Deductive-reasoning-vs-Inductive-reasoning-2011-8-

LegalReasoning：DeductiveReasoningV.InductiveReasoning“Everylegalanalysisshouldbeginatthepointofreason,continuealongapathoflogicandarriveatafundamentallyfairresult.”DouglasLindAwell-knowncartoonaboutjudicialreasoningisillustrative.Ninedistinguishedjudgesinrobessitinarowbehindahighrostrum.Solemnexpressionsgracetheirfaces,andonejudgeisreadingfromapieceofpaper.Mydissentingopinionwillbebrief,hesays.You'reallfullofcrap.Case1A:Allmenaremortal.B:Socratesisaman.C:______________.?Question:Whatreasoningisusedinthiscase?A,BandCcanbetitledas____,____,and_____.KeytoCase1DeductiveReasoning:Majorpremise:Allmenaremortal.MinorPremise:Socratesisaman.Conclusion:Socratesismortal.Attention:Ifweuseinductivereasoninghere,therewouldbeaninvalidapplicationifoneconcluded“Therefore,Socratesisallmen”Case2-DeductiveReasoningMajorPremise:Afoothasfivetoes.MinorPremise:Thedistanceisonefoot.Conclusion:Thedistanceisfivetoes.Question:What’syourcommentonit？KeytoCase2Asyllogismmayproduceaninvalidconclusionwhenthemeaningofwordsischangedfromthemajorpremisetotheminorpremise.Case3-LegalDeductiveReasoningRule:CarryingaConcealedPistolisaFelony.Facts:Arenaswascarryingaconcealedpistol.LegalConclusion:Arenascommittedafelony.Case4-LegalDeductiveReasoningRule:Tobeenforceable,acontractforthesaleofgoodsforapriceof$500ormoremustbeinwriting.Facts:Theoralcontractforthesaleofthesegoodswasnotfor$500ormore.Legalconclusion:Thecontractinthiscasewasenforceable.Case5-LegalDeductiveReasoningRule:Theownerofpropertywhichhasbeenstolenfromhimisentitledtorecoverthepropertyfromabonafidepurchaserfromthethief,butmaynotrecoverthepropertyfromabonafidepurchaserfromapersonwhoobtainedpropertyfromtheownerbyfraudulentinducementFacts:DefendantHalewasabonafidepurchaserfromAbbott,whoobtainedthepropertyfromtheowner,Costello,bymeansoffraudulentinducementLegalConclusion:Costello,theowner,cannotrecoverthepropertyfromHale.SummaryofDeductiveReasoningDerivesitsconclusionbyreasoningfromthemajor(i.e.,general)premisetotheminor(i.e.,particular)premise.Itsessenceisthesyllogism.Legalproblemsolvinginthecivillawtraditionisakindofdeductivereasoning,whichisbasedonrulesthecontentsofwhicharepositedpriortotheproblemstowhichtheymustbeapplied.SummaryonDeductiveReasoningForLegalDeductiveReasoning,onemustfirstestablishtheRule.Thismaybefromtheconstitution,astatute,anadministrativeregulation,treaty,executiveorder,orothersourcesoflaw.Second,findthefacts;Third,conclude.Case6.1A:MothersayssonXmaystayuptil10p.m.B:SonYarguesheshouldbeabletostayupuntil10also,sincetheyarebothherchildren;C:Thereforetheyshouldbetreatedalike.Question:whatreasoningisusedhere?KeytoCase6.1Analogyisaformofinductivereasoninginwhichyouuseinformationaboutaseriesofindividualcasestoreachaconclusionabouttheoutcomeofanothercase.Case6.2A:MothersayssonXmaystayuptil10p.m.B:SonYarguesheshouldbeabletostayupuntil10also,sincetheyarebothherchildren;thereforetheyshouldbetreatedalike.C:Mothersays:nope.Notavalidanalogy.Question:WHY?KeytoCase6.2Analogymaybeinvalid.TipsforInductiveReasoningTherefore,toreasonbyanalogy,youmust:(1)establishtherelevantbasepoint–therelevantfactspluswhatactionshouldthenbetaken.“Ifthisistrue,then....”(2)Thenonemustdescribethefactualrespectsinwhichthebasepointsituationandtheproblemsituationaresimilar(ANALOGOUS),orhowtheyaredifferent(DISANALOGOUS).(3)Third,youjudgewhetherthefactualsimilaritiesorthefactualdifferencesinthetwoscenariosaremoreimportantunderthecircumstances.Similarity:Atleastonefeature–identical.Atleastonefeature–different.“abcde”and“abcde”arenotsimilar(theyareidentical).“abcde”and“abcdf”aresimilar.“abcde”and“abcfg”aresimilar.“abcde”and“afghi”aresimilar.“abcde”and“fghij”arenotsimilar(theyaredifferent).Similarity-exampleJohntooktheknife.JohnattackedBillwiththeknife.JohncausedBill’sdeath.Johnwashanged.Jimtooktheknife.JimattackedDickwiththeknife.JimcausedDick’sdeath.____________________________________Jimshallbehanged.Difference-exampleJohnwas25yearsold.Billwasaninnocentgay.Jimwas12yearsold.Dickwasnotaninnocentgay–hetriedtorapeJim.___________________________________Jimshallnotbehanged.Case7-LegalInductiveReasoningCasea:thedefendantknockedaplateoutofthehandsofplaintiff,andthecourtfoundtherewasabattery,anoffensivetouchingofsomethinglogicallyanextensionofplaintiff’sperson.Caseb:thedefendantgrabbedthecollarofplaintiff’ssuit,andthecourtfoundtherewasabatteryoftheplaintiff.[FYI:Inthesecases,thecourtsemphasizedthatbatteryisadignitarytort,andtheplaintiffcouldvalidlyfeelthathis/herdignitywasbeinginvaded.]Case7-LegalInductiveReasoning(Cont.)Casec:thedefendantviolentlysmashedtheheadlightofacarinwhichplaintiffwassitting,butthecourtsaidtherewasnobatteryofplaintiff,becausetheplaintiff’spersonoralogicalextensionofhispersonwasnotoffensivelytouched.Cased:thecourtfoundthatthrowingarockatabusinwhichplaintiffwassittingmighthavebeensomeothertort,butitwasnotabatterytoplaintiff,whowasnottouchedorharmedinanyway.Case7-LegalInductiveReasoning(Cont.)Indecidingwhetherthereisabatterywhendefendantangrilyslapstherumpofahor