Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
Figure 7.12: inductive and deductive reasoning It should not be overlooked that each inference placed by someone constructing an argument asserting Anna’s guilt can provoke one of the following counterresponses: (1) An explanation as to why the assertion is misguided. (Explain it away!) (2) A straight denial. (Deny the validity or existence of the evidentiary fact backing your inference.) (3) A rival evidential fact is set up and asserted. In fact it is important when setting up an argument that the potential dangers of inference are considered. For there are loopholes for error and one of the most common is overlooking the fact that sometimes there is just a plurality of causes. There can be alternative explanations. The important task is to identify possible alternative conclusions and test them out. The question then becomes which are the stronger inferences? Does your favoured argument look strong or does a counterargument stand up? As noted above inductive reasoning is the closest to everyday legal reasons, as inductive reasoning involves putting forward a conclusion that seems strong, based on inferences that provide evidence in favour of one party. So, your final argument will consist of a range of propositions or assertions that will invariably be backed by evidence. For some law problems, a cluster of arguments may need to be set up dealing with separate issues.
DOI link for Figure 7.12: inductive and deductive reasoning It should not be overlooked that each inference placed by someone constructing an argument asserting Anna’s guilt can provoke one of the following counterresponses: (1) An explanation as to why the assertion is misguided. (Explain it away!) (2) A straight denial. (Deny the validity or existence of the evidentiary fact backing your inference.) (3) A rival evidential fact is set up and asserted. In fact it is important when setting up an argument that the potential dangers of inference are considered. For there are loopholes for error and one of the most common is overlooking the fact that sometimes there is just a plurality of causes. There can be alternative explanations. The important task is to identify possible alternative conclusions and test them out. The question then becomes which are the stronger inferences? Does your favoured argument look strong or does a counterargument stand up? As noted above inductive reasoning is the closest to everyday legal reasons, as inductive reasoning involves putting forward a conclusion that seems strong, based on inferences that provide evidence in favour of one party. So, your final argument will consist of a range of propositions or assertions that will invariably be backed by evidence. For some law problems, a cluster of arguments may need to be set up dealing with separate issues.
Figure 7.12: inductive and deductive reasoning It should not be overlooked that each inference placed by someone constructing an argument asserting Anna’s guilt can provoke one of the following counterresponses: (1) An explanation as to why the assertion is misguided. (Explain it away!) (2) A straight denial. (Deny the validity or existence of the evidentiary fact backing your inference.) (3) A rival evidential fact is set up and asserted. In fact it is important when setting up an argument that the potential dangers of inference are considered. For there are loopholes for error and one of the most common is overlooking the fact that sometimes there is just a plurality of causes. There can be alternative explanations. The important task is to identify possible alternative conclusions and test them out. The question then becomes which are the stronger inferences? Does your favoured argument look strong or does a counterargument stand up? As noted above inductive reasoning is the closest to everyday legal reasons, as inductive reasoning involves putting forward a conclusion that seems strong, based on inferences that provide evidence in favour of one party. So, your final argument will consist of a range of propositions or assertions that will invariably be backed by evidence. For some law problems, a cluster of arguments may need to be set up dealing with separate issues.
ABSTRACT