You definitively state how things resolve.
This is good so long as analysis supports it.
You give alternative conclusions depending on which path the court takes.
This is also good so long as analysis supports it.
You give a conclusion and believe your conclusion is correct but have doubts.
This might be good, but should be based on analysis that supports it.
Don’t just punt.
You do not commit one way or another.
This has the potential of being a weak conclusion.
Lawyers are paid to solve problems and lawyers who are unwilling to take a position may be of little use to their clients.
Such a conclusion may be supportable if the analysis supports it, but a student taking an equivocal position is FAR more likely to be “punting” out inexperience or uncertainty.
If you feel the need to equivocate, you are probably better considering whether you should instead be concluding in the alternative.
Presented in review 11/23/15. Posted same day.