There are two extra credit questions here: one substantive question, and one silly question. These questions are from the resources in the Introduction to Legal Thinking: IRAC document located in the IRAC & Sample Cases module on the course home page.As we start to learn legal analysis, here is a very brief explanation of the public policy supporting the concept: Legal analysis involves applying the law to the facts to reach a reasoned conclusion based on$,$ and justified by$,$ the analysis. The analysis must then be explained; that is$,$ one must carefully describe how the requirements of the law are, or are not, satisfied under the circumstances. Others can then read the explanation to then see, hopefully, that the laws are being faithfully followed and applied. IRAC is an acronym that describes legal thinking. It stands for Issue $-$ Rule $-$ Analysis $-$ Conclusion. Briefly, the issue is the legal question, or dispute, that needs to be resolved in a legal case. The issue is determined by looking the the facts of a legal case. The facts describe what happened that led to the legal dispute. The rule is the law used to resolve the issue. The analysis involves applying the law to the facts to reach a reasoned conclusion justified by the analysis.Introduction to Legal Thinking: IRAC Sterling Archer was at a work party, drinking beer. As he was walking through the hallway and carrying his beer, he spilled some beer on the floor. He decided to go to the cafeteria and get some paper towels to clean up the mess. Upon entering the cafeteria to get paper towels, he saw his coworker, Cyril, kissing his ex$-$girlfriend $($and coworker$)$ Lana. Archer got instantly jealous and punched an unsuspecting Cyril in the face.In the meantime, the Human Resources director, Pam, heard yelling and wanted to see what was happening. As she walked hurriedly to the cafeteria where the ruckus was coming from, she slipped on the beer that had been spilled by Archer and hurt her knee. Discuss any tort claims that the parties may have. Issue: Spot the issues by reading the facts carefully.Issue$-$spotting in and of itself isnt going to get you a high score. If you read the fact pattern and all you say in response is$,$ The issues are: $(1)$ Whether Archer committed an assault and$/$or battery against Cyril; and, $(2)$ Whether Archer is liable to Pam for negligence, you probably wont get a very high score on your answer. This is all to say: not all four parts of the IRAC method are treated equally in terms of scoring.However, you need to spot the issues so that you can state the rules, analyze them.and do all of those other things that earn points. Thus, issue$-$spotting is a crucial skill to develop if you want to do well in law class.How do you get better at issue$-$spotting? If you are having trouble issue$-$spotting, the best thing to do is to carefully re$-$read the facts after you have written your draft answer to see if there are any issues you missed. Ask yourself two simple questions when you go through the facts, Are there any important facts in the fact pattern that I have not discussed? and Can any of those facts be turned into a legal issue? Rule: State the Rules clearly.If you get a question like the one above involving Archer, Cyril, and assault and battery, here is where you should include the laws of assault and battery. According to our textbook, assault is defined as intentionally "causing the apprehension or fear of immediate harmful or offensive contact." The text defines battery as "application of force that results in harmful or offensive contact with a person's body. So$,$ in stating the issues, dont just say, Archer hit Cyril and this is assault and battery. You need to wrap up that statement in legal language after all, youre studying the law!Do the same thing with the other legal issue here involving Pam and Archer: negligence. Negligence is essentially legal carelessness. Our textbook defines negligence as "failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in the same situation." According to our textbook, there are five parts to the law of negligence. Each of these five parts, $($parts are known in the law as elements$)$ must be proven to succeed on a negligence claim:$(1)$ The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care;$(2)$ The defendant breached that duty;$(3)$ The defendant's conduct was the actual cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Actual cause, also known as factual cause, means that Archer's actions did, in fact, lead to Pam's injuries;$(4)$ The defendant's conduct was the proximate causeof the plaintiff's injuries. Proximate cause is also known as legal cause. Proximate cause is not a question of fact. Actual cause is$.$ Proximate cause is a question of responsibility, or justice if you like. Proximate cause requires that there be a strong enough connection between the act and the injury to justify imposing legal liability on the actor. The test for proximate cause is foreseeability; and$(5)$ The plaintiff was damaged.In case you are unfamiliar with the names of the parties in a civil lawsuit, the plaintiff is the party that files the lawsuit. The plaintiff is claiming that her legal rights have been violated by the defendant. The plaintiff must prove her case. The defendant is the party being sued. The defendant allegedly violated the legal rights of the plaintiff, leading to damage. How do you get better at rule statements? Be sure to include the entire rule that applies to the situation. Oftentimes, as in the law of negligence, there are multiple parts to a rule, each of which must be proven to establish a legal case involving that rule. Then, read and try to understand the applicable rules as best as you can. Make notes and outlines of problems following the IRAC method to try to understand how and why legal rules are applied the way the are. Analysis: Legal analysis involves applying the law to the facts to reach a conclusion justified by that analysis. Be sure to argue both sides as you proceed through your analysis of the case. In most cases, there are plausible arguments on each side. In analyzing the negligence issue, it is tempting to ramble on and on about how Archer was negligent for spilling his beer and he owes Pam money because she was harmed when she fell, etc. etc. etc. Remember, however, that legal analysis requires a specific way of thinking. Also, remember that it is not enough to only think about only one side. There are two parties involved in legal cases. Argue both sides. First, of course, Pam, as the plaintiff, has to prove negligence. She is claiming the Archer was negligent. She would have to prove all the elements $($or parts$)$ of the law of negligence to successfully make her case. So$,$ Pam would have to prove that:$(1)$ Archer owed her a duty of care;$(2)$ Archer broke that duty;$(3)$ Archers breach of the duty was the actual cause of her injury; $(4)$ Archer's breach of the duty was the proximate cause of her injury; and$(5)$ Pam was injured. We must now apply the law of negligence to the facts of the case to determine if Pam can prove her case:$(1)$ Duty of care$--$Archer owes Pam the duty to act as a reasonably prudent person would act;$(2)$ Breach$--$Archer's act of spilling his beer on the hallway floor and leaving it without cleaning it up or warning others of the danger was unreasonably dangerous;$(3)$ Actual Cause$--$Archer's act of spilling his beer and leaving it there in fact led to Pam's injury. If the beer had not been there, Pam obviously could not have slipped in it;$(4)$ Proximate Cause$--$Pam will argue that it is fair and reasonable to blame Archer for her injury because there is a very strong connection between his act and her injury. The question is: It is reasonably foreseeable by Archer that his spilt Dos Equis beer presents a danger to anyone else who might come by$?$ If so$,$ there is proximate cause. If not, there is not; and$(5)$ Injury$--$Pam hurt her knee when she slipped on Archer's spilt beer as she was rushing to see what all the commotion was about.Remember, all five elements must be proven to succeed in a negligence claim. If any one of them is missing, there is no negligence.

Answer these Archer & Pam Extra Credit Questions $(4$ points possible$)$

Question $1(3$ points possible$)$:Does the concept of comparative negligence apply to the case involving Archer and Pam? Why or why not? Fully explain.

Question $2(1$ point possible$)$:What brand of beer did Archer spill?