I left off last time with the suggestion that, in considering closing arguments, "inevitability" is key to their effectiveness. In recent times, very few (especially civil) cases get to trial. The ones that do—i.e., those that aren't resolved by plea agreement, settlement, or pre-trial motion—do so because the facts are in dispute, the facts may or may not constitute a violation, or the appropriate remedy is in doubt. For example, defendants accused of violating the Sherman Act may dispute that they agreed to fix prices, or they might argue that no matter what they did, they didn't cause the plaintiff's injuries, or the parties may have wildly different views on what constitutes a reasonable amount for damages. By nature, then, assuming rational litigants and lawyers, a case going to trial has no inevitable conclusion. Making the theory of a case appear inevitable is the best we can hope for.