Read the overview below and complete the activities that follow.       

Legal reasoning consists of the development and  application of legal rules to guide the resolution of conflicts emerging  in a community. For that reasoning to be strong, it must adhere to  several generally respected intellectual standards. Critical thinking  about the law constitutes the application of these standards to legal  arguments in order to evaluate their reasonableness.       

CONCEPT REVIEW:   Appendix 1A contains a description of the basic steps  involved in critical thinking about the law. The initial steps are  linked to the need to discover what the legal argument and the relevant  rule of law is. The logic of these early steps is built on respect for  evaluating what was actually said. Once the argument is discovered, the  evaluative steps on page 11 provide the basis for an overall assessment  of the reasoning.      

 Mini Case:   A firm must always be alert to changes in the legal  environment of business. What would you advise RelaxEze to do in light  of the recent legal decision, Ramona Lopez v. DrugsRus? Apply the  process of critical thinking to arrive at your decision.       RelaxEze is a hypothetical pharmaceutical drug company  focused on creating drugs that treat the symptoms of childhood cancer.  Their scientists have just discovered a drug that tests show can reduce  anxiety by 40% in typical patients. The Federal Food and Drug  Administration agrees, and authorizes the sale of the drug to the  public. RelaxEze immediately unveils an advertising campaign that  explicitly states, “This drug works like no other drug that has ever  been sold in the United States.” They are rethinking the advertisement.  Is the decision to advertise in this manner permitted in light of the Lopez decision?        

The court in Lopez responded to a similar situation where  Lopez sued DrugsRus because it advertised one of its drugs by saying “a  single pill tonight eliminates the need for five tomorrow.” In reliance  on the advertisement, Ms. Lopez stopped taking her five arthritis pills  and began taking the single pill touted by DrugsRus. As a result of the  change in her medications, Ms. Lopez is no longer able to maintain  regular employment. The court determined that the rule of law that  applied in this instance is the reasonable person standard. The key  issue with respect to this standard is, “Would the reasonable person  have believed that one tablet for arthritis could adequately replace  five?” The court relied on the intended user standard in its decision.  The relevant question then became, “Would the reasonable intended  consumer rely on the advertisement at issue here?” The court found for  Ms. Lopez because they believed that the facts in this case demonstrated  that she was the typical intended consumer.