LOGIC FOR LEGAL REASONING
Rosel Joy Provido & Anniway Barcelona
Logic for Legal Reasoning
Logic and the law are intertwined
Law schools dont always teach
logical reasoning or argument
Most writting 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
1
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
 LOGIC FOR LEGAL REASONING
Rosel Joy Provido & Anniway Barcelona
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?
2
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
 LOGIC FOR LEGAL REASONING
Rosel Joy Provido & Anniway Barcelona
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?