Legal analysts evaluate deductive reasoning by starting from the conclusion.

Evidence

When we analyze or evaluate reasoning, however, we reverse the process; we begin with the conclusion, for it is in the conclusion that, as brief writers, brief readers, oral advocates and judges, we examine the quality of the reasoning and evaluate the soundness of the arguments. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 361

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 361
• XREF: connects to: Legal criticism improves when focused on specific premises and syllogisms. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 451; Judges intuit case outcomes first and justify them in written opinions afterward. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1217; Legal expertise and persuasive opinions are a judge’s main influence tool — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1336

Broader Connections

• Legal criticism improves when focused on specific premises and syllogisms. #expands (0.70) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 451