FUNDAMENTALS OF

LEGAL WRITING
ROUGHING OUT THE ARGUMENT
 KEY FACT:

• Are the facts that establish or satisfy the elements of a cause of action
and are necessary to prove or disprove a claim.
(https://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/1285439937_41
2639.pdf).
• As used in the book, rules identify the facts (the key fact) on which they
will operate or apply.
• In the example given in the book:

“Crossing the red light is punishable by law”  the Rule Statement

“Crossing the red light”  the Key Fact

• In another example:

“Theft is punishable under the law”  the Rule Statement

“The taking, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force
upon things, of the personal property of another without the latter’s consent”  the Key Fact
• When the key fact component of the rule statement is present in the case fact
statement, you have a positive match:

Any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor
force upon things, shall take the personal property of another without the latter’s consent (Key
Fact) , be punished for theft.

Cesar took, with intent to gain, Mario’s cellphone from his desk when his back was turned and
without his consent. (Case Fact)

Consequently, Cesar shall be punished for theft.

 IF YOUR PROPOSITION IS IN THE
NEGATIVE:
• David cannot be punished for crossing the red light:

Crossing the red light is punishable by law, but crossing the yellow light does not amount to
crossing the red light (an interpretative rule that excludes crossing the yellow light from the
meaning of crossing the red light).
David actually crossed a yellow light, thus, he cannot be punished by law.

• The Key Fact “crossing the red light” is not found in the case of David.
• These arguments typify the classic categorical syllogism:

• 1. The statement of a rule that applies to a given fact or set of facts (the rule statement);
• 2. The statement of the fact of a particular case that opens up such case or closes it to the
application of the rule (the case fact statement);
• 3. The conclusion that the rule applies or does not apply to the particular case (the
conclusion statement)
 CASE FACT

• the legally significant facts of a case that raise the legal question of how or whether
the law governing the dispute applies.
(https://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/1285439937_412639.pdf)
• For example:
“Crossing the red light is punishable by law”  the Rule Statement
“Jose crossed the red light.”  the Case Fact
 “RULE” INCLUDES:

• 1. Constitutional Provisions
• 2. Statutory Provisions
• 3. Rules of Court Provisions
• It also include case laws or judicial precedents.
• And may also include widely accepted truths that derive from logic, common sense,
or even common experience.
 ROUGHING OUT ARGUMENTS
If you were the counsel for Ronald, write in
the left column the argument your opponent
can make out against your claim:
Applicable Rule: Vaginal lacerations
are usually found in rape victims.
Case Fact: Julia had vaginal lacerations.
Conclusion: Therefore, she probably had
been raped
On the opposite column, write your counter-
argument:
Applicable Rule: Although vaginal
lacerations are usually found in rape victims,
they can also be found in consented sex with
a virgin.
Case Fact: Julia was a virgin.
Conclusion: Therefore, lacerations found in here
do not necessarily indicate rape.
 RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA

ARGUMENTS AGAINST YOU ARGUMENTS IN YOUR FAVOR

Vaginal lacerations usually found in As a virgin, Julia could have vaginal

rape victims were found in Julia lacerations during consented sex.
 You must think that your argument
through to its essential elements so you
could tests its validity or soundness.
 RONALD RAPED JULIA
• Although the argument “Ronald and
Julia were sweethearts” may be good
argument, it only states the case fact. An
applicable rule should be included,
which, presumably, is that: “It is not
likely for a man to rape his sweetheart.”
• Thus, “Being sweethearts, it was not
likely for Ronald to rape Julia”
• On the side of the prosecution, the counter-
argument “Ronald was only a suitor” only
states the case fact, and the applicable rule
“It is likely for a suitor to rape the girl he
courts” is not plausible. As stated in the book,
the applicable rule is that “uncorroborated
claims, when denied by the adverse part,
may be considered self-serving.”
• Thus, “But, uncorroborated, Ronald’s claim is
self-serving since Julia never admitted it. Or,
being only a suitor, he was capable of the
crime.”
 RONALD RAPED JULIA

ARGUMENTS AGAINST YOU ARGUMENTS IN YOUR FAVOR

Being sweethearts, it was not likely But, uncorroborated, Ronald’s claim

for Ronald to rape Julia, is self-serving since Julia never
admitted it. Or, being only a suitor,
he was capable of the crime.
 RONALD RAPED JULIA

ARGUMENTS AGAINST YOU ARGUMENTS IN YOUR FAVOR

Julia ignored Ronald during the

wedding party, making him feel
bad.
 RONALD RAPED JULIA

ARGUMENTS AGAINST YOU ARGUMENTS IN YOUR FAVOR

Because women will barely admit to But not when the woman’s testimony,
having been raped unless true, a like that of Julia, is inherently
rape victim’s testimony can stand incredible.
alone.
Absence of bruises on her body
despite rough grounds negates rape
by use of force.
Being a barrio woman, it is likely
that someone like Ronald walked
her home at that late hour.