Legal criticism improves when focused on specific premises and syllogisms.
Evidence
Criticism of court opinions would be more professional, briefs more clear, points of friction between litigants earlier identified and accommodated, if resort to the cosmos of “reasoning” were minimized, and attention directed instead to the precise components of that cosmos. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 451
Categorization
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 451
- XREF: connects to: Legal analysts evaluate deductive reasoning by starting from the conclusion. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 361; A syllogism is an argument containing premises and a conclusion. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 378; Knowledge of logical canons enables the detection of misleading legal arguments — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 97 (+6 more)
Broader Connections
- Knowledge of logical canons enables the detection of misleading legal arguments
#expands(0.85) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 97 - Sound legal arguments require both valid reasoning and true premises
#expands(0.85) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 250 - Legal reasoning requires mastery of deductive and inductive logic principles.
#expands(0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 71 - Deductive legal analysis applies established characteristic propositions to new cases
#expands(0.70) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 680 - Deductive legal reasoning requires identifying the controlling major premise.
#corroborates(0.60) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 751