LOGIC FOR LEGAL REASONING
Rosel Joy Provido & Anniway Barcelona
Logic for Legal Reasoning
• Logic and the law are intertwined
• Law schools don’t 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
1
• 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
 LOGIC FOR LEGAL REASONING
Rosel Joy Provido & Anniway Barcelona
– 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
• Doesn’t mean it’s 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
Amendment’s 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.
2
The syllogism?
• Major Premise?
• Minor Premise?
• Conclusion?
• Major Premise: The right of privacy is
guaranteed by the Fourteenth or
Ninth Amendment.
• Minor Premise: A woman’s decision
to terminate her pregnancy is
protected by the right of privacy.
• Conclusion:Therefore, a woman’s
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
 LOGIC FOR LEGAL REASONING
Rosel Joy Provido & Anniway Barcelona
• 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?