Beauty and the Billionaire - Critical Reasoning Case Problem Beauty Queen had recently married the billionaire recluse Howard Huge. She consented to the couple giving an interview to the great news person Baba Wawa. Beauty Queen hoped to further help Howard Huge overcome his reclusiveness. Baba Wawa arrived at the mansion a little early and as she walked by a large picture window at the front of the house she stopped and looked in. She saw Howard Huge holding one of Beauty Queen's prized Afghan dogs by its collar or neck, shaking or striking it on the shoulders. Meanwhile, Beauty Queen was on her hands and knees on the carpet, wearing her underwear, wiping something wet and brown looking from the luxurious cream-colored carpeting, and seemingly crying. Baba Wawa took pictures. She then waited outside the house until the appointed time for the interview. During the interview, Beauty Queen talked about how happily married the two were. Howard Huge did not say anything unless directly asked, then answered without emotion and briefly. At one point Baba Wawa asked about the prize Afghan hounds and asked to see them. Beauty Queen uncomfortably told Baba Wawa that they were under the weather and that she would not stress them by having them come to the great room. Baba Wawa completed the interview and left. The story that she published included the photo of Howard Huge "strangling" the prize dog and looking like he was angry, with Beauty Queen appearing to be cowering and crying. Baba Wawa further indicated that the couple refused to allow the dogs to be seen and that no one had seen the dogs since the photographed scene. The couple began to be shunned by their peers and denied permission to show the dogs. They sued Baba Wawa and Star News, her employer, seeking compensation for damaging their reputations. The real story was that the dog was choking on some object and Howard was trying to dislodge it by hitting it between the shoulder blades and shaking it. Howard was worried about the poor dog, of which he was very fond, throughout the interview. This might explain why he seemed surly or distant during the interview. Assignment (minimum 3 ): In the first assignment, we identified five legal claims and the relevant facts. In the second assignment we listed and broke down the elements and defenses for each possible claim. Now I need you to: 1. Apply each of the rules to the relevant facts and analyze whether the claim is valid. 2. For each of the claims, determine whether there is a valid defense. 3. Think skeptically and write convincingly! Remember, as a lawyer your job is to make the most persuasive argument for your client! Note: You should incorporate some the following techniques in your responses (see the "About Critical Thinking" document for explanations): a.deductive reasoning c.reasoning by analogy b.inductive reasoning. d.distinctions