Queen Context
Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
Both, of course. Why ask?
If partying down, then it’s half-empty already. If taking a pre-exam purgative, it’s only half empty.
How to allocate attention between what’s there and what’s not is how a pragmatic analyst lives.
The topping off the glass problem doesn’t need an analyst:
Got beer
Want more beer
Find beer
It’s an equation in one variable with one unknown.
The context problem does need an analyst.
Got data
Need solution solution to some kind of problem
That is an equation in one or more variables with one or more unknowns. The empty part of the glass does not require more of the same—it requires something to add to or subtract from what’s already there to make it more utile. The full part may need to be full of something else. Or empty. In the lawyer’s phrase, it depends. Without the answer to the question What is needed in place of the half a glass of water? it’s too soon to start running a model. It won’t answer the embarrassing question:
OK, now that I know the test statistic and its p-value what do I actually do with that information?
Questions are in bad odor. Asking a question implies either ignorance or a set-up. But Aristotle and Taiichi Ohno knew better.
Aristotle defined the good as that which we do for its own sake and not for the sake of something else. Taiichi Ohno forged the Toyota Production System and debugged it with the Five Whys. In his experience, defining a problem generally required asking why five times. A war story will illustrate.
A commercial banking client came with a question about a novel financing product. He probably didn’t like the answer he had received from the accountants and was forum shopping. He wanted to know if a new deal structure would qualify as a “true sale.” (True sale for financial assets was a holy grail back in the day. It was a key to accelerating the recognition of income.)
After hearing about it, I advised that no, this wasn’t a true sale problem, but it might be a variable interest entity problem. Then came the work of picking away at the deal structure.
What’s the alternative?
Who’s has the risk when?
How does the choice affect transaction costs?
After drilling down, the pieces fell into the place.
In the glass were
The bank
Its customer
Its customer’s customer
Its customer’s customer’s collateral
Time between several deal timeline points
Money, principal
Money, interest (time value of principal)
Missing from the glass were ingredients to minimize the interest cost after transaction costs. Those were what the new deal structure solved.
That reduced the problem to walking the accountants through an unfamiliar pattern to show that no, it wasn’t a true sale problem, and couldn’t be without ever having owned the asset. And, yes, it was a variable interest entity, but another party had the portion that required parking on someone’s balance sheet.
So, at the end of the day, the right question was not do I have a true sale problem?, it was what’s the right accounting treatment for this transaction? and will you help me convince the accountants?
Analysis is hard. Unnatural, even.
We all want to be the brilliant quarterback who flings the ball 50 yards for the touchdown or the midfielder who kicks one past the goalie from mid-pitch. We want things to be intuitively obvious. We want to ask simple questions and get simple answers.
AI is brilliant at giving simple answers to simple questions, a great improvement over simple searching if care is taken to check the answers from some other source. Trouble is, it’s getting increasingly hard earning a living by answering simple questions.
Here is a typical middling difficult law school hypothetical.
One night, when it was raining lightly, Dan went looking for Vic saying, “I’ll get that guy for cheating me out of $100.” Dan took a loaded pistol with him. Not knowing where Vic lived, Dan wandered around the city for several hours. Suddenly, it began to rain heavily. Dan smashed a window in the very first house he saw, and entered. He remained inside the house until the rain stopped. As Dan was about to leave, Vic came in the front door. Startled, Dan pulled out his gun and fired one shot, missing Vic. Dan then ran out the door. As it turned out, Dan had broken into Vic’s house; Dan did not know whose house it was when he broke in. Dan has been charged with burglary. What result?
As a non-lawyer, you might think this is a slam-dunk conviction. The guy broke into a house, right? It’s actually more complicated. Here’s Claude.ai’s whack at the piñata.
This burglary charge will likely fail.
Elements of Burglary
Common law burglary requires: (1) breaking and (2) entering (3) the dwelling house (4) of another (5) at night (6) with intent to commit a felony therein. Modern statutes often modify these elements, but the critical element here is intent at the time of entry.
Analysis of Dan’s Entry
Dan satisfied the physical elements: he broke (smashed the window) and entered Vic’s dwelling house at night. The determinative issue is whether Dan had the requisite intent to commit a felony inside the house at the moment he broke in.
The facts establish that Dan entered solely to escape the heavy rain. He didn’t know whose house it was, had been wandering aimlessly for hours, and chose “the very first house he saw” when the rain intensified. His decision to break in was prompted entirely by weather conditions, not by any intent to commit a crime inside.
The Shooting is Irrelevant
While Dan did shoot at Vic (attempted murder/assault with a deadly weapon), this occurred after entry when Vic surprised him. For burglary, the intent to commit a felony must exist at the time of breaking and entering. Dan’s subsequent criminal act, though serious, cannot retroactively supply the missing intent element.
The coincidence that Dan happened to break into Vic’s house is immaterial. Dan’s pre-existing intent to harm Vic somewhere doesn’t translate to intent to commit a felony inside this particular dwelling when he had no idea whose house it was.
Conclusion
Not guilty of burglary. The prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dan intended to commit a felony inside the house when he broke in. Dan would face other charges (breaking and entering, criminal trespass, attempted murder/assault), but not burglary.
That’s a C+ answer, because it passes too lightly over some of the elements. The result is right, for the reason given, but it might also have been right for reasons not argued. Here is a fuller analysis:
At common law the elements of burglary are (1) the nocturnal (2) breaking and (3) entering of (4) the dwelling (5) of another (6) with intent to commit a (7) felony (8) therein.
“Nocturnal” means insufficient light to discern the countenance of another person at a reasonable distance. Some modern jurisdictions have a more definite meaning, such as the time an hour after sunset and an hour before sunrise. The facts do not establish whether either definition is met. Depending on when Dan set out, his several hours of wandering may have lasted past the dark hours into the dawn or even daylight.
However, assuming that the events all transpired in sufficient darkness, the element of “breaking” is satisfied by the smashing of the window. But a doubt may be raised over “entering.” The facts do not established that Dan entered through the broken window. Although it may be unlikely that there was another opening, a reasonable doubt might remain that Dan entered through the broken window.
However, assuming that the element of entering is satisfied the nature of the house as a “dwelling” requires more facts to establish. A dwelling place must not only be adapted to regular occupancy, it must be so used. For example, the house might be owned by Vic as a vacant rental unit.
However, assuming that the element of dwelling is satisfied, Dan lacked the prior intent to commit a felony in the house. While he did intend a criminal trespass, at common law that was only a misdemeanor absent some additional intent to commit a crime of a more serious nature.
Had Dan entered the house in the belief that Vic was present and Dan intended to shoot him, the requisite intent to commit a felony in the house would have been satisfied, but the facts show otherwise. Vic’s involvement in the house was unknown to Dan at the time of the entry. Although his assault was a felony, he lacked the intent to commit that felony in connection with the breaking.
Accordingly, Dan should be acquitted of the burglary charge. No analysis of other potential charges was asked.
Maybe I’m bragging, but I’ll give that an A. Analysis requires looking at everything relevant, not just checking boxes.