Question type	ToU question	Example (partial) answer to ToU question	Significance to legal application
Spatial	Where was the hunter when he broke his wrist?	On the landowner's property.	The locations of events are legally relevant in many ways. For one, property owners may be held liable for injuries that occur on their property. Additionally, however, property owners may not be liable for injuries suffered by trespassers.
Spatial	Where was the boundary sign?	On the boundary between the public lands and the writer's property.	The presence of a sign may shield the landowner from responsibility, but recognizing that means understanding that it would mark the boundary between the two properties.
Temporal	When did the stone wall fall into disrepair?	Sometime before the story started.	How long the wall has been in disrepair may be legally relevant. Since the exact timing was not given, the system might flag this question for further clarification.
Temporal	Has the hunter sued?	No, although he may do so in the future.	If the hunter had already sued, the landowner might need representation whether or not the suit had merit.
Causal	Why did the hunter break his wrist (rather than his wrist remaining intact)?	Because he stepped onto the wall (rather than stepping elsewhere), which led to him falling (rather than remaining upright, because the wall was in disrepair rather than better condition), which led to him breaking his wrist (rather than his wrist remaining intact).	The wall's disrepair was allegedly an important causal factor in the injury, making it more plausible that the landowner could be held responsible.
Motivational	Why did the hunter claim he didn't see a sign (rather than saying nothing of signs)?	He would prefer that others believe that he entered the property unwittingly (rather than deliberately), either because he in fact enter unwittingly or because he would like to deny his deliberate violation. He believes that if he says he did not see a sign, others will be more likely to believe this (whereas if he says nothing, they may assume he saw the sign).	The hunter's claim of unwitting entry could be motivated either by true innocence or by deception, which affects whether it should be believed—and unwitting entry may be treated differently by the law. The system may want to flag this claim for follow-up questions about its plausibility.
Causal	Why did the hunter enter the private property (rather than stopping at the boundary)?	Possibly because the hunter didn't see the sign (rather than seeing it), so he remained unaware he was crossing the boundary (rather than realizing he was).	There may be a mechanistic (non-motivational) explanation for why the hunter did not stop at the boundary, and again, unintentional entry may be legally different. Also, the landowner may have been responsible for posting signs that would keep people away from his property if there were any hazards.
Motivational (recursive explanation for the end of the previous causal chain)	Why might being aware of the boundary have made the hunter stop, whereas being unaware of it (may have) led him to cross it?	The hunter likely prefers staying within the law to violating it. If he had known he was at the boundary of private property, he would have known that continuing past the boundary would be illegal trespass, but not knowing about the boundary meant he did not know continuing could be trespassing.	The hunter suggested that missing the sign led to accidentally entering the property, but that claim hinges on the assumption that had he known about the property line, he would have respected it. That may be a challengeable assumption.
Motivational	Why did the hunter threaten to sue, rather than suing immediately?	The hunter would prefer to get less money than to possibly get more money but experience the hassle of a lawsuit and risk getting nothing. He believed that if he threatened, the property owner might be afraid of losing more money and give him the $10,000 (whereas if the hunter sued immediately he would have no chance to avoid the hassle and risk).	It is possible that the very act of extorting money via a threat of a lawsuit has legal implications. Also, this action by the hunter may indicate that he considers the risk of losing the case high or that he is otherwise reluctant to pursue a lawsuit, which may affect what course of action the landowner ultimately wants to take.