Lawyers place a high regard on the application of deductive reasoning in their initial "laying out" the facts of a case. They present the "facts" or "what took place" and design logically the flow of the events as it applies to those facts. They make a detail argument based on the "universal truths" they see in men - their flaws as it applies to the particular case, whether a tort, or a crime.
From that, they draw reasonable conclusions as to what both parties did (depending on whether this is a civil or criminal matter, the level of culpability will arise), and do so using a deductive platform using syllogisms. The idea of forming true or untrue or valid or invalid conclusions based on two premises - a major and minor one.
Valid, but untrue
All men are created equal.
Some dogs are men.
Therefore, some dogs are created equal.
Untrue: If you believe dogs are men. Obviously, they are not. (But a few women would disagree...men being dogs...that is in reverse.)
Valid, but untrue
All crimes are committed while using drugs.
Joe is using drugs right now.
Therefore, Joe will commit a crime.
Untrue: Not all crimes are committed on drugs.
Example: Invalid, but true.
Major Premise: There's no evidence
that you reported to duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of
1972.
Minor Premise: President Bush replied, 'Yeah, they're just wrong.' There may be no
evidence, but I did report.
Conclusion: Otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably
discharged.'
No comments:
Post a Comment