This problem involves a critical comparison of opposing claims, analytical thinking, and problem-solving. For this writing assignment, students will:
Demonstrate an understanding of and ability to explain the problem, and the needed outcome
Demonstrate the logic of how you went from the problem posed to the recommendation made
Demonstrate an ability to addressing the audience described for this assignment
Demonstrate the use of appropriate tone
Revise, edit and proofread the writing assignment to create an organized, complete, clear and concise document.
In this final deliverable, students will demonstrate an understanding of the problem and fully develop all required elements of the memorandum for this writing assignment. Refer to the Legal Memorandum GuidePreview the document to find the formatting of the memorandum, the elements required, and the content to be included. Review and revise your pre-writing document using the input from your classmates’ peer reviews of your work to assist your own revision process. Be sure to edit the document for grammar and spelling prior to turning it in. For convenient reference, the assignment is included below.
Step 1: Review Peer Review Feedback and Integrate Your Revisions
Give careful consideration to all of the feedback provided by your peers. Determine which feedback you believe suggests improvements that you can make to your document and make the needed revisions to your document. As this is your work, you may decide you disagree with some comments or agree with the comment but not the recommended action; you do not need to implement suggestions you disagree with.
Step 2: Return to the Memorandum Guide and Complete Missing Elements of Your Memorandum
The work you did in the pre-writing assignment did not produce the complete memorandum. That assignment was designed to get you thinking about important elements of the assignment, without having to produce the entire document. You will take what you started and have revised and with the use of the memorandum guide, you will complete all elements of the memorandum, being careful to remember who you are writing to.
Step 3: Revise, Edit and Proofread your Memorandum
Revise – re-examine your memorandum to be sure you have included the required elements and that they are logically and clearly organized.
Edit – After you have finished with the overarching content and organization, review your document for clarity and conciseness. Can you use more precise words (while still using language that is familiar to the general audience you have on a jury)? Are you using words or phrases that do not enhance the meaning of your sentences? Can any of your sentences be reworded to be more compact, while maintaining the meaning?
Proofread – After you have made any content or organization changes you want to make, review your document for spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. Using the Microsoft Word grammar and spelling check (with preferences set for professional work) or another resource such as Grammarly (there is a free and a subscription version of this resource), is often helpful. However, even with these tools, you need to oversee the suggestions they make, as they sometimes suggest things that will change your meaning or make incorrect recommendations when you have long complex sentences. Yet, even with these limitations, they can help you quickly identify many errors in your writing.
Problem Description: Critical comparison of opposing claims, analytical thinking, and problem-solving
Shaft wear in excess of 3.50 could lead to catastrophic failures of a certain model fuel pump in extreme weather conditions. Engineers for the manufacturer of the shafts claim that the shaft wear is within acceptable limits. Lawyers representing a class action legal suit filed against the company feel that recent vehicle failures for vehicles with this shaft are due to faulty bearings causing abnormal wear and, thus, feel that the company should pay for the necessary vehicle repair and parts replacement.
The amount of shaft wear (in microns.) after a simulated mileage of 250,000 miles was determined for each of n = 45 fuel pumps having copper lead as a bearing material, resulting in x-1.png and s = 1.25. Use the appropriate hypothesis test at level .01 to determine if the shaft wear is within acceptable limits. Please state any assumption you have made, if necessary.
Conduct the appropriate hypothesis test. What determined your choice of the alternative hypothesis? Whose claim would you support?
Be sure to present the logic of your statistical approach clearly and completely to convince the Judge and jury of your position.
Write your response as if you were presenting evidence as an unbiased expert witness.
Audience: Your document is addressed to the judge in the case – The Honorable Frida Harb, and copied (CC) to Michael Franks, Clerk of the Court. The case this memorandum supports is Tierney v. The True Car Parts Corporation.
The jury will also be reviewing the case documents. Therefore the jury is an important audience even though this group is not formally addressed in the document. This part of your audience is assumed not to have the specific technical knowledge of the field the witness is explaining. The expert witness must persuade the audience of their expertise and their presentation of the case is the most credible assessment of the facts possible.
Officers of the court, legal advisories, and opposing expert witnesses are important secondary audiences, making it necessary to address any ideas that would counter your case and present why they do not disqualify your case.
Document: This document should present as a memorandum to the court in the case Tierney v. The True Car Parts Corporation.
Writing Assignment 3.3 P&S 2019F
Writing Assignment 3.3 P&S 2019F
CRITERIA RATINGS PTS
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMemorandum header is completedThe layout and content follow Document/Memorandum header instructions in the Legal Memorandum Guide
The memorandum header is complete
The memorandum header is weak in one area
The memorandum header is weak in one area by otherwise well done.
Memorandum header is poorly done
The Memorandum header is missing multiple elements or is substaintailly incomplete or incorrect
The memorandum header is missing
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe Question Presented is included and meets all requirementsThe Question Presented is stated as a legal question. It is written in a clear and concise way.
The Question Presented is well done
The Question Presented is stated as a legal question. It is written in a clear and concise way.
The Question Presented is weak in part
The Question Presented is included but is not written clearly and/or concisely.
The question is poorly done
The Question Presented is included but is not written as a legal question. It may or may not be clearly and/or concisely written.
The question is missing
The Question Presented is not included or is not identified
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe Brief Answer is presentedThe Brief Answer is stated as a response to a legal question. It is written in a clear and concise way.
The Brief answer is included and well done
The Brief Answer is stated as a response to a legal question. It is written in a clear and concise way.
The Brief Answer is included and well done in part
The Brief Answer is included as the answer to a legal question but is not clearly and concisely written.
The Brief Answer is included but substantially incorrect
The brief answer is not written as an answer to a legal question. It may or may not be clearly and concisely written.
The Brief Answer is missing
The brief answer is missing or not identified.
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe Facts section is presented completely and clearlyThe Facts section clearly and concisely presents a full picture of the data provided to use to address this legal question.
The Facts section is well done
The Facts section clearly and concisely presents a full picture of the data provided for use to address this legal question
The Facts section is well done, in part
The Facts section is weak in one way – either there is a lack of clarity and conciseness in one part or an element of the data description is missing.
The Facts section is poorly done, in multiple parts
The Facts section is weak in more than one way – there is a lack of clarity in part(s) and/or there are one or more aspects of the data not included.
The Facts section is missing
The Facts section is missing or not identified.
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe Discussion section is presented clearly, concisely and completely.The discussion section clearly and concisely presents a complete explanation of how the data was used to examine the problem and how that informed the legal answer.
The Discussion section is well done
The Discussion section clearly and concisely presents a complete explanation of how the data was used to evaluate the problem and how that informed the legal answer.
The discussion section well done in part
The Discussion section is weak in one way – either there is a missing step in the logical progression of the case, or the section may have unclear or unconcise elements.
The discussion section is poorly done
The discussion is missing multiple elements or is unclearly presented.
The discussion section is very poorly presented or missing
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusion is includedA conclusion is included that meets the requirements in “How to Write a Business Memorandum”. Additionally, the conclusion is clear, complete, and concise.
Conclusion is well done
The conclusion is s complete, clear, and concise.
Conclusion is included but weak in some element
The conclusion is included by weak in one way
The conclusion is poorly done
The conclusion is incomplete, confusing or wordy
Conclusion is missing or very poorly done
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAppendix is includedAn appendix is included and formatted correctly
Appendix is included and formatted correctly
The appendix is included but not formatted correctly
Appendix is not included
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe assignment does not address the correct problem (minus 1 point)
Problem is not addressed – minus 1 point
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe correct audience was not addressed (minus 1 point)
The correct audience was not addressed (minus 1 point)
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe Appendix included uses the statistical calculations using the correct approach and getting the correct answer
The statistical calculations are correct, and correctly located at the end of the document
The calculations in the appendix are included but have an error
The calculations are included at the end of the document but have a minor error
The calculations are missing from the appendix or are not at the end of the document