Logic (from the Ancient Greek: , logike)[1] is the branch of philosophy

concerned with the use and study of valid reasoning

Use Logic to Win Arguments: A Primer for

Lawyers
By Nena Lenz on March 1st, 2010
1 comment

Arguments are the primary tools of our trade and we

cannot use them effectively unless we understand and obey the rules of logic. Despite their
import, most students do not have an opportunity to study the principles of logic in law school. I
find this tragic and believe that logic should be a required course for all law students.
In the meantime, lawyers and law students must take it upon themselves to learn the principles of
logic necessary to craft persuasive arguments. In this post, I offer a basic primer on three tools of
logic that are particularly important in the practice of law: deductive reasoning, inductive
reasoning by generalization, and inductive reasoning by analogy.
Resources
I highly recommend that all Lawyerist readers check out Judge Ruggero Aldiserts excellent
book Logic for Lawyers : A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking. If you dont have the time or
inclination to read an entire book on the subject, Judge Aldisert also co-authored the article Logic
for Law Students: How to Think Like a Lawyer, which is great reading for lawyers and students
alike. The following primer summarizes the key points in Judge Aldiserts article.
Deductive reasoning
In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is compelled by known facts. Deduction is often expressed
in the form of a syllogism, in which a conclusion is inferred from two known premises. The most
ubiquitous syllogism is:

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
First you have the major premise, which is usually a broad and generally applicable truth; here,
that all men are mortal. Then you have the minor premise, which is usually a more specific and
narrowly applicable fact; here, that Socrates is a man. And the conclusion is true as a
consequence of the premises; here, that Socrates is mortal.
The principle behind a syllogism is that what is true of the universal is also true of the specific.
In deductive reasoning, you reason from the general to the particular, so it is essential that the
general statement is a universal truth. Consider the following flawed syllogism:
Some men are tall.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is tall.
The statement, some men are tall does not allow you to deduct that if Socrates is a man, then
he must be tall. Unfortunately, legal writing is replete with flawed syllogisms. Dont anchor your
own arguments in flawed syllogisms. And use your knowledge of logic to expose the flawed
syllogisms in the arguments of opposing counsel. Words to watch for include: some, certain, a,
one, this, that, sometimes, many, occasionally, once or somewhere.
To underscore the importance of deductive reasoning in law, Judge Aldisert outlines syllogisms
from several watershed Supreme Court opinions, including the following syllogism from
Marbury v. Madison:
The Judicial Departments province and duty is to say what the law is.
The Supreme Court is the Judicial Department.
The Supreme Courts province and duty is to say what the law is.
Law students should identify syllogisms when reading cases and use syllogisms in their outlines
and on exams. Note that you will often have to rearrange sentences to locate the syllogisms in
cases or other texts. And sometimes, only part of the syllogism will actually be expressed.
Writers often omit parts of a syllogism, such as when a premise is obvious. Informal syllogisms
in which there is an unstated premise are known as enthymemes. Moreover, legal arguments
often consist of several syllogisms which build on one another, known as polysyllogisms. Here is
an example:
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.
All mortals die. Socrates is mortal. Therefore Socrates can die.
People who can die are not gods. Socrates can die. Therefore Socrates is not a god.
As lawyers, we should ensure that all deductive arguments in our briefs and memos are
supported by sound syllogisms. The Judge offers the following generic model, used by
prosecutors in criminal cases, as a starting point to create your own syllogisms:

[Doing something][violates the law.]

[The defendant][did something.]
[Therefore the defendant][violated the law.]
Syllogisms are tools to help you evaluate and tighten your legal analysis. They are useful in
outlining your arguments or deconstructing the arguments of others. But to be logically sound,
your arguments do not need to be expressed through syllogisms. The truth of a premise may be
so obvious that writing the premise would make your writing tedious, particularly given that we
write for sophisticated audiences.
Inductive reasoning by generalization
When you cannot rely on universals or settled law to provide a major premise to compel your
conclusion, you need to build your own major premise through inductive reasoning. Inductive
reasoning by generalization uses several specific facts to create a theory that explains
relationships between those facts and supports your conclusion. The Judge offers the following
example:
Plato was a man and Plato was mortal.
Julius Caeser was a man and Julius Caeser was mortal.
George Washington was a man and George Washington was mortal.
John Marshall was a man and John Marshall was mortal.
Ronald Reagan is a man and Ronald Reagan is mortal.
Therefore, all men are mortal.
To use inductive reasoning successfully, you need to ensure that your supporting facts represent
an appropriate sample size and are representative. With inductive reasoning, you can never be
certain that your conclusion is true, but through your supporting facts, you should be able to
establish that your conclusion is highly probable.
Inductive reasoning by analogy
Another form of inductive reasoning common in law is analogy, in which you make one-to-one
comparisons and draw similarities between two different things. Rather than reasoning from the
general to the specific (deductive reasoning) or from the specific to the general (generalizations),
analogy requires reasoning from the specific to the specific.
Analogy is a common part of everyday life and legal practice. For instance, I am a lawyer and I
find Lawyerist to be useful to my practice, so I assume other lawyers will find Lawyerist useful
to their practice, as well. The Judge offers the following formula for an analogy:
A has characteristic Y.
B has characteristic Y.
A also has characteristic Z.
Because A and B both have characteristic Y, we conclude that B also shares characteristic Z.

To use analogy in law, the Judge suggests that you (1) establish similarities between two cases;
(2) announce the rule of law embedded in the first case; and (3) apply the rule of law to the
second case. Successful analogy depends on the relevancy of the comparison. It is therefore
important to detail the similarities between the cases and to acknowledge their differences. You
must establish that the relevant similarities outweigh the relevant differences and therefore the
outcomes should be the same.