LEGAL REASONING

by Ronald S. Granberg

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. THE FOURTYPESOF REASONING 2. THE TWO TYPESOF DEDUCTIVE REASONING 3. THE TWO TYPESOF INDUCTIVE REASONING 4. THE THREE TYPESOF LEGAL REASONING 5. DEDUCTIVEVALIDITY, TRUTH, AND SOUNDI{ESS 6. FURTHER READING

s r| ) I ) , \ t , \ t r , , \ R . l I C I . l l s L I i ( i A I - R I i A S O N I N ( i . A R ] I a l . l l l \ l ( : l . 0 5 0 4 , . l A l l l - l l { ) } c ( } N f F l N l s t x ) (

1.

THE FOURTYPES OFREASONING is eitherdeductive or inductive: Reasoning r Deductive proposition(e.g.,"all dogs"); reasoning beginswith a general r Inductivereasoning (e.g.,"this dog"). proposition beginswith a particular

reasoning beginswith a reasoning. Deductive Therearetwo tlpes of deductive proposition, general andendseither: r With a general (such"general-to-general" reasoning is rarelyused), proposition or r With a particularproposition ("categorical syllogism"). Inductivereasoning beginswith a Therearetwo typesof inductivereasoning. proposition, andendseither: particular o With a general ("reasoning or proposition by gerrcralization"), o With a particular ("reasoning proposition by analogy"). In summary: Deductive Reasoning Inductive Reasoning From general to general (rarely used) Fromparticular to general (generalization) From general to particular (categoricalsyllogism) Fromparticular to particular (analogy)

is based is certain. Mathematics reasoning throughdeductive A conclusion obtained reasoning. on deductive is is probable, not certain. Science throughinductivereasoning A conclusion obtained reasoning. on inductive based

Law employs both inductiveanddeductive reasoning: 1. 2. 3. 2. generalization; Case law principlesarecreated by inductive Thelegalprinciplesto be usedin a particularcase aredetermined by inductive analogy;and Therelevant legalprinciplesareappliedto the factsofa particularcase by deduction.

THE TWO TYPES OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING

Here are examplesof the two types of deductivereasoning: A. From General To General (Rarely Used) Premise One Premise Two Conclusion B. All mammalsare warm blooded. All doss are marr,rrrals. Therefore,all dogs are warmblooded.

From General To Particular (Categorical Syltogism) Major Premise Minor Premise Conclusion All mammalsare warmblooded. Dog.Fido is a marnmal. Therefore,Fidoiswarmblooded.

"all mammalsare warm blooded" is certain and can never be disproved, The statement not evenif a cold-blooded,doglike creaturewere discoveredon a remote island. No matter how doglike the creaturewas, it wouldn't be a mammalunlessit were warm blooded. The reasonis that being warm blooded is part of the definition of being a mammal. (which is subjectto being disprovedupon Thus, unlike an inductive statement it is is always true - because discoveryof new empirical evidence),a deductivestatement tme by definition.

3.

THE TWO TYPESOF INDUCTIVE REASONING

Here are examples of the two typesof inductivereasoning: A. From Particular To General (Inductive Generalization) PremiseOne PremiseTwo Pavlovianconditioningcauseddog Fido to salivate when a bell rings. Pavlovianconditioningcauseddog Rover to salivate when a bell rings. Pavlovianconditioningcauseddog Spot when a bell rings. to salivate fetc.l

PremiseThree

Premises Four-t

Conclusion

Therefore,Pavlovianconditioningcauses all dogsto salivate whena bell rings.

moreandmoreconditioning experiments anddiscover that As scientists conduct increasingly dogssalivate whena bell rings,it seems safeto inductively all conditioned whena bell rings." The that"Pavlovianconditioning causes all dogsto salivate conclude maydiscover a dogthat will neverbe certain,however, because someday science conclusion whena bell rings. receives Pavlovian conditioning but doesn'tsalivate B. From Particular To Particular (Inductive Analogy) Premise One PremiseTwo Conclusion dogFido Pavlovian conditioning causes whena bell rings. to salivate Fido by [SimilarityA], Cat Felixrcsenhles [SimilarityB] andlSimilaritvCl. Pavlovian will cause Therefore, conditioning Felix to salivate whena bell rings.

negative positiveanalogies; create analogies. create differences Similarities (andthe meaningful requiremeaningful similarities Positiveanalogies Fido and differences). What similarities between mustoutweighany meaningful similarities to Pavlovian conditioning? for purposes of predicting their responses Felix are"meaningful" if the similarities arethatFido andFelix both: How compelling is the aboveanalogy

o possess autonomic nervoussystems? o are intelligent? o are domesticated? o get fleas? Is Hary the Hamstersufficiently analogous with Fido? What aboutPattythe Parakeet? 4. THE THREE TYPES OF LEGAL REASONING Law usesthreetypesof reasoning: Deductive Reasoning

@ tonera+

From generalto particular (categorical syllogism) Applies legal principles to a particular case From particular to particular(analogy) Selectsrelevant legal principles to be applied

Inductive Reasoning

From particular to general(generahzation) Createsappellate case legal principles

A.

InductiveGeneralization(Particular-To-GeneralReasoning) CreatesAppellate CaseLegal Principles Here is an exampleof legal reasoning by inductive generahzatron: PremiseOne AppellateCaset held that a contract with a vagueterm was void. AppellateCase2held that a contract with a vagueterm was void. AppellateCase3 held that a contract with a vagueterm was void. fetc.l

PremiseTwo PremiseThree Four* Premises

Conclusion

Therefore, all contracts with vaguetermsarevoid.

litigatedconfracts with hold thatpresented, As moreandmoreappellate cases law increasingly thatthis case safeto inductivelyconclude vaguetermsarevoid, it seems with vaguetermsarevoid." principleexists:"all contracts

Theprocess of generalizing a legalprincipleftom a series of specificappellate rulingsmustbe undertaken carefully,andmustgive special attention to theobiterdictum rule. A jurist who proceeds without caution risks committing what logicianscall the"fallacy of hastygeneralization." Thecase law principle"all contracts with vaguetermsarevoid" will neverbe certain, but will remainsubj ectto exceptions andmodifications. Exceptions to the principleincludeequitable doctrines of waiverandestoppel. Modifications to theprincipleoccurwhenever a new appellate case(or new statute or constitutional amendment) dealswith the enforceability of contracts with vague law principlesinclude: terms. Modifrcations to case
. minor judicial "tweaking" (e.g.,subsequent decisions applyingand principle); refining a precedential appellate

o incremental, yet powerful,judicial erosion(e.g.,so many subsequent "limited to its distinguishing an appellate casethat it becomes decisions facts,"and "deadletterlaw"); o a majorjudicial "seachange"(e.g.,the United States Supreme Court's rn Plessyv. Fergusion( I 896) 163U.S. 537 racralsegregation sanctioning then outlawingit tn Brown v. Board of Education(1954)347 U.S. a83); and o a new statuteor constitutional provision superseding a line of case

authority. B. InductiveAnalogy(Particular-To-ParticularReasoning)
Relevant Legal Principles To Be Used Selects

of Plaintiff s Defendant Plaintiff sues to rescinda contract.Hereis an example reasoning by inductiveanalogy: PremiseOne PremiseTwo Conclusion Thepresentcasedeals with [VagueTermA], [FactB] and[FactC]. AppellateCaseI dealtwith [VagueTermA], wasvoid. [FactBl andlFactC]. andheld thatthe contract Therefore, the contractinthe presentcaseis void.

case, the factsofwhich are to cite an appellate It is everylawyer'sdream In ("on all fours")with the factsof the present case.It neverhappens. completely congruent

caseandthepresent between theprecedential therealworld,therearealwaysdifferences case.

- one in which: a more realisticexample Consider o Plaintiff citesAppellateCase1, which favorshim because it held void a contractwith an arguablyvague term; o DefendantcitesAppellateCase2, whrch favors her because it held enforceablea contractwith an arguablyvague term; and o Neither Appellate Case1 nor AppellateCase2 rs "on all fours" with the present case. Here is Plaintiff s analogy: PremiseOne The presentcasedealswith [Vague Term A], fFact B] and fFactC]. AppellateCase1 dealtwith fVague Term D], fFact E] and [Fact F], and held that the contractwas void.

PremiseTwo

PremiseThree Vague Term A and Vague Term D are similar. PremiseFour PremiseFive Conclusion Fact B and Fact E are similar. Fact C and Fact F are similar. and the Therefore,AppellateCase1 is controlling precedent, caseis void. contractin the present

Here,on the other hand,is Defendant'sanalogy: PremiseOne PremiseTwo PremiseThree PremiseFour PremiseFive Conclusion The presentcasedealswith fVague Term A], fFactB] and [FactC]. AppellateCase2 dealtwith [Vague Term G], fFactH] and fFact I], and held thatthe contractwas enforceable. Vague Term A and Vague Term G are similar. Fact B and Fact H are similar. Fact C and Fact I are-Sirnilq.r. and the Therefore,AppellateCase2 rs controlling precedent, contractin the presentcaseis enforceable.

Thus,thelineup in "the Battleof the Similarities": Present Case VagueTermA FactB FactC AppellateCaseI (Plaintiffurges) VagueTermD FactE FactF AppellateCase2 @efendanturges) VagueTermG FactH FactI

Initially, thejudgemustmakethreedecisions: First Decision Decision Second ThirdDecisior Is VagueTermA moresimilarto VagueTermD or VagueTermG? Is FactB moresimilarto FactE or FactH? Is FactC moresimilarto FactF or FactI?

in Plaintiff s favor,AppellateCase1 is If thejudgemakesall threeDecisions is void. andPlaintiff wins the contract controllingprecedent makes the First Decisionin Plaintiff s favor thejudge instead If, for example, favor,thejudgemustthendecide in Defendant's andThird Decisions the Second andmakes
aremore meaninsfrl: which similarities o The similarity (favoring Plaintiff) betweenVague Term A and Vague Term D; or o The combinedsimilarities(favoring Defendant)between: o Fact B and FactH, and o Fact C and FactI.

thanthe fact that dogsandcats "similarity" - it is no moremeaningful ignorethe alleged bothgetfleas. wereasfollows: Whatif the similarities

were typed on blue paper,thejudge will If FactsB and H are that both contracts

price of the vehicle)arefundamental o VagueTermsA andD (thepurchase wiper extrawindshield vague TermG (whether whereas to the contract, to the contract? bladescomewith thevehicle)is incidental

Sixl'l),\1,\lJ-ll{ll('l

LSl.li(iALRL\Sr)\l\(;ARll(l.liiWl-0504LlrCAl-RI]ASO\INGIFC

. FactsB andH arethatthe contract wasfully performed beforethe plaintiff filed therescission lawsuit,whereas FactE is that contract performance hadn'tbegunbeforetheplaintiff filed suit? r FactsC andI (unlikeFactF) arethatthe plaintifftold the defendant that 'ho the vaguetermwas big deal,"andassured the defendant thatthe plaintiff won't contend thatthe contract is void because of thevague term? Which similaritiesaremoremeaningful?Shouldthejudgerule thatAppellate Case1 or Appellate Case2 is controllingprecedent? As the CalifomiaSupreme in Haruisv. CapitalGrowthInvestors Courtstated XIV (1991) l\42.ll57: 52 Cal.3d
presenting arecontrolling the same factual . . . prior decisions only asto cases situation....
'7\0 -7 ' \'7

As stated rn Southern v. ll'alter & Co. (1947)78 Cal.App.2d Cal.Enterprises

in a decisionthat is A litigant cannotfind shelterundera rule announced in his own case, nor may a decision of inapplicable to a differentfactualsituation on quotations from previous opinions thatarenot pertinent by a courtbe rested under reason of dissimilarity of factsin thecitedcases andthosein the case An extractfrom anopinionmustbe readin the light ofthe subject consideration. andrules thereunderdiscussion andwith reference to the factsin that case, in whichtheyappear cannot be repeated in applicable to the decision which they were applied in the of a theory different from that to exemplification Principles thatmay serve to illustrate a case wherein the opinionwasrendered. point areconsidered decided but arenot by thecourtin relationto thecase announced asuniversally applicable. necessarily

(1992)3 Cal.App.4s661,666in Harris v. SuperiorCourt (Smets) As stated 667:

that that lawyersoften view a caseonly from the perspective It is understandable favorstheir client. Lawyers,however,shouldnot practice"... the art of proving that white ts black, andblack rs white, by words multiplied for the purpose, accordingas they arepaid." (Swift, Gulliver's Travels(1726) A Voyageto the Countryof the Houyhnhnms,ch. 5.)
{ < { < *

Merchantof Even "[t]he devil can cite scripturefor his purpose...." (Shakespeare, the Venice, actI, scene3, line 99.) Counselmust thereforenot misconstrue to the facts of his or her holding of an opinion in order to make it applicable :F* * client'scause.

S 0I).I)A IA ]I

,\R I Ii'I-I]S I,It;AI,

RIJASONIN(; .ARI ICI,I' M( ]I -0504 LE(;AI, RI]ASONING

L}]C

Eventhe dispassionate critic musttakeheed."[S]omemisimpressions arecreated by the readeror critic who takesa sentence or paragraph from an opinion, sometimes out ofcontext,andanalyzes it asa Shakespeare scholar would,or as thoughit werea versefrom Holy Writ, discovering hiddenmeanings, innuendoes, andsubtleties neverintended." lcitationomitted.] In an attemptto extractlegalprinciplesfrom an opinion that supportsa particular point of view, we mustnot seize uponthosefacts,thepertinence of which goes only to the circumstances of the case but is not materialto its holding. The Palsgrafrule,for example, is not iimitedto train stations.[citations omitted.] The readerwho distinguishes betweenfactsgermane to the holding, andthose thatarenot, canassess thereasonable extensions of theholding. A reader must realistically appraise what he or shereadsandresistthe temptationto seea grin withouta cat. (Carroll,Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, ch. 6.) Ultimately this approach is moreeffective to advance a client'scause andthe cause of justice.

Reasoning by inductiveanalogy intricate. (For evenmorefun, mix canbecome in a roomfulof first yearlaw students method.) andthe Socratic
reasoning. Good lawyering requiresmasteryof analogous C. Deduction(General-To-Particular Reasoning)

To A ParticularCase AppliesLegal Principles

Hereis an exampleof legalreasoning by deduction: Major Premise All contractswith vagueterms are void. (Legal Principle)

Minor Premise (Fact) Conclusion (Judgment)

The contractinthepresent casehasavagueterm. Therefore, in thepresentcaseis void. the contract

majorpremise, the factsof a the syllogism's A legalprinciplecomprises andthe court'sjudgmentcomprises particular case comprise the syllogism'sminorpremise, conclusion. thesyllogism's not to but swears of the minor premise, A jury, asfact finder,is in full charge alterthemajorpremise. to de mistake(an "error of law") is subject If thereis an appeal, a majorpremise mistake(an"errorof whereas a minorpremise novoreviewandmayreadilymerit reversal, supports the factualfinding. reversal only ifno credibleevidence fact") warrants
S: ol)-l )/\ I r\ I { ARl ('l -lis LIa(;Al - RliASa)NIN(;,ARl I(ll-li M(ll-0504\l-!:GAL RIIASON INC ll)(l

Law schoolteaches the deductive syllogismas"IRAC" ("Issue, Rule,Analysis, Conclusion"), where: o "Issue"defines the syllogism's subjectmatter; o "Rule" is the syllogism's majorpremise; . "Analysis"is the syllogism's minorpremise;ar'd

o "Conclusion"(naturally) is the syllogism'sconclusion. 5. DEDUCTIVE VALIDITY, TRUTH,AND SOUNDNESS A. A DeductivelyValid Argument May Have FalsePropositions

A syllogism's premises andconclusion arecalledits "propositions."Theclassic ("categorical deductive syllogism syllogism")hasthreepropositions: two premises anda conclusion. Mathematically speaking, thepropositions of a deductive syllogism maybe true (andfalse)in eightpossible cornbinations: Combination# Major premise Minor premise Conclusion | 2', 3 4 5 6 7 I

True True True True False False False False True True False False True True False False True False True False True False True False

*Combination #2 cannotbe a valid argument.

A valid argument is an argument in which,if itspremises are true,its conclusion mustalsobe true.
(vtz., Combination#2) cannot By this definition, one of the eight combinations

is thatCombination comprise a valid argument.Thereason #2 (havingtruepremises, but a falseconclusion) the definitionof a valid argument. contradicts Syllogistic rulesdon't carewhether a proposition is true or false. Logic is a (e.g.,a person tool, like a telescope, thatenables us to seeclearlyboth true events riding a (e.g.,an actorplayinga role). bicycle)andfalseevents

10

An argument maybe valid, evenif oneor moreof its propositions is false. In otherwords,a proposition's truth or falsity (shownin the far right columnbelow)is irrelevant to its arsument's validitv.
Eachof the following sevenarguments is logic ally valid: Combination#1 (True-True-True) Major Premise Minor Premise Conclusion All mammalsare warrn blooded. Fido is a mammal. Therefore. Fido is warm blooded.

True True True

[For reasonsexplainedabove,Combination#2 (True-True-False)cannot comprisea valid argumentl Combination #3 (True-False-True) Major Premise Minor Premise Conclusion All mammalsare warrn blooded. A parakeet is a mammal. Therefore, is warm blooded. a parakeet

True False True

Combination #4 (True-False-False) Major Premise Minor Premise Conclusion Al1 mammalsare warrn blooded. The moon is a mammal. Therefore. the moon rs warrn blooded.

True False False

#5 (Fatse-True-True) Combination
Major Premise Minor Premise Conclusion All pets are mammals. Fido is a pet. Fido is a mammal. Therefore,

False True True

Combination #6 (Fatse-True-False) Major Premise Minor Premise Conclusion All mammalslive on the moon. Fido is a mammal. Fido lives on the moon. Therefore,
11

False True False

Combination #7 (F alse-False-True)
Major Premise Minor Premise Conclusion All cold-bloodedanimalsare mammals. Fido is a cold-blooded animal. Therefore. Fido is a mammal. False False True

Combination #8 (False-False-False) Major Premise Minor Premise Conclusion B. All cold-blooded animalsare mammals. The moon is a cold bloodedanimal. Therefore.the moon is a mammal. False False False

Isn't Necessarily Valid An Argument With True Propositions

propositions happen to be true Contrariwise, the fact thatall of an argument's valid, any don't renderan argument valid. Truepropositions doesn'tmakethe argument invalid. renderan argument morethanfalsepropositions
For example,this argumentis invalid, althoughall three of its propositionsare true. Major Premise Minor Premise Conclusion A11 mammalsare warrn blooded. Fido is warm blooded. Therefore, Fido is a mammal.

True True True

"an argument This argument doesn'tsatisf' the definitionof a valid argument: mustalsobe true." are true, its conclusion in which,if itspremises follow from its premises. doesn'tnecessarily conclusion Theaboveargument's mammal, but doesn'tmakeit it impossible to be a cold-blooded makes Themajorpremise the only fact we aregivenabout Because non-mammal. to be a warm-blooded impossible he mightbe because thathe is a mammal, we can't conclude Fido is thathe is warmblooded, middle Logicianscall this the "fallacy of the undistributed non-mammal. a warm-blooded term." C. Truth ArgumentValidity vs. Propositional of validity: Theconcept
o Relates to an entire argument,not to a proposition; I2

s rx)-lr\rAtr-AI{ll('l-lisr.ll(;ALRli,{soNlN(;dlllcl-llM(:1.0504\l.licAl.RllASO}.-lN(;.lxx

r Relates propositions; to theconnection between o Relatesto validity or invalidity; and . Ignorestruth orfalsity. is valid or invalid,not true or false. It would make As canbe seen, an argument "false" thanto saythat an entirejigsaw puzzle"doesn't to call an argument no moresense fit." A pieceof a puzzlemaynot frt, but the entirepuzzlealways"fits." oftruth: Theconcept o Relates to aproposition,not to an entireargument; r Relates to truth or falsity; and e Ignoresvalidity or invalidity. is true or false, not valid or invalid. It would a proposition As canbe seen, "valid" thanto saythat a singleword "rh)rmes'"A to call a proposition makeno moresense word. with another word canrhyrneonly in relationship D. ArgumentSoundness with truepremises. is a valid argument A soundargument whenyour syllogismis logicallyvalid argument You makea soundcourffoom evidence sufficientto proveits premises. andyou introduce or is an argument which hasoneor morefalsepremises, argument An unsound (excluding Combination setforth above arguments is invalid,or both. The six nonsensical valid, theyhaveoneor morefalse although because, areunsound #i, whichis sensible) premlses. 6. FURTHERREADING you, you might enjoy: interest matters If these A Guideto ClearLegal Thinking.Notre J.,Logicfor Lawyers: Aldisert,Ruggero NationalInstitutefor Trial Advocacy,1988 Dame,Indiana: Guide'London: Bowell,Tracy,andKemp,Gary.Critical Thinking:A Concise 1965 Routledge, Universityof Chicago Chicago'. Levi, EdwardH. An IntroductionToLegalReasoning. Press, 1949
S 00-l),\'l A l4-AI{ l l( l- l,S l-li(;Al. lallAsoi"ti"(i trUl l(ll.li M( ll l)504 I-LGN - RIiASoNING IxX

13