23
REASONING: CONSTRUCTING AN ARGUMENT AND DISTINGUISHING A CASE Dr. Heba Hazzaa

Legal 4 reasoning

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Legal 4 reasoning

REASONING: CONSTRUCTING AN ARGUMENT AND DISTINGUISHING A CASE

Dr. Heba Hazzaa

Page 2: Legal 4 reasoning

WHAT SHOULD WE LEARN FROM THIS COURSE? 1. Reading effectively

2. Thinking systematically: Relevant facts+ IRAC

3. Writing efficiently: Clear, Concise, Structured, Supported by Authority 

4. Presenting your case: Oral presentation skills

Page 3: Legal 4 reasoning

WHAT ARE WE DOING TODAY?Part 1: How to construct an argument

Part 2: Distinguishing a case

• A statement vs. an argument vs. a legal argument

How can you distinguish a case?

• What are the basic skills of reasoning?

Relevant facts – stare decisis & obiter dictaIrrelvant facts

Page 4: Legal 4 reasoning

LEGAL REASONING: WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO YOU?

Page 5: Legal 4 reasoning

WHAT IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A STATEMENT AND A LOGICAL ARGUMENT?The 4th grade students want to learn. They come to class motivated

A student is ready to learn when they are prepared and engaged. Students who undertake their pre-class readings and participate in discussions are prepared. Whereas the 4th grade class read their pre class readings and participate in class, therefore the 4th grade class is ready to learn.This is called a logical argument.

Page 6: Legal 4 reasoning

WHAT IS A LEGAL ARGUMENT? A legal argument is:

a logical statement supported by legal

authorityand admissible

evidence.

Page 7: Legal 4 reasoning

HOW TO BUILD A LEGAL ARGUMENT?1. Major premise: Statement of law

general and detailed1.1 Main/original legal authority for major

premise1.2 Subsidiary legal authority for major

premise2. Minor premise: Statement of relevant facts that satisfy the rule both general and detailed

2.1 legally admissible evidence that the facts needed to satisfy the rule have been proven3.Conclusion

Whereas, relevant fact as proven satisfies the minor premise, therefore major premise is proven

Page 8: Legal 4 reasoning

A MAJOR PREMISE IS: THE GENERAL RULE + detailed rule

A MINOR PREMISE IS: Statement of fact

THE CONCLUSION IS REACHED WHEN THE RELEVANT FACTS PROVE THE MINOR PREMISE, WHICH IN TURN PROVES THE MAJOR PREMISE.

Page 9: Legal 4 reasoning

I WANT TO ARGUE THAT YOU WILL ACHIEVE HIGHER GRADES WHEN YOU PARTICIPATE IN CLASS.

Page 10: Legal 4 reasoning

HERE IS HOW I DO IT: 1. Major premise: Students who participate constructively in class achieve higher grades.

2. Minor premise: Students who complete pre-class readings participate more constructively.

3. Whereas, relevant fact, therefore conclusion: Whereas, this group of students complete pre class readings & participate more constructively therefore, those students are more likely to achieve higher grades.

Page 11: Legal 4 reasoning

SEE IF THIS HELPS: Students who participate constructively in class achieve higher grades.

Students who complete pre-class readings participate more constructively.

Whereas, this group of students complete pre class readings & participate more constructively therefore, those students are more likely to achieve higher grades.

Page 12: Legal 4 reasoning

LET US ADD ANOTHER LAYER: 1. Major premise: Students who participate constructively in class achieve higher grades.

Authority for major premise: As evidenced by [insert actual number] education theory and research studies on the topic.

2. Minor premise: Students who complete pre-class readings participate more constructively.

Evidence on minor premise: Dr. Abbas and Dr. Hazzaa commissioned a report from a formal committee of experts to measure student quality of in class participation and analyze their quiz answers and their final exam grades. The report stated that “it was found that students who completed their pre class readings participated constructively and scored higher than their peers in exams.”

3. Whereas, relevant fact, therefore conclusion: Whereas, this group of students complete pre class readings & participate more constructively therefore, those students are more likely to achieve higher grades.

Page 13: Legal 4 reasoning

DO NOT WRITE YOU ARGUMENT LIKE THIS!!!!! 1. Major premise: Students who participate constructively in class achieve higher grades. Authority for major premise: As evidenced by [insert actual number] empirical studies. 2. Minor premise: Students who complete pre-class readings participate more constructively. Evidence on minor premise: Dr. Abbas and Dr. Hazzaa measure student quality of in class participation, quizzes measure their pre-class readings, and final exam measure their grades. 3. Whereas, relevant fact, therefore conclusion: Whereas, this group of students complete pre class readings & participate more constructively therefore, those students are more likely to achieve higher grades.

Page 14: Legal 4 reasoning

A LOGICAL EVIDENCED STATEMENT ا?ل?ن?ه?ا?ئ?ي ا?ل?ش?ك?ل?As evidenced by [insert actual number] empirical studies, students who participate constructively in class achieve higher grades. Since we measured the quality of your participation and your readiness for discussion, we can say that students who complete pre-class readings participate in class more constructively.It is, therefore, more likely that this group of students who completed their pre class readings & participated more constructively in class will achieve higher grades.

Page 15: Legal 4 reasoning

WHAT IS NEXT?

Page 16: Legal 4 reasoning

THINK OF IT THIS WAY:

Build

Breakdown

Rebuild

Page 17: Legal 4 reasoning

HOW TO SCORE A GOAL WITH YOUR ARGUMENT?

List your supporting argumentsCounter your own argument with what your opponent might sayRebut: respond to each counter argument.

Page 18: Legal 4 reasoning

IN CLASS EXERCISE 1: LET’S BUILD OUR OWN LEGAL ARGUMENTS!

Using Strawberry farm hypothetical or the Oxford Price Media Moot case,Take 5 minutes to build an argument.

Page 19: Legal 4 reasoning

UMANI’S PROSECUTION FOR POST FIVE “PURIFY YOUR COUNTRY” VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW Free speech is a universally recognized right and is protected under international law as per (Art. ** of ****). Unfavorable speech is still free speech (Authority). However, hate speech is not protected speech under domestic and international law.

Speech is considered hate speech when it incites violence even if the intended outcome did not happen. Unfavorable speech is the type of speech that offends a person or a group of persons, is rude, or repulsive.

A person incites violence when their speech creates a “clear and present” danger that the violent will occur, in other words: when violence is imminent.

Although Umani’s post 5 appears to include offending speech, we cannot say that it incites violence since no violence immediate or otherwise occurred as a direct result to the defendant’s speech. Umani’s speech is not hate speech since it did not incite violence. Therefore, Umani’s prosecution under *** violates **.

Page 20: Legal 4 reasoning

AN EXAMPLE OF A DEFICIENT REASONING: Umani’s post five “Purify your Country” is protected under international law. Umani’s prosecution violates international law. Umani is not guilty under the Anti Terrorism Act. He is exercising his legally protected right. Moreover, no violence occurred on the borders on that day. Therefore, Omeria’s persecution of Umani violates international law.

Page 21: Legal 4 reasoning

STRAWBERRY FARM’S FAILURE TO DELIVER UNDER THE CONTRACT IS A BREACH A valid contract is legally binding as long as it is in force. Strawberry farm is under a contractual obligation to deliver the contractual quantity (between min and max) at contract price.

A hardship, under Art. ## of ####, applicable to the dispute, is an unforeseeable event that disrupts the performance of the contract and threatens the obligee with a major loss.

The heat wave was a foreseeable impediment for a sophisticated merchant such as Strawberry Farm esp. in light of past experiences. Moreover, Strawberry Farm’s total loss of (35%) is not considered a major loss given its huge market share.

It is reasonable to conclude that, Strawberry farm cannot claim hardship to exempt its obligation to deliver. Therefore, SF failure to deliver is a breach of contract.

Page 22: Legal 4 reasoning

PART 2: DISTINGUISHING A

CASE

Page 23: Legal 4 reasoning

DISTINGUISHING OR ANALOGIZING A CASE1. Find relevant facts in the fact pattern you want to distinguish 2. Look at the issue and the facts and ask why is my issue

different/similar3. Take those differences/similarities and put them in comparison to

the analysis (reasoning) in the case4. If the reasoning relies on those facts different from yours then

you have distinguished the case5. If the reasoning relies on the similar facts than most likely this

case will apply to your fact pattern.