Here is a nice exercise posted by Brian Garner from the ABA journal. Garner has published quite a bit on legal writing, and co-authored a book with US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 2008 (entitled Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges).
This exercise is an outage from another book the two men co-authored, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. The first paragraph reads as follows:
We’re all textualists, to one degree or another. That is, when it comes to statutory or contractual interpretation, everyone—even the most ardent “purposivist” or “consequentialist”—says that we must begin with the words of the text.
We look at the controlling words, we study their grammatical relationships, and we consider the context created by the document as a whole and the longer context in which the document was written (the time and place). Both consequentialists (who consider the consequences of the decision paramount) and purposivists (who consider the broad purposes of the text as superior to the actual words) go well beyond or outside the text—but at least they start there.
What follows is a series of 12 exercises based on real cases. Try your hand at it here.