ABSTRACT
Because many legal arguments take the syllogistic form, some advocates believe that deductive logic dictates the structure of all legal arguments. Toulmin provided a basic layout of practical argument that metaphorically described legal argumentation: "An argument is movement from accepted data, through a warrant, to a claim". The claim is "the conclusion of the argument". Toulmin differentiated practical argument from what he considered purely theoretical syllogisms. As Toulmin pointed out, most legal arguments are not valid syllogisms in the formal sense. Instead, most legal arguments are presented in the rhetorical syllogistic form of enthymemes, that is, they are either missing premises or they contain premises that are only arguably true. The syllogistic framework is the most common organizational scheme in legal advocacy. The syllogism is a form of logic with a rich and long history. But it is important for legal advocates to recognize that legal arguments more often take the form of enthymemes that involve unstated or arguable premises.
