A conjecture of Berge about linear hypergraphs and Steiner systems S(2,4,v)

AbstractA famous conjecture of Berge about linear hypergraphs is studied. It is proved that all nearly resolvable Steiner systems S(2,4,v) and all almost nearly resolvable S(2,4,v) verify this conjecture

\u27The Reasonable Zone of Right Answers\u27: Analytical Feedback on Student Writing

This article develops the theory behind and practice of written analytical feedback on student writing for law practice. After Section I, which provides an introduction, Section II discusses the theory. It begins by addressing the function of legal writing classes in teaching students how to produce the kind of accurate and precise analysis that is the necessary foundation for documents useful in law practice. The section then goes on to discuss how this focus on analysis requires legal writing teachers to play a dual role—that of a legal educator as well as reader in law practice—in providing written critique of their students’ draft documents. Section III concludes by providing examples of how this theory should play out in the practice of giving such written comments. This section describes a specific legal problem that is the basis for examples that follow, including student attempts at communicating analysis, teacher feedback on those attempts, and commentary on why the feedback is pedagogically successful

Thinking Like a Lawyer: The Heuristics of Case Synthesis

In a common law system where cases play such an important role in legal problem-solving, lawyers must be able to synthesize ideas from groups of cases to figure out a jurisdiction’s law at a particular point in time; in reality, however, many lawyers aren’t able to do so well enough for sophisticated law practice. Some lawyers understand and use this skill intuitively, but do not consciously think about the steps they actually take. Those in this group often do not sufficiently value case synthesis because it seems so obvious, with the result that they don’t necessarily use this skill to its full potential. Others don’t intuitively understand how to synthesize cases and have never learned a methodology to do so. Lawyers in this situation simply are not able to manipulate case law adequately and consequently fail to produce the necessary depth of analysis to represent clients effectively. This article’s goal is to ensure that lawyers in practice—and teachers in law schools who train future lawyers—have a sufficient understanding of synthesizing cases. To achieve this, the article begins by describing the theory behind this skill as well as a methodology that will generate the subtle nuances of analysis necessary for sophisticated law practice. The article then proceeds to apply this methodology to a group of hypothetical cases that have been designed to demonstrate the complex permutations of actually working with a group of cases to solve a client’s problem