Audio available in app
Lawyers must reason deductively and inductively to reach sound conclusions from "summary" of Thinking Like a Lawyer by Kenneth J. Vandevelde
To think like a lawyer means being able to analyze legal problems and reach logical conclusions based on the available information. This requires lawyers to engage in both deductive and inductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning, lawyers start with a general principle or rule and apply it to a specific case to reach a specific conclusion. This involves moving from the general to the specific, drawing on established legal principles to reach a logical outcome. Deductive reasoning is crucial in legal analysis as it helps lawyers apply existing laws and precedents to the facts of a particular case. On the other hand, inductive reasoning involves drawing general principles from specific observations. This type of reasoning is used when there is no clear legal rule or precedent to apply to a case. Lawyers must use inductive reasoning to make educated guesses or predictions based on the available information, allowing them to come up with creative solutions to legal problems. Both deductive and inductive reasoning are essential for lawyers to reach sound conclusions in their legal analysis. By combining these two types of reasoning, lawyers can thoroughly examine the facts of a case, apply relevant legal principles, and come up with well-reasoned arguments to support their conclusions.- Lawyers must be able to balance deductive and inductive reasoning to think critically and solve complex legal issues effectively. This holistic approach to legal reasoning allows lawyers to navigate the intricacies of the law and provide their clients with informed and well-supported legal advice.
