The Art of Legal Argument

  • Uncategorized

The art of legal thinking has been carefully designed to help you get the most out of your cases and practice. Legal reasoning is applied logic. While your logical intuitions may be strong enough to generally allow for smooth navigation through networks of complex legal arguments without error, the lack of familiarity with logic and arguments limits your analytical oversight and makes you vulnerable to errors in reasoning that can affect the outcome of cases. Douglas Lind acknowledges that you have very little time to study logic as an independent subject. This course provides brief and concise descriptions of the forms of reasoning and logical errors (errors of reasoning) that are most relevant to legal practice. The principles of inductive and deductive reasoning taught by Lind also apply to 3) hypertext: determining not only normative values, but also the type of values (categorical or consistent) that justify an argument or result; and “Any legal analysis should begin at the point of reason, pursue a logical path, and arrive at a fundamentally fair conclusion.” Part I provides a general methodology for constructing legal arguments. The second part focuses more on the development of persuasive and well-reasoned legal premises and deals with the effective integration of legal doctrine and evidence into the structure of argument. Part III shows how the method can be put into practice by giving two detailed examples of constructing complete legal arguments from scratch. Part IV contains a detailed protocol for reducing well-constructed legal arguments to written form and a concrete illustration of this process.

There is also concrete guidance on how to identify and avoid a variety of common errors in the written presentation of legal arguments. Part V moves from the basics to more advanced techniques of persuasive legal argumentation. These include rhetorical tactics of framing and emphasizing how to respond to arguments, maintaining professionalism in advocacy, and ethical boundaries of argumentation. 2) Context: Careful identification of the “extent” of circumstances (micro or macro) that will characterize the legal controversy; An essay of only five short paragraphs, published a few years ago by renowned Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould on a controversial appeal by baseball umpire Babe Pinelli, provides all the necessary basis for a thorough examination of the phenomenon of legal reasoning. This article compares Gould`s analysis of a “strike” with Justice John Roberts` comment at his Supreme Court confirmation hearings that he only wanted to “call bullets and strikes,” and through this exchange, develops a new approach to identifying and teaching the fundamentals of sophisticated legal thinking. This article divides legal reasoning into four interrelated elements that anchor and structure the complex process that lies “under” the more traditional references to “analogy” and “characterization” and others on which the existing literature on the subject focuses. The challenge of legal reasoning and the difficulty of being decision-makers in this context stems from the fact that each of these elements gives rise to its own particular forms of disagreement and controversy, which lawyers and judges try to resolve satisfactorily. The result is a complicated but structured thought process that corresponds to the equally complicated but structured nature of the law itself. The four elements of legal reasoning developed here in detail are as follows: Examples of judicial decisions that contain sophisticated logic and analysis 1) Text: Understanding the subtle distinction “is/should” that animates the language in which the right is expressed; Use your phone`s camera – scan the code below and download the Kindle app. Detailed analysis of a number of court cases illustrating deductive syllogisms and inductive reasoning. To calculate the total number of stars and the percentage distribution per star, we do not use a simple average.

Instead, our system takes into account things like updating a review and whether the reviewer purchased the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to check for reliability. Customer reviews, including star ratings of products, help customers learn more about the product and decide if it`s right for them. The latter of these categories will indeed be considered the true basis, or at least the only plausible basis, for Justice Roberts` overtly simplistic remark about “bullets and punches.” Yes, there are appeals to sentiment, self-interest determinations and “value judgments,” but, as one appellate court noted: Logical composition of arguments in illustrated cases Unconditional guarantee If you are not convinced that your understanding of the course topic has improved after completing a Prince Edward Island seminar ®, we will refund your course fees. 4) Subtext: Appreciation of the institutional and political circumstances of justice in our form of government. That`s what Lind teaches on a hectic, information-rich day that her audience loves. Judges Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Society Commons GARY FIDEL is a member of the bars of New York, Pennsylvania and Arizona. He has practiced in both the private and public sectors and is currently an Executive Assistant Attorney for Legal Affairs in the Queens County District Attorney`s Office.

He has published consumer-focused articles in Family Weekly and book reviews in New York Newsday and The New York Law Journal.

Close Menu