There is no one “right” answer (opinion) to this case; instead, the goal is to create a convincing argument that a judge or jury evaluates based on its reasoning, conclusions, and the teams' ability to communicate. The case is written in such a way that there is evidence to support both the argument that Mr. Jones was in financial distress at the time of the fire, as well as the argument that Mr. Jones was not in financial distress at the time of the fire. Because of this, in numerous test runs, both sides have won an equal number of times. This case provides students with a real-world experience, which demonstrates that good narrative, reasoning, and the ability to communicate may speak louder than numbers. This is why we encourage a debriefing session after the mock trials during which students can read and discuss the jurors' written comments that...

You do not currently have access to this content.