Deductive Reasoning

Many law students come to law school thinking that they already know how to make arguments. And then what they really need to learn is the details of various areas of legal doctrine. In fact, for many law students, they come to law school for the very reason that their friends and family have said, for their whole life, that they're really good at making arguments. The surprise comes then when students first encountered the fact that lawyers, all lawyers, advocates, judges, legislators, government attorneys, public interest attorneys, and so many others argue in a very particular way. It's not just based simply on what they think or what they believe, but rather based on the application of new facts to establish precedent.

In today's lesson, I wanna introduce you how to conduct legal analysis, predictive or persuasive, using what is often called the analytical paradigm. The analytical paradigm draws its foundations from classical rhetoric and formal logic.

So what is it? At its core, the analytical paradigm is the use of deductive reasoning, working from the general to the specific. It is the deductive approach that is used by attorneys to apply new facts to well-established rules. Deductive reasoning is accomplished using what is known as a syllogism.

Syllogisms

Every syllogism has three parts, a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.

The major premise is simply a rule of general applicability or put differently, a rule that applies not just to a single person or situation, but rather to a category of people or situations.

The minor premise by contrast is a set of specific facts or situations.

And finally, the conclusion is a statement that the minor premise meets the requirements of the major premise.

So to recap, the major premise is the general rule. The minor premise is specific facts. And the conclusion is a statement that the specific facts meet the rule.

The canonical example of the syllogism goes back to the time of Socrates. In this traditional syllogism, the major premise is that all people are mortal. The minor premise is that Socrates is a person and the conclusion is that therefore Socrates is mortal. The idea of a syllogism is straightforward. If crafted properly, it should be able to prove the conclusion beyond dispute. All that is necessary is that the major premise is true, the minor premise is true, and it is accurate that the minor premise applies to the major premise.

So take another example. Let's assume the major premise is exactly the same, all people are mortal. But the minor premise is not that Socrates is mortal. Excuse me, that Socrates is a person, but that Beyonce is a person. See, the major premises exactly the same. But the minor premise, the facts are a hundred percent different, but the syllogism still works. The conclusion is equally valid that Beyonce is mortal.

Use by Attorneys

For lawyers, the power of deduction and syllogistic reasoning is in the certainty or apparent certainty it provides. As a result, the task of an attorney when engaging in deductive or syllogistic reasoning is three-fold.

First, lawyers must identify a major premise. What lawyers often refer to simply as the rule. This rule is derived from one or many sources of legal authority. For example, a statute, a regulation, a case, or all three could be used to define the rule.

Second, lawyers articulate or identify a specific set of facts.

Finally, as a result, the lawyer concludes that the facts must apply to the rule and therefore the syllogism is accurate.

So let's take a look at a legal example. Let's assume that you're representing an individual who's driving 35 miles per hour in a school zone where the relevant statute in that state says that people may only drive 25 miles per hour in a school zone. So what is the rule or major premise? The rule here is that an individual may not drive more than 25 miles per hour in a school zone. Exactly what the statute says. And what's the minor premise? The minor premise is that your client drove 35 miles per hour in a school zone. Therefore in the government's case against your client, the government will just use syllogistic reasoning to conclude because your client was caught by a police officer driving more than 25 miles per hour, that your client's conduct violated that law.

But it's your client, what can you do? The syllogistic reasoning feels perfect or unimpeachable, but you're a lawyer now. So let's figure out a way to challenge the argument.

You have two options. First, you can challenge the accuracy of the major premise. You can argue simply that the rule is wrong or at best, incomplete. For example, perhaps the statute is actually more nuanced. Something like, people may only drive 25 miles per hour in a school zone during school hours. Or what if there was an exception? People may only drive 25 miles an hour in a school zone, unless there is an emergency. To be sure, you would only wanna make these challenges, if you had facts to back them up. For example, if you knew it was not during school hours or the driver was in an emergency.

The other way to challenge the syllogism is to challenge the minor premise, the facts. Maybe, for example, you have evidence that your client wasn't actually driving 35 miles an hour or that the area your client was in was not, in fact, a school zone. In other words, you can challenge the major premise or you can challenge the minor premise, the rule or the facts being applied to that rule.

So at this point you may be thinking syllogistic reasoning seems pretty formulaic or even mechanical. Where's the fiery rhetoric? Where's the appeal to justice, fairness, and democratic values? Where's counsel pointing to the witness and saying, "But you lied, isn't that right, sir?" Don't worry, there are ways to bring those arguments into legal analysis too. But that's the icing of legal argument, not the cake. Those appeals to other rhetorical tools can only be made part of, or in addition to the deductive approach to effectively show the audience the answer or likely answer to a particular legal question.

For now, recognize the power of deductive syllogistic reasoning. It allows lawyers to argue in a clear, concise, and most of all, logically driven way that applies the law equally to all people. And that is why it's the foundation of legal reasoning.