• Outlining methods of legal reasoning (such as the use of inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning and reasoning by analogy) and describe how these inform strategies for argument construction. • Discussing in detail the relationship between propositions building an argument and proofs supporting propositions. (This is particularly accomplished by considering in detail a modified Wigmore Chart Method. A fact analysis process that is instructive at the level of argument construction.) Argument concerns not only laying out facts and rules, it also involves aspects of persuasion, and determination of where the weight lies in opposing arguments. Assessors in the court, judges or jurors, decide whether an argument is strong or weak, proved or unproved. In the final analysis, how does the court, or how does anyone, decide the criteria for the evaluation of an argument? Evaluation cannot be solely guided by rules. Ultimately, argument construction is also a personal thing. Different people will take different routes to evidence, and relate the evidence differently to the issues. Much depends upon an individual’s ability to both imagine and reason; to imagine doubts, as well as links in proof. Nothing exists in the realm of methods to tell anyone what a strong link may be. We may be excellent at the processes of transmitting, storing and retrieving facts and information but we do not have similarly developed skills of obtaining defensible conclusions from these facts and this information. 7.2 LEARNING OUTCOMES By the end of this chapter, readers should: • be able to define an argument and distinguish between the general meanings of argument and legal argument; • understand the relationship between the diagnosis of problems and the construction of rules to solve problems; • understand the difference between fact analysis and legal analysis and the connections between these activities; • be able to basically define and then differentiate between inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning; • be aware of the need to develop critical thinking; • understand the way in which an argument relies on factual analysis, legal reasoning, persuasion and critical thinking; • be able to note the connections between language and argument; • be able to construct a modified Wigmore Chart and apply it. To be able to construct a competent argument in relation to a legal problem to be solved according to rules of legal reasoning acceptable within the English legal system; • be able to construct a competent critical argument relating to theoretical aspects of the study of law.

DOI link for • Outlining methods of legal reasoning (such as the use of inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning and reasoning by analogy) and describe how these inform strategies for argument construction. • Discussing in detail the relationship between propositions building an argument and proofs supporting propositions. (This is particularly accomplished by considering in detail a modified Wigmore Chart Method. A fact analysis process that is instructive at the level of argument construction.) Argument concerns not only laying out facts and rules, it also involves aspects of persuasion, and determination of where the weight lies in opposing arguments. Assessors in the court, judges or jurors, decide whether an argument is strong or weak, proved or unproved. In the final analysis, how does the court, or how does anyone, decide the criteria for the evaluation of an argument? Evaluation cannot be solely guided by rules. Ultimately, argument construction is also a personal thing. Different people will take different routes to evidence, and relate the evidence differently to the issues. Much depends upon an individual’s ability to both imagine and reason; to imagine doubts, as well as links in proof. Nothing exists in the realm of methods to tell anyone what a strong link may be. We may be excellent at the processes of transmitting, storing and retrieving facts and information but we do not have similarly developed skills of obtaining defensible conclusions from these facts and this information. 7.2 LEARNING OUTCOMES By the end of this chapter, readers should: • be able to define an argument and distinguish between the general meanings of argument and legal argument; • understand the relationship between the diagnosis of problems and the construction of rules to solve problems; • understand the difference between fact analysis and legal analysis and the connections between these activities; • be able to basically define and then differentiate between inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning; • be aware of the need to develop critical thinking; • understand the way in which an argument relies on factual analysis, legal reasoning, persuasion and critical thinking; • be able to note the connections between language and argument; • be able to construct a modified Wigmore Chart and apply it. To be able to construct a competent argument in relation to a legal problem to be solved according to rules of legal reasoning acceptable within the English legal system; • be able to construct a competent critical argument relating to theoretical aspects of the study of law.

• Outlining methods of legal reasoning (such as the use of inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning and reasoning by analogy) and describe how these inform strategies for argument construction. • Discussing in detail the relationship between propositions building an argument and proofs supporting propositions. (This is particularly accomplished by considering in detail a modified Wigmore Chart Method. A fact analysis process that is instructive at the level of argument construction.) Argument concerns not only laying out facts and rules, it also involves aspects of persuasion, and determination of where the weight lies in opposing arguments. Assessors in the court, judges or jurors, decide whether an argument is strong or weak, proved or unproved. In the final analysis, how does the court, or how does anyone, decide the criteria for the evaluation of an argument? Evaluation cannot be solely guided by rules. Ultimately, argument construction is also a personal thing. Different people will take different routes to evidence, and relate the evidence differently to the issues. Much depends upon an individual’s ability to both imagine and reason; to imagine doubts, as well as links in proof. Nothing exists in the realm of methods to tell anyone what a strong link may be. We may be excellent at the processes of transmitting, storing and retrieving facts and information but we do not have similarly developed skills of obtaining defensible conclusions from these facts and this information. 7.2 LEARNING OUTCOMES By the end of this chapter, readers should: • be able to define an argument and distinguish between the general meanings of argument and legal argument; • understand the relationship between the diagnosis of problems and the construction of rules to solve problems; • understand the difference between fact analysis and legal analysis and the connections between these activities; • be able to basically define and then differentiate between inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning; • be aware of the need to develop critical thinking; • understand the way in which an argument relies on factual analysis, legal reasoning, persuasion and critical thinking; • be able to note the connections between language and argument; • be able to construct a modified Wigmore Chart and apply it. To be able to construct a competent argument in relation to a legal problem to be solved according to rules of legal reasoning acceptable within the English legal system; • be able to construct a competent critical argument relating to theoretical aspects of the study of law.