SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD

SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) , PUNE

Project Assignment on

Legal Reasoning & Logic

Topic: Methods of Legal Reasoning

Course Teacher: Prof. Dr. Sani Rani Paul

Date of Submission: 23rd March 2018

Submitted By:

Name: Ankita Das

PRN: 16010324212
Section: ‘C’
Batch: 2016-21, Semester: IV

1|Page
 Certificate

The Project entitled “Methods of Legal Reaasoning”.

Submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad for Legal

Reasoning and Logic as part of internal assessment is based on my
original work carried out under the guidance of Prof. Dr. Sanu Rani
Paul from January to April. The research work has not been
submitted elsewhere for award of any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in

the thesis has been duly acknowledged.

I understand that I myself could be held responsible and

accountable for

Plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Signature of the candidate

Date: 23/03/2018

2|Page
 Acknowledgement

I am using this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who supported

me throughout the course of this research project. I am thankful for their aspiring

guidance, invaluably constructive criticism and friendly advices during the

project work.

I express my warm thanks to Prof. Dr. Sanu Rani Paul for her support and

guidance.

I would further like to thank Deputy Director Sir and Director Sir and

all the people of Symbiosis Law School (Hyderabad) who provided me with the

facilities being required and conductive conditions to complete my project.

Thank you

3|Page
 Index
1. Introduction to the topic……………………………………..Page No. 5

2. Research Question…………………………………………...Page No. 6

3. Objectives………………………………………………….....Page No. 6

4. Scope and Extent………………………………………….....Page No. 6

5. Methodology…………………………………………………Page No. 7

6. Literature Review…………………………………………...Page No. 7

7. What is Legal Reasoning…………………………………...Page No. 8

8. Elements of Legal Reasoning………………………………Page No. 9

9. Types of Legal Reasoning………………………………….Page No.10-12

10. Aspects of Legal Reasoning………………………………Page No. 13-14

11. Methods of Legal Reasoning……………………………...Page No. 14-16

12. Comparative Analysis…………………………………….Page No. 17-19

13. Conclusion…………………………………………………Page No. 19

14. Bibliography……………………………………………….Page No. 20

4|Page
 INTRODUCTION
Legal reasoning is a method of thought and argument used by lawyers and judges when
applying legal rules to specific interactions among legal persons. Legal reasoning in the case
of a court’s ruling is found in the ‘Discussion or Analysis’ section of the judicial ruling.

It is here that the court gives reason for its legal ruling, and it helps other courts, lawyers and
judges to use and follow the ruling in subsequent proceedings. Therefore, the ‘discussion or
analysis’ section must be well reasoned and written.

Legal reasoning reveals why and how the court, lawyer or judge came to their decision or
argument on the case.

There are core elements that must appear and be addressed in the reasoning:

 The question or the legal issue before the court

 The relevant facts of the case

 The legal rule

 Other considerations that may be brought before the court

Legal reasoning is the process of devising, reflecting on, or giving reasons for legal acts and
decisions or justifications for speculative opinions about the meaning of law and its relevance
to action. Many contemporary writers, such as Aulis Aarnio (1987), Robert Alexy (1988),
Manuel Atienza (1991) and Aleksander Peczenik (1989), propound the view that legal
reasoning is a particular instance of general practical reasoning. They suppose, that is to say,
that reasoning can link up with action, guiding one what to do, or showing whether or not there
are good reasons for a proposed course of action or for something already done. They suppose
also that in law reason links up to legal decisions in this way. Law regulates what to do and
how to respond to what has been done, doing so within an institutional framework of
legislatures, lawcourts, enforcement agencies and the like. Rationality in action has at least two
requirements: first, attention to facts, to the true state of affairs in relation to which one acts;
second, attention to reasons for action relevant to the facts ascertained. The former aspect
concerns reasoning about evidence; the latter, reasoning about rules or norms as reasons for
action. In law, such rules and other norms have an institutional character. But how are these
applied – by some kind of deductive reasoning, or non-deductively.

5|Page
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

I. What are the different methods of Legal Reasoning?

II. A comparison between the methods of Legal Reasoning?

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This research paper is an attempt to delve into the area of the methods adopted to conduct a
legal reasoning. Also to find out extent and scope to which they operate. This paper shall also
strive to study the and criticize four methods used in legal practice, legal dogmatics and legal
theory: logic, analysis, argumentation and hermeneutics. Apart from a presentation of basic
ideas connected with the above mentioned methods, the paper seeks to answer questions
concerning the assumptions standing behind these methods, the limits of using them and their
usefulness in the practice and theory of law.

SCOPE AND EXTENT

The research is doctrinal. The researcher has tried to analysis the topic by studying various
authors, experts, cases of the Indian Apex Court and High Courts, articles, etc. The panorama,
sketched like this, allows one to reflect deeply on the questions concerning the methodological
conditioning of legal science and the existence of a unique, specific legal method. The author
argues that there exists no such method. They claim that the methodologies presented in this
paper may serve as a basis for constructing a coherent and useful conception of legal thinking.
Any such conception, however, must recognize its own assumptions and limitations, resulting
from adopting a specific philosophical stance.

6|Page
 METHODOLOGY
Methodology that has been adapted was in conscience with the basic objective of the study. A
systematic approach has been applied for the present research. The research is mainly conducted
on giving reliance upon secondary sources. Apart from that data has been collected from other
sources also like authentic websites and published journals. The present research study is mainly
a doctrinal and analytical. Keeping this in view, the researcher has gone through different books,
journals, web references, E-journal, reports, etc.

LITERATURE REVIEW
In this study and related research, the individuals serving are university students. The studied
benefits to individuals serving include cultural awareness sharing, as well as networking
opportunities and application of classroom learning to related issues. Ultimately, legal and
logical learning stimulates student learning and engages students in their surrounding
communities. learning creates new goals for students such as personal development, career
development, moral development, academic achievement, and “reflective civic participation”.
These types of projects allow students to utilize material learned in the classroom to improve
societal conditions.

Integrating concepts and theories learned in the classroom with everyday life makes students
more capable of highlighting the importance of each course. Additionally, material learned in
business courses can be applied to benefit the community through a variety of tangible services,
such as business planning or marketing new programs. Legal and logical learning is an
excellent way for students to apply their course lessons to real-world situations and
concurrently benefit the community.

7|Page
LEGAL REASONING A BRIEF OVERVIEW
When undergraduates begin law school, law professors will tell these new law students that
they need to learn how to “think like a lawyer.” What is legal reasoning and what does it really
mean to “think like a lawyer”?

According to Brian Porto and others, legal reasoning is a process comprised of three separate
components. Those components are Reasoning by Analogy, Linguistic Analysis, and Judicial
Discretion.

It has been my experience as a lawyer and a judge that the first component. Reasoning by
Analogy, is the most common method of reasoning used by the legal profession. It involves
finding cases or principles that courts have already decided and arguing that the case under
discussion is similar to that prior case (stare decisis) or principle.1

Linguistic Analysis is the second component of Legal Reasoning. The question is what do the
words used by the legislatures or the judges really mean. The legal community uses often
contradictory tools like plain-meaning, context, canons of construction, legislative intent,
statutory purpose or spirit of the law in a creative fashion to find the true meaning. The result
which you want to obtain may affect which linguistic tool you select.

Judicial Discretion is the last component. This refers to the public policy involved and/or
personal views by a judge about the court's role or a legal concept.

Legal Reasoning takes two principal forms one is Analogical and the other one is Deductive.
These forms perform important practical functions: some means of organising the mass of legal
materials is essential. They can help to identify the starting points for reasoning, locate the
relevant materials, and formulate issues to focus on deliberation. Poorly formed arguments are
easily dismissed because of the difficulty to understand. The forms of legal reasoning however,
cannot guarantee the soundness of a legal argument. The soundness of a legal argument
depends on how the forms of legal reasoning are filled in- on the content of the statements in
an argument.

1
http://www.flagler.edu/academics/departments-programs/humanities/faculty-profiles/articles/legal-
reasoning.html

8|Page
ELEMENTS OF LEGAL REASONING

Elements Definition Issue Decision

Did the Judge

Testimony as to follow the
what happened facts as No Poor Reasoning. Judge is
Yes Good
1. Case Facts that is preserved established in not persuasive that he
Reasoning
as evidence in a the trial, or arrived at his decision fairly.
trial. did he ignore
them?

How we believe Did the Judge

the world works. give due
Yes Good
2. Social The facts, recognition to No. Judge lives on another
Reasoning.
Background conditions, events facts that we planet and only commutes to
Reflects
Facts that we observe as observe on Earth.
reality.
to how the world how the
works. world works.

Did the Judge

Uses the official
read the texts Yes. Good
legal texts in their
3. Rules of correctly and authority No. Authority for the
hierarchy of value
Law use them in for the decision is not creditable.
that are intended
their proper decision
for cases like this
hierarchy.

Did the Judge

A due recognition follow the
4.Widely Yes. No. Decision is contrary to
that some things community's
Share Moral Decision the accepted moral code of
are right and some consensus
Values and fits moral the community. Therefore it
things are wrong about moral
Social code of is not what the law ought to
as acceptable values and
Principles community be.
social behaviour. social
principles

9|Page
 TYPES OF LEGAL REASONING
The two central forms of legal reasoning are arguments from precedent and analogy. These are
found in many legal systems such as the common law which is found in both England and the
United States.

 Precedent is where an earlier decision is applied in a later case because the two cases are same.

 Analogy involves an earlier decision being used in a later case because the latter case is similar
to the earlier one.
Precedent and analogy do however present philosophical problems. For instance, when are two
cases deemed ‘same’ so as to apply precedent? When two cases are considered ‘similar’ to
justify analogy? In both situations, why should the decision in the earlier case affect the
decision in the latter case?

Inherent within legal reasoning is the acceptance of the law and a leaning towards working
within the existing legal framework. It is true to say that there is a bias towards maintaining the
existing rules. Nevertheless, the bias does not presume the law as it is to be just, fair or practical
and thus immune from change.

Judges have often in the past made use of provisions in the law to avoid applying precedent or
analogy in instances where such an application would result in unfair or undesirable outcomes.

Deductive Reasoning

This is a means of drawing out ruling from another judicial opinion, or existing constitution,
legislative provision and applying it in another case. The rule statement is mostly broad rather
than narrow when using deductive reasoning. This approach is mechanical and is therefore
effective only in ideal situations and often unsatisfactory.

The approach faces many challenges among them being:

 Semantic difficulty – due to the various meanings that words hold, it is often impossible to
attribute one particular meaning to a specific word and so to be understood by all parties

 There may arise unremunerated circumstances that would demand a different legal treatment

10 | P a g e
 The occurrence of obstacles preventing the upholding of previous rule statements

 Rules based on ontological principles being insufficient to determine between conflicting

interests
For example, in a situation in which a prosecutor wants to secure a conviction for rape, he
states:

 It is provided in 357 of the Criminal Code that whoever has unlawful carnal
knowledge of a woman without her consent is guilty of rape. (MAJOR PREMISE)
 The accused had unlawful carnal knowledge of the complainant. (MINOR PREMISE)
 The accused is thus liable for the offence of rape. (CONCLUSION)

Inductive Reasoning
Inductive Method Induction is the most often used method of scientific research. Induction is
a process of reasoning from particular cases to whole group of cases, from specific instances
to general rules. The inductive method is also known as historical, or empirical or a posteriori
method. It may be described as practical approach to the research problems. It tries to remove
the gulf between theory and practice. This method examines various causes one after another
and tries to establish causal relations between them. General principles are laid down after
examining a large number of special instances or facts. The method is said to be ‘empirical’
because the formulation of principle is made only after an extensive compilation of the raw
data of experience.

Analogical Reasoning

This involves the identification of the similarities and differences of the facts in the precedential
and the case to be determined. After the identification, then deciding whether the case to be
determined is similar or different from the precedent in the important aspects with regards to
the matter being decided. Following the findings, the case precedent may then be followed or
distinguished.

11 | P a g e
 It is important to note that there are peculiar situations where both of the above methods will
not suffice in determining a case, and the judge may then rule according to personal preference.

Circumstances that may prompt such a treatment include but are not limited to:

 Where the law is obscure: the rules are too fragmentary, imprecise or partial to describe the
present case facts

 Where there are no rules provided

 For example, the case of Carlill vs Carbolic Smokeball Co cannot be used in a case
relating to illegality of a contract. This is due to the fact that by analysis, it can be
deduced that Carlill vs Carbolic Smokeball Co doesn’t have facts that concern the
illegality of contracts.

The Inverse Deductive Method

J.S. Mill is the chief advocate of the Inverse Deductive Method. It is a combination of inductive
generalisations obtained by means of the comparative method or by statistical method, -’with
deduction from more ultimate laws. It is a way to arrive at reality through experiment, observation
and conclusion. This method starts with the use of deduction and then uses the method of induction
to find out die reason of die phenomena, which is under study.

Fortori

Fortori is another method of reasoning. Fortori provides that if something is prohibited then it is
assumed that anything more obvious is prohibited.

12 | P a g e
ASPECTS OF LEGAL REASONING

In order to better understand legal reasoning, there are some key terms that are to be understood.
They are:

1. Principles
2. Rules
3. Legal Rhetoric

They shall be subsequently explained below:

1. Principles: A legal principle has been defined by Farrar and Dugdale as:

“An established legal truth or proposition that is so clear that it cannot be reproved or
contradicted except by a proposition which is clearer”.

Thus, legal principles act as the standard by which actions are to be judged in order to determine
their legality and relevance. Any act or proposition that goes against a legal principle would be
open to criticism and rejection by lawyers. An example of a legal principle is the principle of
natural justice. If a lower court’s decision is made in violation of this principle, it is likely to
be struck out on appeal.

2. Rules: legal rules are the specific instances in which the legal principles would be
applied. For instance, the principle of natural justice has the following rules:
1. Audi alterem patem (hear the other side)
2. Nemo judex in causa sua (You can’t be a judge in your own cause).
3. Legal Rhetoric: Rhetoric is the act of seeking to persuade someone to accept your own
opinion either through speech or writing. Rhetoric is very important for lawyers as their
main business is usually to convince the judge that their cause should be favoured
instead of the other party’s.

Legal rhetoric is achieved by appealing to authority. Authorities are the sources of law that
lawyers appeal to. They can either be primary or secondary. Primary authority includes case
laws and statutes while secondary authority includes opinions, writings, legal commentaries

13 | P a g e
etc. Primary authorities when quoted, are weightier than secondary ones. Thus, if the plaintiff
backs up his arguments with primary authorities and the defendant back up his own with
secondary authorities, judgement would be entered for the plaintiff.

METHODS OF LEGAL REASONING

The methods of legal reasoning are the rules of logic normally applied by lawyers in order to
substantiate their arguments. Five Methods of Legal Reasoning

1. Rule-Based Reasoning:

Rule-based reasoning is the most important type of legal reasoning. In rule-based reasoning,
you take a rule (a statute or a case holding) and apply it to a set of facts. (This is a type of
deductive reasoning.) Richard Neumann has stated that rules have at least three parts: "(1) a set
of elements, collectively called a test; (2) a result that occurs when all the elements are present
(and the test is thus satisfied); and (3) . . . a causal term that determines whether the result is
mandatory, prohibitory, discretionary, or declaratory." (Richard K. Neumann, Jr., Legal
Reasoning and Legal Writing: Structure, Strategy, and Style 16 (2005). In addition, some rules
have "one or more exceptions that, if present would defeat the result, even if all the elements
are present." (Id.) An example of a rule would be that intentional infliction of emotional harm
occurs if 1) the defendant’s conduct is outrageous, 2) the defendant’s conduct is intentional, 3)
the defendant’s conduct causes, 4) severe emotional distress. The rule would be satisfied if the
facts of the present case satisfies all the elements of the rule. For example, if an ex-boyfriend
calls an ex-girlfriend several times in the middle of the night to harass her (outrageous conduct;
intentional conduct) and this causes (causation) her severe emotional distress (element 4),
intentional infliction of emotional distress has taken place.

2. Reasoning by Analogy

Reasoning by analogy concerns finding similarities. Reasoning by analogy in the law occurs
when one argues that the facts of the precedent case are like the facts of the present case so that
the rule of the precedent case should apply to the present case. (A is like B, so the rule from A
applies to B.) An example of reasoning by analogy is that the rule that one who keeps a wild
14 | P a g e
animal, like a tiger, on her property is strictly liable for any damage caused by that animal also
applies to pit bulls because a pit bull, although not a wild animal, is inherently dangerous just
like a wild animal. The two cases are never exact; reasoning by analogy is a question of degree.
The writer must convince the reader that the facts of the two cases are similar enough that the
rule from the precedent case should apply to the present case.

3. Distinguishing Cases

Distinguishing cases is the opposite of reasoning by analogy. In distinguishing cases, one

argues that the facts of the precedent case are not like the facts of the present case so that the
rule from the precedent case does not apply to the present case. For example, a toy poodle is
not like a wild animal because toy poodles are not inherently dangerous so that the rule from
the wild animal cases that an owner of a wild animal should be strictly liable for any damage
caused by that wild animal should not apply to toy poodles.

4. Reasoning by Policy

With policy based-reasoning, the writer argues that applying a particular rule to a case would
create a precedent that is good for society. For instance, in early products liability cases,
lawyers argued for strict liability when a product injured a consumer because manufacturers
could better spread the cost of injuries than consumers. Policy-based reasoning can also be
combined with reasoning by analogy. For instance, one can argue that the policy behind the
rule in the precedent case also applies to the present case so the rule in the precedent case
should also apply to the present case.

5. Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning is reasoning from the specific to the general. Lawyers use inductive
reasoning to synthesize rules. In other words, lawyers take the holdings from several cases and
by synthesizing those specific cases, they come up with a general rule. To synthesize a rule,
look at the similarities among the facts of the precedent cases and the differences among the
facts of the precedent cases. Also, look at the reasoning behind the holdings.

Case 1 holding: A person who owns a tiger that escapes and causes personal injury is strictly
liable for that personal injury.

Case 2 holding: A person who owns a tiger that escapes and causes property damage is strictly
liable for that property damage.

15 | P a g e
Case 3 holding: A person who owns a pit bull that escapes and causes personal injury is strictly
liable for that personal injury.

Case 4 holding: A person who owns a toy poodle that escapes and causes personal injury is not
strictly liable for that personal injury.

Synthesized rule: A person who owns an inherently dangerous animal that escapes and causes
personal injury or property damage is strictly liable for that personal injury or property damage.

Reasoning: Tigers, which are wild animal, and pit bulls, which are breed to be aggressive, are
inherently dangerous, while toy poodles are not. When two innocent parties are involved, the
law usually holds the party liable that keeps dangerous things, like wild animals. The rule
applies to both personal injury and property damage.

16 | P a g e
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE METHODS OF LEGAL
REASONING

First, we would like to look at our considerations from a broader perspective which includes
those stances that have not been given due attention above. Second, we would like to provide
additional justification for the choices we made and guard against some obvious objections.
Finally, we would like to offer some conclusions concerning the methodology of law that
follow, we believe, from our considerations. Let us begin with the objection that stresses the
arbitrariness of the choice of methods we present. Observe that the choice of methods presented
– although arbitrary to certain extent – is not accidental. If we were to compose a list of
philosophical conceptions of thinking (not necessarily legal, but thinking in general), it would
most certainly include logic, analysis, argumentation and hermeneutics. This general remark is
closely tied up with two further problems. First, the four described methods should not be
considered as “technologies of interpretation”. We have rather presented the possible bases on
which a coherent theory of law and a method of interpretation can be constructed. Our claim is
not the simple one that lawyers or theoreticians of law can use logic, analysis, argumentation
or hermeneutics. This paper is true only in the sense that the four stances are “platforms” on
which a coherent and applicable method or technique of interpretation can be built. Second, we
claim that all such techniques are ultimately reducible to one of the four perspectives or to a
combination thereof. We believe that the presented methods determine the boundaries of any
possible theory of humanistic interpretation. Naturally, the examples we offered as well as the
problems we addressed concerned mostly legal discourse. We tried to show, however, that the
legal applications of logic, analysis, argumentation and hermeneutics are based on more
general conceptions, which in turn are applicable to all humanistic disciplines. It is noteworthy
that this can be shown in connection to considerations concerning legal methods. The next
important issue to consider is the problem of the relationships between logic, analysis,
argumentation and hermeneutics. One can maintain that logic, analysis, argumentation and
hermeneutics “have something in common” because they aim to account for the same
phenomenon, i.e., the phenomenon of thinking. This is a very simple solution, and does not
explain much. It shows, however, why some operations of intellect may be treated as
manifestations of the application of two different methods, e.g., argumentation and
hermeneutics.

17 | P a g e
Logic cannot provide a basis for constructing a complete theory of legal reasoning, as it is
concerned only with one aspect thereof, i.e., the formal aspect. Moreover, a conception that
explains the interconnections between logic, analysis, argumentation and hermeneutics by the
fact that all four concern the same phenomenon, does not contribute to the understanding of
what those interconnections consist in. Logic, analysis, argumentation and hermeneutics are
complementary theories of legal reasoning. The complementariness thesis can be interpreted
in two ways. First, one can maintain that the four enumerated methods deal with different
aspects of legal reasoning. Such an interpretation is justified, e.g., by the relationship that holds
between logic and analysis or logic and argumentation. different methods are applicable to
different legal cases. On this account the simplest (“algorithmic”) cases are solved with the use
of logical and analytic methods, more difficult cases with the use of argumentation techniques,
while the hardest require hermeneutic intuition. The obvious weakness of such a solution is the
need to justify why different legal cases are solved with the use of different standards of
reasoning. Moreover, the distinction between simple and hard cases is problematic – or,
anyway, is a matter of degree. The general aim of our analyses made it difficult to base the
presentation of the four methods on particular examples of legal reasoning. Making use of
examples – especially as regards argumentation and hermeneutics – would be difficult for
numerous reasons, not least because it is relatively easy to choose examples justifying any
method. On the other hand, it is impossible to treat every type of legal case separately. The
strength of the methods we presented lies in the fact that they can help us to deal with hard
cases, i.e., those that are unlike any known case and, consequently, are difficult to imagine. In
other words, our aim was to present a set of tools and criteria for choosing between them in
order to show how to deal with any legal problem; we did not try to argue that a given method
suits a given class of legal cases.

We aimed to present a general philosophical framework within which such “technologies” can
be constructed. Because of that, we were unable to analyse all the bottom-line consequences
resulting from adopting one of the four conceptions. Our analyses were therefore meta-
theoretical in character. We believe that such analyses are of extreme importance as they are
often neglected in the legal-theoretic considerations. Ontological debates lead, ultimately,
nowhere. The strength of arguments backing rival conceptions is very often equal or
incommensurable. Furthermore, there is no commonly valid meta-theoretical criterion of
determining “the right” ontology of law. The same may be said of legal axiology. Some values

18 | P a g e
are contrasted or compared with others but the discussion inevitably leads to ontological
dilemmas. It seems natural and justified, therefore, to turn towards epistemology.

As nothing is perfect and flawless thus all the methods are specific to the circumstances and
not otherwise. And the decision when to use which methodology is upto the person who is
intending to make a legal decision.

CONCLUSION

The rule of law rests on the quality of legal reasoning. The rule of law requires that similar cases should
be decided similarly, that each case should be decided on its merits, and that decision-making
processes should comply with applicable rules of procedure and evidence. Making the reasoning
behind such decision-making transparent and open to scrutiny shifts the decisions away from mere
subjective preference and toward objective rationale. An important means, therefore, of achieving
the rule of law is articulating and evaluating the various elements of legal reasoning—the reasoning
involved in interpreting constitutions, statutes, and regulations, in balancing fundamental principles
and policies, in adopting and modifying legal rules, in applying those rules to cases, in evaluating
evidence, and in making ultimate decisions. Despite our need for transparent and sound reasoning,
we in the legal profession devote surprisingly little research to developing our own general
methodology. These brief thoughts about the rule of law and the pragmatic nature of legal reasoning,
as well as about rule-based reasoning, evidence evaluation, and second-order process reasoning, can
only suggest that there is something distinctive about legal reasoning. Legal reasoning is a form of
expert reasoning. Einstein argued that expert reasoning - in particular, scientific reasoning - is "nothing
but a refinement of our everyday thinking". The rules are more central in that every decision must be
justified by explicit discussion of the relevant rules: The rules are not just a framework for decision
making; they are an essential part of the process. Despite the major developments in legal scholars'
interpretations of legal reasoning over the past century and a half, legal reasoning itself has not
changed substantially, and it is unlikely to do so in the near future.

19 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1) file:///C:/Users/ankitadas/Downloads/Methods%20of%20Legal%20Reasoning%20(1)

.pdf

(2) https://www.cleverism.com/lexicon/legal-reasoning-definition/

(3) https://www.eui.eu/DepartmentsAndCentres/Law/ResearchAndTeaching/Seminars/20

08-2009-I/LegalReasoning

(4) https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/legal-reasoning-and-interpretation/v-

(5) http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_skills/2011/08/tip-of-the-week-five-methods-

of-legal-reasoning.html

(6) https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5687&context=jour

nal_articles

(7) http://www.cjsocpols.armstrong.edu/kearnes/SupremeCourt_Homepg/legalreasoning.

htm

(8) https://www.djetlawyer.com/legal-reasoning-approach-problems/

(9) https://www.slideshare.net/tabrezahmad/tools-of-legal-methods-legal-reasoning

(10) http://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/law/09._research_m

ethodology/03._legal_reasoning_/et/8150_et_et.pdf

(11) https://prezi.com/smqy3cokrfut/methods-of-legal-reasoning/

20 | P a g e