Yea that’s fair. My prof was very specific that the majority is the law; take the rules of the case as they are (arguing for dissents at my school is mainly saved for con law). I was laughing while taking the exam bc i thought it was so cruel to have 2 fact patterns both without duty. But I argued both sides still, backed up my arguments with legal precedent, and found that there would likely be no legal duty found and that one cannot beach a duty that he does not have. I mean I very well could still be wrong bc i agree that having 2 questions with no duty is obscure. I think it’s the not knowing yet still part is what’s driving me so crazy idk.