Logic for Legal Reasoning
Aniway Barcelona
Rosel Joy Provido
Logic for Legal Reasoning
Logic and the law are intertwined
Law schools dont always teach logical
reasoning or argument
Most writing and speaking in the legal
profession is based upon logical arguments
You cannot read case like a lawyer until you
understand the basics of logical thinking
Logical Reasoning for
Lawyers
A basic command of logical reasoning is
needed to follow most legal arguments
Critical to success in the law school
classroom
Central to effective engagement in Socratic
dialogue
Not required to know the ins and outs of all
logical reasoning just the basics
Three Forms of Logical Reasoning Every
Reader of the Law Should Know
Deductive reasoning
Proving a conclusion by means of two other propositions
By far the most frequently used form of reasoning
conclusions under the law
Inductive generalization
Arriving at sweeping generalizations based upon a smaller,
more discrete event
Analogy
The comparison of two different things in order to draw a
conclusions about both (EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN LAW
SCHOOL!)
Deductive Reasoning
One of two main forms of logical reasoning
Important to the legal system and reasoning
since this form of reasoning provides a
grounded foundation for conclusions
Deduction in reasoning in which a conclusion
is compelled by facts
If A and B are true so must C
John is 6 feet tall; Susan is taller than John;
Susan must be taller than 6 feet
Deduction and Legal
Reasoning
Syllogistic reasoning is the deductive
reasoning that is also used in judicial
opinions, briefs and memos
Instead of a result being COMPELLED by two
FACTS it is instead INFERRED from two
PREMISES
Major premise + minor premise = conclusion
What is true of the universe is true of the
particular
Example
All people sleep (general) so students must
sleep (particular)
Major premise (general): All people sleep
Minor premise (particular): Students are
people
Conclusion: Students sleep
Syllogism lies at the heart of
legal writing
Griswold v. Connecticut
A law is unconstitutional if it impacts the
zone of privacy created by Bill of Rights.
The law banning contraceptives
impacts the zone of privacy created by
the Bill of Rights.
Therefore the law banning
contraceptives is unconstitutional
Learn to Think in Syllogisms
Daily study is required to be a good student
I study daily
I am a good student
If you are not making syllogistic arguments in
your case briefs, legal writing, exams etc you
will never succeed in law school.
How do you develop the skill of
thinking/reasoning in syllogisms?
Construct a general rule as a major premise
Widely known legal rule
Applicable and relevant to your facts
Construct a minor premise for your facts
Draw a conclusion based upon how that
general rule applies to the minor premise
about facts
Example
Major premise: The First Amendment protects
certain kinds of expression from being
banned
Nude dancing is a form of expression
protected by the first amendment
The government cannot ban people from
dancing without clothing
Think of a Generic Syllogism
for Each Area of Law
Constitutional (rights of individuals)
[Doing something] is protected by [constituional
basis]
[Plaintiff] was [Doing something]
[Plaintiff] is protected by [constitutional basis]
Can you think of one for criminal law?
Contracts? Torts?
Not always easy to find in
judicial opinions
Excess language may obscure the logical
reasoning
Doesnt mean its bad writing
The law, after all, is complex!
Once you find it, however, you can argue its
validity or applicability--so you have to find it!
Example
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in
the Fourteenth Amendments concept of
personal liberty and restrictions upon state
action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court
determined, in the Ninth Amendment
reservation of rights to the people, is broad
enough to encompass a woman decision
whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
The syllogism?
Major Premise?
Minor Premise?
Conclusion?
Major Premise: The right of privacy is
guaranteed by the Fourteenth or Ninth
Amendment.
Minor Premise: A womans decision to
terminate her pregnancy is protected by the
right of privacy.
Conclusion:Therefore, a womans decision
whether to terminate her pregnancy is
protected by the Fourteenth or Ninth
Amendment.
Sometimes judges leave
things out that you should
know
No matter how much rearranging of language
you do you may be stuck!
Efficiency means stuff gets left out especially
when so widely known that both parties would
accept that fact
Be on the lookout for this kind of scenario
Pollysyllogisms
Multiple syllogisms must be constructed in
order to establish a conclusion
Most judicial opinions are written this way
Rule based syllogisms get stacked upon one
another in order to create holdings
Hosanna-Tabor case
Warning!
Watch out for flawed syllogisms
Sometimes the major premise is not major
enough
If not encompassing it leaves room for an
opening in order to undercut the argument
Look for qualifying language like some,
sometimes, many, once, occasionally,
oftentimes etc.
Example
Major Premise: Some forms of
expression are protected by the first
amendment
Minor Premise: Nude dancing is a form
of expression
Conclusion: Nude dancing is protected
by the first amendment
Inductive Reasoning
Big, general principles are divined from
individual smaller events
Opposite of deductive
Instead of general to specific induction is
taking specific to general
The world is predictable enough to arrive at
conclusions based upon specific incidents
that frequently occur
Not guaranteed
Example
Jane studies every day and is a good
student.
Tom studies every day and is a good
student.
Angela studies every day and is a good
student.
Good students study every day.
When is inductive reasoning
used?
When there is insufficient precedent
No clear statute
Basically, no major premise!
Easiest to understand but hardest to use
Law students oftentimes default to it when in
classroom dialog
One example of the opposite of the particular
statements (e.g. Randy is a good student but
he never studies) is all that is needed to
undermine them
Analogy
Plays a critical role in oral argument
before appellate panels and most law
school classrooms
Used to test the validity of an argument
Mastering the use of analogy is one of
the most crucial aspects of
thinking/reading like a lawyer (as well
as law school and legal practice)
Structure of Analogy
A has characteristic C
B has characteristic C
A also has characteristic D
Because A and B share C they must
share D as well
Useful to legal reasoning
Current cases get compared to new
ones
Established precedent gets applied to
new factual scenarios
Critical to judicial opinions
How does it work?
Establish similarity between two cases
Announce the rule of law embedded in the
first case
Apply the rule of law to the second case
Process of reasoning from particular to
particular
The reasoning process becomes more about
establishing or debunking the similarities
between the two cases
Example
You are issued a citation for driving a scooter
without a helmet
Case 1 prohibits riding a motorcycle without a
helmet
Case 2 allows riding a bike without a helmet
Is a scooter a really fast bike or a slow
motorcycle?
