through the premises. The conclusion is logically compelled and cannot be attacked. The major premise, however, may be targeted for argument. The major premise of the deductive syllogism that has been considered in this chapter (see Figure 7.12, above) was expressed as: • To steal is to act contrary to the Theft Act. This can be expressed in a more specific manner and still remain general: • It is contrary to s1(1) of the Theft Act to dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that other. The entire de ductive argument can then be set out as shown in Figure 7.14, below. Figure 7.14: a deductive argument Major premise (general) • It is contrary to s1(1) of the Theft Act to dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that other. Minor premise (particular) • Anna dishonestly appropriated a book the property of X store with the intention of permanently depriving the store of it. Conclusion (compelled) • Anna has acted contrary to s1(1) of the Theft Act. We could still attack the minor premise by using it as the thesis of inductive reasoning. However, this time we want to attack the major premise. One way of doing this is to check the interpretation of the words and phrases in the major premise in so far as they replicate s1(1) of the Theft Act. What do you consider to be the meaning of the phrases: • intention to permanently deprive (mens rea); • dishonestly (actus reus); • property (actus reus). These are important words and phrases that may well become the focus of legal argument in the court. We will note later in this chapter how these words and phrases are of major importance in a theft case. In order to explore their meaning, it is necessary to consult other cases where these words and phrases in the Theft Act 1968 have been discussed. Figure 7.15, below, sets out two opposing deductive arguments: one affirming the central deductive argument and one setting out to deny it. This type of structure is the skeleton of the majority of arguments revolving around the use of facts and legal authority to resolve legal dispute in a trial scenario.

DOI link for through the premises. The conclusion is logically compelled and cannot be attacked. The major premise, however, may be targeted for argument. The major premise of the deductive syllogism that has been considered in this chapter (see Figure 7.12, above) was expressed as: • To steal is to act contrary to the Theft Act. This can be expressed in a more specific manner and still remain general: • It is contrary to s1(1) of the Theft Act to dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that other. The entire de ductive argument can then be set out as shown in Figure 7.14, below. Figure 7.14: a deductive argument Major premise (general) • It is contrary to s1(1) of the Theft Act to dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that other. Minor premise (particular) • Anna dishonestly appropriated a book the property of X store with the intention of permanently depriving the store of it. Conclusion (compelled) • Anna has acted contrary to s1(1) of the Theft Act. We could still attack the minor premise by using it as the thesis of inductive reasoning. However, this time we want to attack the major premise. One way of doing this is to check the interpretation of the words and phrases in the major premise in so far as they replicate s1(1) of the Theft Act. What do you consider to be the meaning of the phrases: • intention to permanently deprive (mens rea); • dishonestly (actus reus); • property (actus reus). These are important words and phrases that may well become the focus of legal argument in the court. We will note later in this chapter how these words and phrases are of major importance in a theft case. In order to explore their meaning, it is necessary to consult other cases where these words and phrases in the Theft Act 1968 have been discussed. Figure 7.15, below, sets out two opposing deductive arguments: one affirming the central deductive argument and one setting out to deny it. This type of structure is the skeleton of the majority of arguments revolving around the use of facts and legal authority to resolve legal dispute in a trial scenario.

through the premises. The conclusion is logically compelled and cannot be attacked. The major premise, however, may be targeted for argument. The major premise of the deductive syllogism that has been considered in this chapter (see Figure 7.12, above) was expressed as: • To steal is to act contrary to the Theft Act. This can be expressed in a more specific manner and still remain general: • It is contrary to s1(1) of the Theft Act to dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that other. The entire de ductive argument can then be set out as shown in Figure 7.14, below. Figure 7.14: a deductive argument Major premise (general) • It is contrary to s1(1) of the Theft Act to dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that other. Minor premise (particular) • Anna dishonestly appropriated a book the property of X store with the intention of permanently depriving the store of it. Conclusion (compelled) • Anna has acted contrary to s1(1) of the Theft Act. We could still attack the minor premise by using it as the thesis of inductive reasoning. However, this time we want to attack the major premise. One way of doing this is to check the interpretation of the words and phrases in the major premise in so far as they replicate s1(1) of the Theft Act. What do you consider to be the meaning of the phrases: • intention to permanently deprive (mens rea); • dishonestly (actus reus); • property (actus reus). These are important words and phrases that may well become the focus of legal argument in the court. We will note later in this chapter how these words and phrases are of major importance in a theft case. In order to explore their meaning, it is necessary to consult other cases where these words and phrases in the Theft Act 1968 have been discussed. Figure 7.15, below, sets out two opposing deductive arguments: one affirming the central deductive argument and one setting out to deny it. This type of structure is the skeleton of the majority of arguments revolving around the use of facts and legal authority to resolve legal dispute in a trial scenario.