Question 1

Explain briefly what may be the positive and negative effects of limiting the role of logic in legal reasoning.

Accepted Answer

The use of logic in legal reasoning may assist in providing certainty of legal reasoning and therefore certainty of outcome. Limiting the role of logic may lead to less legal certainty and less predictability in the outcome of cases - but, by limiting logic, it may be easier to serve the needs of society, through the use of concepts like 'justice' rather than by the strict application of logic. Limiting the role of logic may also provide judges with the discretion to respond to the changing needs of society or to decide cases that include exceptional circumstances requiring creative solutions. It is important to note, however, that judges are drawn from a relatively narrow section of society, and so their views may reflect their similar backgrounds and experiences rather than the diversity of the wider public experience. Consequently, the role of judicial discretion, while important to deal with unusual cases, must also be limited to allow decision-making based on a relatively objective set of criteria, rather than on a relatively narrow set of subjective ones.

Question 2

Match each form of reasoning with its definition.
-Deductive reasoning.

Accepted Answer

A)  This type of reasoning starts from a specific situation and, through a series of inferences from that specific situation, reaches a conclusion that is generally applicable. This form of reasoning provides less certain results than the other form because there is a greater margin of error in drawing inferences from one specific example to come to conclusions that are applicable to a range of situations. 
B)  This type of reasoning starts from a general situation and, through a series of inferences, reaches a conclusion on a specific point. As long as the major and minor premises are correctly constructed, then the conclusion has to be true. This is a more certain form of reasoning. 
A)  This type of reasoning starts from a specific situation and, through a series of inferences from that specific situation, reaches a conclusion that is generally applicable. This form of reasoning provides less certain results than the other form because there is a greater margin of error in drawing inferences from one specific example to come to conclusions that are applicable to a range of situations. 
B)  This type of reasoning starts from a general situation and, through a series of inferences, reaches a conclusion on a specific point. As long as the major and minor premises are correctly constructed, then the conclusion has to be true. This is a more certain form of reasoning. B

Question 3

Consider this syllogism and decide whether the conclusion is logically true or false.
All dogs have paws…
Most pets have paws…
Therefore most pets are dogs.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False  False

Question 4

Logic may only enable a judge to identify a range of rational options. The choice of a 'right answer' will also be shaped by the social or economic values that the legal system serves. This is often expressly recognised by judicial discussions of________ (two words).

Accepted Answer

The answer of Logic may only enable a judge to...

Question 5

Statements using deductive reasoning employ a specific logical form called the ______.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Statements using deductive reasoning employ a specific...

Question 6

A trial lawyer needs first to create a factual theory of the case before moving on to consider an empirical analysis of it. What type of reasoning does the trial lawyer use at the fact analysis stage?

Accepted Answer

A)  Inductive. 
B)  Deductive. 
C)  Abductive. 
D)  Constructive. 
A)  Inductive. 
B)  Deductive. 
C)  Abductive. 
D)  Constructive.

Question 7

According to Golding, analogy involves reasoning by inference from the specific to the _______.

Accepted Answer

The answer of According to Golding, analogy involves reasoning by...

Question 8

Inductive reasoning is used when a judge applies the legal rule to the case before him/her.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 9

Many lawyers would say that they make as much use of the art of rhetoric as they do of logical reasoning in order to construct a case for their client - but what is the difference between logic and rhetoric?
b. Rhetoric. = The art of constructing an argument; rhetorical argument may be coherent and persuasive, but is not necessarily the objective truth.

Accepted Answer

a. Logic. = The process of reaching a co

Question 10

What is the correct order of the elements of a syllogism?

Accepted Answer

A)  Minor premise, major premise, conclusion. 
B)  Major premise, minor premise, the conclusion. 
C)  First minor premise, second minor premise, conclusion. 
D)  Conclusion, major premise, minor premise. 
A)  Minor premise, major premise, conclusion. 
B)  Major premise, minor premise, the conclusion. 
C)  First minor premise, second minor premise, conclusion. 
D)  Conclusion, major premise, minor premise.

Question 11

The uncertainties associated with legal fact-finding have led some legal theorists to become ________ (two words).

Accepted Answer

The answer of The uncertainties associated with legal fact-finding have...

Question 12

Match each constituent element of a syllogism to its legal signifier in a legal syllogism.
-Major premise.

Accepted Answer

A)  Legal rule of general application. 
B)  Particular facts of the case. 
C)  A legal outcome. 
A)  Legal rule of general application. 
B)  Particular facts of the case. 
C)  A legal outcome.

Question 13

Briefly explain how it may be possible for two judges faced with similar factual situations and similar case law to reach different decision in law.

Accepted Answer

Judges begin with a specific case, with

Question 14

Match each form of reasoning with its definition.
-Inductive reasoning.

Accepted Answer

A)  This type of reasoning starts from a specific situation and, through a series of inferences from that specific situation, reaches a conclusion that is generally applicable. This form of reasoning provides less certain results than the other form because there is a greater margin of error in drawing inferences from one specific example to come to conclusions that are applicable to a range of situations. 
B)  This type of reasoning starts from a general situation and, through a series of inferences, reaches a conclusion on a specific point. As long as the major and minor premises are correctly constructed, then the conclusion has to be true. This is a more certain form of reasoning. 
A)  This type of reasoning starts from a specific situation and, through a series of inferences from that specific situation, reaches a conclusion that is generally applicable. This form of reasoning provides less certain results than the other form because there is a greater margin of error in drawing inferences from one specific example to come to conclusions that are applicable to a range of situations. 
B)  This type of reasoning starts from a general situation and, through a series of inferences, reaches a conclusion on a specific point. As long as the major and minor premises are correctly constructed, then the conclusion has to be true. This is a more certain form of reasoning.

Question 15

Match each constituent element of a syllogism to its legal signifier in a legal syllogism.
-Minor premise.

Accepted Answer

A)  Legal rule of general application. 
B)  Particular facts of the case. 
C)  A legal outcome. 
A)  Legal rule of general application. 
B)  Particular facts of the case. 
C)  A legal outcome.

Question 16

Deductive reasoning is used when a judge identifies that there is a relevant factual similarity between an earlier case, or cases, and the present one.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 17

Inductive reasoning is used when a judge identifies the rule of law on which the previous case rested (the ratio of the previous case).

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 18

Match each constituent element of a syllogism to its legal signifier in a legal syllogism.
-The conclusions.

Accepted Answer

A)  Legal rule of general application. 
B)  Particular facts of the case. 
C)  A legal outcome. 
A)  Legal rule of general application. 
B)  Particular facts of the case. 
C)  A legal outcome.

Explain briefly what may be the positive and negative effects of limiting the role of logic in legal reasoning.

Match each form of reasoning with its definition. -Deductive reasoning.

Consider this syllogism and decide whether the conclusion is logically true or false. All dogs have paws… Most pets have paws… Therefore most pets are dogs.

Logic may only enable a judge to identify a range of rational options. The choice of a 'right answer' will also be shaped by the social or economic values that the legal system serves. This is often expressly recognised by judicial discussions of________ (two words).

Statements using deductive reasoning employ a specific logical form called the ______.

A trial lawyer needs first to create a factual theory of the case before moving on to consider an empirical analysis of it. What type of reasoning does the trial lawyer use at the fact analysis stage?

According to Golding, analogy involves reasoning by inference from the specific to the _______.

Inductive reasoning is used when a judge applies the legal rule to the case before him/her.

What is the correct order of the elements of a syllogism?

The uncertainties associated with legal fact-finding have led some legal theorists to become ________ (two words).

Match each constituent element of a syllogism to its legal signifier in a legal syllogism. -Major premise.

Briefly explain how it may be possible for two judges faced with similar factual situations and similar case law to reach different decision in law.

Match each form of reasoning with its definition. -Inductive reasoning.

Match each constituent element of a syllogism to its legal signifier in a legal syllogism. -Minor premise.

Deductive reasoning is used when a judge identifies that there is a relevant factual similarity between an earlier case, or cases, and the present one.

Inductive reasoning is used when a judge identifies the rule of law on which the previous case rested (the ratio of the previous case).

Match each constituent element of a syllogism to its legal signifier in a legal syllogism. -The conclusions.

Understanding the Law

Finding the Law

Reading the Law

From Reading to Writing

Constructing the Legal Argument

The Doctrine of Judicial Precedent

How Precedent Operates: Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dictum

Making Sense of Statutes

Interpreting Statutes

Bringing Rights Home: Legal Method and Convention Rights

Filters

Exam 11: European Legal Method

Explain briefly what may be the positive and negative effects of limiting the role of logic in legal reasoning.

Match each form of reasoning with its definition. -Deductive reasoning.

Consider this syllogism and decide whether the conclusion is logically true or false. All dogs have paws… Most pets have paws… Therefore most pets are dogs.

Logic may only enable a judge to identify a range of rational options. The choice of a 'right answer' will also be shaped by the social or economic values that the legal system serves. This is often expressly recognised by judicial discussions of________ (two words).

Statements using deductive reasoning employ a specific logical form called the ______.

A trial lawyer needs first to create a factual theory of the case before moving on to consider an empirical analysis of it. What type of reasoning does the trial lawyer use at the fact analysis stage?

According to Golding, analogy involves reasoning by inference from the specific to the _______.

Inductive reasoning is used when a judge applies the legal rule to the case before him/her.

What is the correct order of the elements of a syllogism?

The uncertainties associated with legal fact-finding have led some legal theorists to become ________ (two words).

Match each constituent element of a syllogism to its legal signifier in a legal syllogism. -Major premise.

Briefly explain how it may be possible for two judges faced with similar factual situations and similar case law to reach different decision in law.

Match each form of reasoning with its definition. -Inductive reasoning.

Match each constituent element of a syllogism to its legal signifier in a legal syllogism. -Minor premise.

Deductive reasoning is used when a judge identifies that there is a relevant factual similarity between an earlier case, or cases, and the present one.

Inductive reasoning is used when a judge identifies the rule of law on which the previous case rested (the ratio of the previous case).

Match each constituent element of a syllogism to its legal signifier in a legal syllogism. -The conclusions.

Understanding the Law

Finding the Law

Reading the Law

From Reading to Writing

Constructing the Legal Argument

The Doctrine of Judicial Precedent

How Precedent Operates: Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dictum

Making Sense of Statutes

Interpreting Statutes

Bringing Rights Home: Legal Method and Convention Rights

Filters