Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
Figure 7.13: the constituent parts of argument Whilst the diagram above looks simple it is necessary to bear in mind that the propositions may have alternative explanations and the evidence supporting these alternative explanations will need to be analysed. So at the level of factual analysis it has been demonstrated that, in relation to law, deductive argument requires extension by tracking through the process of inductive reasoning, starting with the minor premise of the deductive argument. 7.9.1 Abductive reasoning Lawyers inevitably look at possible inductive reasoning that counters their own argument, otherwise they could be caught by surprise. This involves constructing opposing hypothetical theses. The evidence a lawyer has may suggest alternatives, and perhaps even more plausible alternatives. This creative process which tends to argue around the data based on hypothetical matters, rather than on matters known, is called abductive reasoning. However, legal argument does not just involve factual analysis. It also involves legal analysis. Over the next pages of this chapter using the fictitious case of R v Anna both factual and legal data will be considered. Recall the definition of theft.
DOI link for Figure 7.13: the constituent parts of argument Whilst the diagram above looks simple it is necessary to bear in mind that the propositions may have alternative explanations and the evidence supporting these alternative explanations will need to be analysed. So at the level of factual analysis it has been demonstrated that, in relation to law, deductive argument requires extension by tracking through the process of inductive reasoning, starting with the minor premise of the deductive argument. 7.9.1 Abductive reasoning Lawyers inevitably look at possible inductive reasoning that counters their own argument, otherwise they could be caught by surprise. This involves constructing opposing hypothetical theses. The evidence a lawyer has may suggest alternatives, and perhaps even more plausible alternatives. This creative process which tends to argue around the data based on hypothetical matters, rather than on matters known, is called abductive reasoning. However, legal argument does not just involve factual analysis. It also involves legal analysis. Over the next pages of this chapter using the fictitious case of R v Anna both factual and legal data will be considered. Recall the definition of theft.
Figure 7.13: the constituent parts of argument Whilst the diagram above looks simple it is necessary to bear in mind that the propositions may have alternative explanations and the evidence supporting these alternative explanations will need to be analysed. So at the level of factual analysis it has been demonstrated that, in relation to law, deductive argument requires extension by tracking through the process of inductive reasoning, starting with the minor premise of the deductive argument. 7.9.1 Abductive reasoning Lawyers inevitably look at possible inductive reasoning that counters their own argument, otherwise they could be caught by surprise. This involves constructing opposing hypothetical theses. The evidence a lawyer has may suggest alternatives, and perhaps even more plausible alternatives. This creative process which tends to argue around the data based on hypothetical matters, rather than on matters known, is called abductive reasoning. However, legal argument does not just involve factual analysis. It also involves legal analysis. Over the next pages of this chapter using the fictitious case of R v Anna both factual and legal data will be considered. Recall the definition of theft.
ABSTRACT
Lawyers inevitably look at possible inductive reasoning that counters their own argument, otherwise they could be caught by surprise. This involves constructing opposing hypothetical theses. The evidence a lawyer has may suggest alternatives, and perhaps even more plausible alternatives. This creative process which tends to argue around the data based on hypothetical matters, rather than on matters known, is called abductive reasoning.
