checks showed intent to not
abandon the injured weasels to the world at large.
(3) As such, [this student] believes that Frazier’s property rights were violated if Niles had
taken an injured weasel from any of the traps.
Overall: Pretty Solid (thanks to good argument in dissent)
Correct Use of Passage: A Little Uneven.


1st Prong: Bring Into Power & Control:
o
(A2) Mostly unsupported assertion that 1st prong not met.
o
(B2): Solid on why test met for injured weasels
2d Prong: Maintain Control: (A3) & (A4) & (B2) mostly seem to treat 2d prong as simply about
intent, rather than focusing on maintaining control.
Specific Supporting Arguments Presented:

(A2): 50% insufficient for 1st Prong: Uneven. Repeating argument from 1A2; same concerns.

(A3) F Could Built Traps Better to Show Intent Not to Abandon: Pretty Good Overall.
Reasonable idea and new here, but need more defense that if he doesn’t do this, he fails the test.

(A4) Inadequate Checking Shows Intent to Abandon. A Little Uneven. Again reasonable idea,
but as you acknowledge, he clearly still intends to capture some weasels, so need to clarify legal
significance. Slightly modified from version in 1A2 to make clear he is not abandoning all the
weasels.

(B) F Meets Test for Uninjured Weasels: Quite Solid. Nice idea and new. Dissenting student
might clarify whether he agrees with majority re all uninjured weasels.
Tie-Breaker Tasks
Focus on Topic: Passage  Property Rights: Solid.

Connects Arguments to Passage: Good given your understanding of the test.

Good in (B) focusing on Property Rights at time N took weasels. Could be clearer about this
in (A).
Which of Your Arguments is Stronger? Not great sense of comparing strength of arguments
you’ve already made.

Best Points from 1A1:
o
No response to strong argument that 1st prong is met.
o
No response to idea that failure to check more often can be excused by F’s busy
schedule.

Best Points from 1A2: Simply repeating argument about 1st prong; slightly improving
argument about 2d prong.

Majority/Dissent: Could respond to one another more explicitly (particular helpful for
majority to address new & strong dissent point).
New/Additional Points: (A3) and (B) are new; (A4) is improved a bit; (A2) is just a repeat.
Explain/Defend Key Points: Solid re (B); Need more explanation of significance of (A3) and (A4);
(A2) largely unsupported.
Accuracy: Good.
Writing/Presentation: A few glitches, but mostly fine.
(A) (1) The argument stating the weasels are not Frazier’s property is stronger. “To acquire
a property right in animals ferae naturae, the pursuer must bring them into his power and
control, and so maintain his control as to show that he does not intend to abandon them
again to the world at large.” Shaw.
(2) This is a two part rule in which the capturer must first get control and subsequently
maintain control as to show that he does not intend to abandon them again to the world
at large.
(3) In the above argument (number 2) the first part of this rule is discussed to
demonstrate Frazier does not bring the weasels into his power and control.
(B) Even if Frazier fully satisfied this first part, his labor does not pass the second part of the
test. Frazier’s holes do not demonstrate an intent to keep because they do not provide
notice to others,
(C)(1) nor do they demonstrate these holes to be “private enclosures”
(2) with “reasonable precautions to prevent escape.” Shaw.
(D) (1) Frazier’s holes satisfy the “whatever it may be” argument of a trap from Shaw in
which anything capable of enclosing an animal that satisfies the two-part test seems to
qualify as a trap.
(2) This nullifies the notice qualification of Shaw because anyone could claim
something to be their trap, even if it is something with no ownership like a sunken ship at
the bottom of a lake. The average person would not know the sunken ship is being used
as a trap if it is just sitting at the bottom of the lake and a scuba diver comes along not
very often to capture fish.
(3) This argument ties in Frazier’s actions.
(E) By going to check on his holes [only] every four or five days, Frazier gives [some of] the
weasels the chance to escape, the opposite of taking “reasonable precautions to prevent
escape.” Shaw.
(F) Further, a hole can typically be classified as natural in the un-owned land of forest.
(G) The argument supporting no property rights for Frazier is the stronger argument.
Overall: Pretty Good.
Correct Use of Passage: Pretty Good.

1st Prong: Bring Into Power & Control: Reasonable given position you are taking to focus on 2d
prong.

2d Prong: Maintain Control: Thrust of argument re lack of notice of intent to trap falls within
this prong. Might more clearly tie to language about maintaining control.
Specific Supporting Arguments Presented:

(B) + (D) + (F): Traps Do Not Provide Notice of Intent to Capture: Solid. New argument. Nice
idea generally. Good seeing that phrase quoted in (D1) could be used against you and very smart
suggesting it should not so as to retain the notice requirement (although blue phrase at start of
(D2) not clearest way to make this point). Good referencing sunken boat example. However,
need more defense that this argument applies here:
o
Need to defend that the holes don’t provide notice: Maybe one four-foot deep hole could
be “natural,” but a whole bunch of them are likely man-made.
o
Need to explain why this should matter in this case where N knew F had made the holes.

(C1): Traps Not Private Enclosures: Unsupported Assertion. New argument. No defense or
connection to passage in Q.

(C2) + (E): Not Reasonable Precautions to Prevent Escape: Uneven. New argument. Certainly
plausible to argue checking schedule didn’t meet this test, but only defense you provide is that F
allowed some weasels the chance to escape. Given central holding of Shaw that traps don’t have
to be escape-proof, that seems insufficient. Need to defend that 50% escape rate is too much.
Tie-Breaker Tasks
Focus on Topic: Passage  Property Rights: A Little Uneven.

Connects Arguments to Passage: (B) and (D) are mostly well-connected to idea of
demonstrating intent. References to labor in (B) and to natural in (F) not connected back to
test. (C) and (E) are applying a different test and are not connected back to your passage.

Intro/Conclusion: Good using passage in intro; might briefly in conclusion tie back with
phrase like, Because 2d prong of test is not met….” Might make clearer you are addressing
F’s Property Rights at time N took weasels.
Which of Your Arguments is Stronger? Little sense of comparing strength of arguments you’ve
already made.

Best Points from 1A1: No response to specific points that might be relevant: depth of hole
and regular checking might be sufficient precautions/sufficient evidence of no intent to
abandon.

Best Points from 1A2: You choose to focus on 2d prong, which is fine.
New/Additional Points: All new.
Explain/Defend Key Points: Solid on (B)/(D). Very thin in (C) and (E) and (F).
Accuracy: Mostly fine. “Opposite” in (E) seems too strong since F succeeds in capturing 50%.
Writing/Presentation: Number of Concerns: Some unnecessary passive voice. (A2) is unnecessary;
point is clear from passage itself. (D3) too vague to be useful. Organization of points unhelpful; you
jump back and forth between topics.
(A) The facts and language in Shaw provide strong support for the argument in favor of
Frazier’s property rights.
(B)(1) Like [As] in Shaw, Frazier demonstrates an effort and intent to capture specific animals.
(2) His ability to maintain control over the traps also conveys [shows ?] his property rights
to animals caught in the traps.
(3) Frazier took the time to dig four feet down and conceal the traps to maximize the
number of weasels he could catch.
(4) The argument against Frazier’s property rights actually credits his effort by highlighting
that his many traps captured half of the weasels.
(5) Frazier’s careful design of the traps shows his intention to keep the weasels.
(C) While the argument against Frazier’s property rights does say that injury can never be
certain, it can be argued that the occurrence of a non-injury is just as uncertain.
(D) His continuous monitoring of the traps demonstrates that Frazier expects to [catch some]
have weasels caught even if some are uninjured or half of the weasels escape after some time.
The argument in favor of Frazier’s property rights demonstrates that he has no intention of
allowing the weasels to be freed under any circumstance.
(E) [Under t]he rule in Shaw indicates that Frazier adequately demonstrated his power and
control over the weasels, and did not intend to abandon them.
Overall: A Little Uneven.
Correct Use of Passage: Uneven.

1st Prong: Bring Into Power & Control: Unsupported application in (E); no other discussion.

2d Prong: Maintain Control: Most of discussion and your conclusion incorrectly treat intent to
capture/intent not to abandon as sufficient to meet test. Need instead to show that F “maintains
control” of animals, but very little defense of this.
Specific Supporting Arguments Presented:

(B) Effort Shows Intent to Capture: A Little Uneven. Slight reworking of an idea raised in
1A1. Logic of this is correct, but intent insufficient to meet test. You reference maintaining
control in (B2), but don’t defend/explain that F does this. You note 50% success rate in (B4), but
don’t defend that number as sufficient to meet legal test.

(C) Non-Injury Uncertain: Unhelpful as Framed. Key point is incorrect (see accuracy) and
relevance to your argument is unclear.

(D) Monitoring Shows Expectation/Intent to Catch Some But Not All: Pretty Solid. Solid
ideas that he wouldn’t be monitoring unless he intended to catch some weasels (stronger version
of argument made in 1A1) and that even letting some go is not an intent to abandon all (new).
Need to frame argument so relevance to 2d prong is clearer.
Tie-Breaker Tasks
Focus on Topic: Passage  Property Rights: Pretty Good Overall.

Connects Arguments to Passage: (B) & (D) mostly tied in given your understanding of test.
Significance of (B4) and of (C) unclear.

Intro/Conclusion:
o
Should reference test you are using in Intro as well as Conclusion
o
Should reference key Q in both: Did F have property rights at time N took weasels.
Which of Your Arguments is Stronger? Pretty good sense of comparing strength of arguments
you’ve already made.

Best Points from 1A1: (B) and (D) both improve upon points made in 1A1.

Best Points from 1A2: You address argument that 50% is insufficient in (D) to some extent;
could defend more. You address intent to abandon argument in both (B) and (D).
New/Additional Points: New points in both (B) and (D); (C) unclear.
Explain/Defend Key Points: Some in (B) and (D); not in (C).
Accuracy: Number of concerns. Need to be more careful characterizing facts.

(B2) over the traps: He needs to maintain control over the animals, not the traps.

(B3) maximize # of weasels: Hard argument to make, since (as you concede in (D)) his overall
method allows half to get away.

(B5) careful design: Could defend this more; not earth-shatteringly original.

(C) occurrence of a non-injury: Has to be true that less than half the weasels get injured, or
he’d capture more than 50%. Thus, “occurrence of a non-injury” is more likely/less uncertain.

(D) continuous: doing something once every few days not normally characterized this way.
Writing/Presentation: Wordy and some other presentation problems. See suggested edits above.
Organization of points made does not make logic of your argument clear.
(A)(1) The second argument, which argues that the weasels were not Frazier’s property, is the
strongest because [the facts fail to satisfy] it satisfies both points of the State v. Shaw
holding.
(2) While it is evident that Frazier brings the weasels under his power and control by
devising the traps, what is in question, is his ability to maintain control and show that he
does not intend to abandon them.
(B)(1) The traps Frazier developed for the weasels were made in a way that it took the
[uninjured] weasels 2 days to dig out of them because of the depth. This shows that the traps
were not secure enough to maintain the weasels under Frazier’s control.
(2) When analyzing the rule in Shaw, where the fish were “confined in nets, from which it
was not absolutely impossible for them to escape, yet it was practically so impossible,” the
weasels’ escape was very much possible.
(C)(1) Additionally Frazier’s inability to check the traps at adequate intervals puts in question his
intent towards the weasels and whether he planned on abandoning them. The fact that the
state was offering a bounty of $10.00 for every weasel that was brought in should have
motivated Frazier
(2) [to set] into setting more effective traps
(3) and [to check] checking them more frequently. However, Frazier’s decision to check the
trap every four or five days further proves that Frazier was not able to successfully maintain
his control over the weasels, and that
(4) his traps unlike the nets in Shaw were ineffective in demonstrating his intent to not
abandon the weasels.
(D) The weasels were not the property of Frazier when Niles took the weasels from the traps.
Overall: Uneven.
Correct Use of Passage: A Little Uneven.
 1st Prong: Bring Into Power & Control: Reasonable to concede this.

2d Prong: Maintain Control: Demonstrating intent not to abandon is not a separate test, but a
qualification on “maintain control.” Should not address separately as you do in (C1) and (C4)
Specific Supporting Arguments Presented:
 (B) (C2) (C4) Traps Insufficient. Uneven. Less developed version of point made in 1C2. Only
reason you give for saying the traps don’t meet either of your two tests is that weasels “escape
was … possible.” However, given the primary holding of Shaw rejecting the perfect net rule, this
is not enough. Need to discuss whether the difference in escape rate between the cases means
that nets are no good. Also might explain how F could improve the traps and/or explain much
more explicitly why doing extensive labor to build, check and reset the traps doesn’t show that he
intends to capture some weasels.

(C1)(C3) Schedule for Checking Insufficient. Quite Uneven, Picks up argument from 1A2, but
much less well-developed here. You say that the schedule shows that he fails both of your tests,
but provide no defense at all, not even the most basic statement that if he checked more often,
fewer weasels would escape.
Tie-Breaker Tasks
Focus on Topic: Passage  Property Rights: Quite Solid Overall
 Connects Arguments to Passage: Solid doing this given your understanding of the test.

Intro/Conclusion: Good explaining in Intro that F satisfies first prong and not the rest; should
do same in conclusion. Good focus in Conclusion on F’s Property Rights at time N took
weasels; should make similar point in Intro.
Which of Your Arguments is Stronger? Really no sense of comparing strength of arguments
you’ve already made.
 Best Points from 1A1: Might respond to arguments that purpose of traps is not to get all
weasels and effort placing traps and possibility of reward demonstrate intent not to abandon.

Best Points from 1A2: You don’t include explanation of why his trapping schedule is a
problem or duiscussion of high escapw rate.
New/Additional Points: Only new point is the unsatisfactory claim that the nets are insufficient b/c
some weasels escape.
Explain/Defend Key Points: Very thin; mostly unsupported assertions.
Accuracy: A Few Concerns, None Substantial
 (A1) Both Points: You concede 1st prong, so you must be incorrectly referring to “intent to
abandon” as a second test.

(B1): Traps: Difficult to say the traps were the problem; if F had checked every other day, traps
would control 100% of weasels that fell in, which is better than Shaw nets.

(B2) The Rule: Phrase you quote is describing facts of case. Not clear court intended it as a
“rule,” so need to defend that it should be a requirement for F.

(C3) and: F needs to either improve traps or checking, not both.
Writing/Presentation: Pretty wordy including some unneeded passive voice. Organization awkward:
You go back and forth between traps and F’s checking and between “maintain control” and “intent to
abandon.”