> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://jennyrice.gitbook.io/wrd-418-legal-writing/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://jennyrice.gitbook.io/wrd-418-legal-writing/chapter-2-what-is-legal-reasoning/what-is-legal-reasoning.md).
# What is Legal Reasoning?
## What exactly is *legal reasoning* or *legal analysis*?
Legal reasoning is the analysis of a legal problem using existing law, including precedent, statutes, and regulations. Another way of saying it is that legal reasoning applies the *rule of law* to *facts* of a situation.
Legal reasoning (or what we might also call *legal analysis*) can use many different approaches. Consider two common types of reasoning used in legal analysis: deductive and analogical reasoning.
## **1. Deductive Reasoning**
**Deductive reasoning** works from **the general to the specific.** In deductive reasoning, you start with a general rule or principle and then apply it to a specific situation. For example, a lawyer or judge starts with a general rule (i.e. law) and then applies it to a specific situation to reach a conclusion. In law, deductive reasoning gives us a clue about how a court might decide a legal question, since we can apply a rule/law to the facts and then, from there, the conclusion follows logically.
**Examples of Deductive reasoning**
{% hint style="success" %}
**Past situation:** Last semester, the school let students use calculators on the midterm for Algebra II.\
**New situation:** This semester, a teacher is deciding if calculators can be used on the Algebra II midterm again.\
**Reasoning:** The test format and content are the same, so the rule from last semester should apply now.\
**Conclusion:** Students should be allowed to use calculators.
**Past situation:** You liked Jordan Peele's last few movie because he makes horror movies that also have interesting social commentary.\
**New situation:** There's a new Jordan Peele horror/supernatural movie. \
**Reasoning:** The new movie looks similar in style to the others you liked.\
**Conclusion:** There's a good change you'll enjoy Peele's new movie too.
{% endhint %}
The classic form of deductive reasoning is the **syllogism**. A syllogism has three parts:
1. **Major Premise** – the general rule (i.e., rule of law).
2. **Minor Premise** – the relevant facts (i.e. facts of the case).
3. **Conclusion** – the logical result of applying the rule to the facts.
**Example:**
* **Major Premise:** *Anyone who enters another person’s property without permission commits trespass.*
* **Minor Premise**: *Sam entered Casey’s yard without permission.*
* **Conclusion:** *Sam committed trespass.*
This form is powerful because it is both logical and transparent: the reader can see exactly how the conclusion flows from the rule.
#### Why Syllogisms Matter in Law
Legal arguments are rarely as neat as the trespass example. Statutory language may be ambiguous, facts may not fit cleanly, or multiple rules may compete. Even so, structuring arguments as syllogisms helps writers:
* Identify precisely what the rule requires.
* Spot where disagreement might occur (the definition of terms in the rule, or whether certain facts satisfy those terms).
* Communicate legal reasoning in a clear, disciplined way.
#### Competing Syllogisms
In practice, opposing parties often present competing syllogisms. Both sides begin with the same general rule, but they interpret its meaning differently or apply the facts in distinct ways.
**Example:**
* **Rule:** *Hazing includes any act that produces mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, or harm.*
* **Facts:** A student club requires new members to perform chores for senior members.
**Side A (Yes, this is hazing):**
* **Major Premise:** *Any act that produces mental discomfort or embarrassment is hazing.*
* **Minor Premise:** *Chores produce discomfort and embarrassment.*
* **Conclusion:** *The club’s conduct is hazing.*
**Side B (No, this is not hazing):**
* **Major Premise:** *Hazing requires intentional acts designed to cause discomfort or harm.*
* **Minor Premise:** *The club’s chores are designed as tradition, not to cause harm.*
* **Conclusion:** *The conduct is not hazing.*
**Notice that the difference arises in how each side defines and applies the rule, not in the syllogism’s logical form.**
***
## **2. Analogical Reasoning**
While we can use deductive reasoning when there are rules/laws to apply to a situation, there are times when there aren't specific rules written for a given scenario. In these cases, courts look at *precedents* (earlier cases) and decide if the new case is close enough to be treated the same. This is an example of **analogical reasoning**.
Analogical reasoning is when you compare a new situation to a past situation that’s similar. You can then use the earlier outcome to decide what should happen now. It's like saying, "This case is a lot like that other case, so we should treat it the same way."
{% hint style="danger" %}
It's important to use caution when using analogical reasoning, since not all similarities (or differences) are significant! When comparing things, we need a basis of comparison to make a good analogy between them.
{% endhint %}
| | | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|  |  |  |
**Think about this question: Is a car more like a train or a wagon?**
To answer this question, we need a basis of comparison! If we're comparing things that have four wheels, then a car and a wagon are more similar. But if we're comparing modes of transportation that have engines, then a car and a train are more similar. **In other words, we always need to have a basis of comparison in analogical reasoning!**
## **3. Steps to Analogical Reasoning in Legal Analysis**
Let's say that there's a law that says no disruptive vehicles are allowed in any public park. Last week, someone received a ticket for riding a golf cart through the park. That same day, many people rode bicycles through the park without any problem. Yesterday, you rode a skateboard through the park and got a ticket for violating the law. Was that ticket fair?
{% stepper %}
{% step %} **Identify proper base point for comparison with the instance in dispute.**
We want to compare forms of transportation that are considered "disruptive vehicles."
{% endstep %}
{% step %} **Identify similarities and differences between the base point and the disputed instance.**
We see that bikes are not considered disruptive, perhaps because they are not motorized and do not usually cause extensive damage to property like grass (or people!). Meanwhile, golf carts *are* motorized and can often damage grass or (when not used safely) people.
{% endstep %}
{% step %} **Determine whether to treat the two instances the same because the similarities outweigh the differences or to distinguish them because the differences prevail.**
Skateboards are not motorized, and because they're usually something used on concrete, they don't cause damage to grass. They also don't usually cause damage to people--at least no more than a bicycle riding on the sidewalk would cause.
{% endstep %}
{% step %}
### Conclusion
It's likely that a skateboard is more like a bicycle (which is allowed under the law) than a golf cart (which is not).
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}
\ 
L**egal reasoning = comparing the facts to the rule to form the analysis.**