general rule from particular cases and is inconclusive which suggests the end processes of legal judgments are inconclusive. However, when it is, the courts ensure that inconclusive reasoning can be enforced! Like deductive reasoning, the logic of inductive reasoning has no interest in the actual truth of the propositions that are the premises or the conclusion. Just because a logical form is correctly constructed, it does not mean that the conclusion expressed is true. The truth of a conclusion depends upon whether the major and minor premises express statements that are true. The statements may be false. Much time is spent by lawyers in court attempting to prove the truth of statements used as building blocks in the construction of arguments. In an inductive argument, the premises only tend to support the conclusions, but they do not compel the conclusion. By tradition, the study of inductive logic was kept to arguments by way of analogy, or methods of generalisation, on the basis of a finite number of observations. Argument by analogy is the most common form of argument in law. Such an argument begins by stating that two objects are observed to be similar by a number of attributes. It is concluded that the two objects are similar with respect to a third. The strength of such an argument depends upon the degree of relationship. Lawyers are advisers and they offer predictive advice based on how previous similar cases have been dealt with. All advice is based on the lawyers’ perception of what would happen in court; this is usually enough to ensure that, in the vast majority of civil cases, matters between disputants are settled. The lawyers’ perception is based upon their experience of how judges reason. Although deductive reasoning lends support to the Blackstonian theory that the law is always there to be found, there is room for the judge to exercise discretion. A judge will have to find the major premise. The judge may do this by looking at statutes or precedent. In the absence of statute, precedent or custom, he or she may need to create one by analogy or a process of induction. Once the judge has stated the major premise the judge will need to examine the facts of the case to ascertain if they are governed by the major premise. If this has been established, the conclusion will follow syllogistically. In the vast majority of cases, the conclusion will simply be an application of existing law to the facts. Occasionally, the decision creates a new law which may or may not be stated as a proposition of law. To ascertain whether a new law has been stated may require a comparison between the material facts implied within the major premise and the facts which make up the minor premise. To summarise, judges are involved in a type of inductive reasoning called reasoning by analogy. This is a process of reasoning by comparing examples. The purpose is to reach a conclusion in a novel situation. This process has been described as a three stage process: (1) the similarity between the cases is observed; (2) the rule of law (ratio decidendi) inherent in the first case is stated. Reasoning is from the particular to the general (deduction); (3) that rule is applied to the case for decision. At this point, reasoning is from the general to the particular (induction).

DOI link for general rule from particular cases and is inconclusive which suggests the end processes of legal judgments are inconclusive. However, when it is, the courts ensure that inconclusive reasoning can be enforced! Like deductive reasoning, the logic of inductive reasoning has no interest in the actual truth of the propositions that are the premises or the conclusion. Just because a logical form is correctly constructed, it does not mean that the conclusion expressed is true. The truth of a conclusion depends upon whether the major and minor premises express statements that are true. The statements may be false. Much time is spent by lawyers in court attempting to prove the truth of statements used as building blocks in the construction of arguments. In an inductive argument, the premises only tend to support the conclusions, but they do not compel the conclusion. By tradition, the study of inductive logic was kept to arguments by way of analogy, or methods of generalisation, on the basis of a finite number of observations. Argument by analogy is the most common form of argument in law. Such an argument begins by stating that two objects are observed to be similar by a number of attributes. It is concluded that the two objects are similar with respect to a third. The strength of such an argument depends upon the degree of relationship. Lawyers are advisers and they offer predictive advice based on how previous similar cases have been dealt with. All advice is based on the lawyers’ perception of what would happen in court; this is usually enough to ensure that, in the vast majority of civil cases, matters between disputants are settled. The lawyers’ perception is based upon their experience of how judges reason. Although deductive reasoning lends support to the Blackstonian theory that the law is always there to be found, there is room for the judge to exercise discretion. A judge will have to find the major premise. The judge may do this by looking at statutes or precedent. In the absence of statute, precedent or custom, he or she may need to create one by analogy or a process of induction. Once the judge has stated the major premise the judge will need to examine the facts of the case to ascertain if they are governed by the major premise. If this has been established, the conclusion will follow syllogistically. In the vast majority of cases, the conclusion will simply be an application of existing law to the facts. Occasionally, the decision creates a new law which may or may not be stated as a proposition of law. To ascertain whether a new law has been stated may require a comparison between the material facts implied within the major premise and the facts which make up the minor premise. To summarise, judges are involved in a type of inductive reasoning called reasoning by analogy. This is a process of reasoning by comparing examples. The purpose is to reach a conclusion in a novel situation. This process has been described as a three stage process: (1) the similarity between the cases is observed; (2) the rule of law (ratio decidendi) inherent in the first case is stated. Reasoning is from the particular to the general (deduction); (3) that rule is applied to the case for decision. At this point, reasoning is from the general to the particular (induction).

general rule from particular cases and is inconclusive which suggests the end processes of legal judgments are inconclusive. However, when it is, the courts ensure that inconclusive reasoning can be enforced! Like deductive reasoning, the logic of inductive reasoning has no interest in the actual truth of the propositions that are the premises or the conclusion. Just because a logical form is correctly constructed, it does not mean that the conclusion expressed is true. The truth of a conclusion depends upon whether the major and minor premises express statements that are true. The statements may be false. Much time is spent by lawyers in court attempting to prove the truth of statements used as building blocks in the construction of arguments. In an inductive argument, the premises only tend to support the conclusions, but they do not compel the conclusion. By tradition, the study of inductive logic was kept to arguments by way of analogy, or methods of generalisation, on the basis of a finite number of observations. Argument by analogy is the most common form of argument in law. Such an argument begins by stating that two objects are observed to be similar by a number of attributes. It is concluded that the two objects are similar with respect to a third. The strength of such an argument depends upon the degree of relationship. Lawyers are advisers and they offer predictive advice based on how previous similar cases have been dealt with. All advice is based on the lawyers’ perception of what would happen in court; this is usually enough to ensure that, in the vast majority of civil cases, matters between disputants are settled. The lawyers’ perception is based upon their experience of how judges reason. Although deductive reasoning lends support to the Blackstonian theory that the law is always there to be found, there is room for the judge to exercise discretion. A judge will have to find the major premise. The judge may do this by looking at statutes or precedent. In the absence of statute, precedent or custom, he or she may need to create one by analogy or a process of induction. Once the judge has stated the major premise the judge will need to examine the facts of the case to ascertain if they are governed by the major premise. If this has been established, the conclusion will follow syllogistically. In the vast majority of cases, the conclusion will simply be an application of existing law to the facts. Occasionally, the decision creates a new law which may or may not be stated as a proposition of law. To ascertain whether a new law has been stated may require a comparison between the material facts implied within the major premise and the facts which make up the minor premise. To summarise, judges are involved in a type of inductive reasoning called reasoning by analogy. This is a process of reasoning by comparing examples. The purpose is to reach a conclusion in a novel situation. This process has been described as a three stage process: (1) the similarity between the cases is observed; (2) the rule of law (ratio decidendi) inherent in the first case is stated. Reasoning is from the particular to the general (deduction); (3) that rule is applied to the case for decision. At this point, reasoning is from the general to the particular (induction).