Legal reasoning employs both deductive and inductive processes iteratively.

Evidence

The logic of the law is neither all deductive nor all inductive. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 312

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 312
• XREF: connects to: Common law adjudication cycles induction and deduction into new rules — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 168; The ability to study law depends on recognizing logical connections in cases — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 210; Legal classifications and rules evolve through ongoing application to cases — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 243 (+15 more)

Broader Connections

• Legal reasoning requires mastery of deductive and inductive logic principles. #corroborates (0.90) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 71
• Inductive legal conclusions serve as major premises in deductive legal arguments. #expands (0.85) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 340
• A legal principle emerges from a long line of decisions. #exemplifies (0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 134
• Inductive legal generalization produces workable probabilities rather than absolute truths. #expands (0.70) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 339
• Common law rules arise from comparing cases, not from tracing prior logic #expands (0.70) — Burton, Steven J, An Introduction to Law and Legal…, 222