predict counter-arguments to your own. Then you can consider how you would deal with them. The essential quality of a well structured argument is that it takes the reader/ listener from the beginning to the end and makes them hold to the opinion that the argument is correct or the most plausible argument. Sometimes, the process of argument uses bridges from one fact to another that are not made of evidence but of inference. It is not wrong to assert a proposition that is not backed by evidence, but an adjudicating body is not compelled to accept the validity of an unproved proposition. It is difficult to refute a proposition backed by strong evidence but of course evidence is not always strong, it may be tenuous, or medium strong, etc. So, there are many variables present in an argument. One has to look for the weak points. Most adjudicating bodies have elements of discretion and can accept the tenuous but plausible explanatory bridge from one proven fact to another as the argument progresses to conclusion. Much depends on the minor or major nature of the proposition asserted. If it is pivotal for the case, then it must be backed by evidence. Lawyers will tend to take the little jumps with plausibility and, hopefully, the big jumps with proven propositions! At the everyday level of explanation, a legal argument tends to say: • This happened. • The following law states that this behaviour is illegal in certain circumstances. • These witnesses, these official documents, this forensic evidence prove that it happened. • It can be proved therefore that X did this. • X, therefore, broke the law. An essay may argue about theory, rather than fact, but the structures remain the same. Argument construction is not difficult if there has been meticulous preparation of information. The argument will be basic or elegant depending upon the development of skills, understanding of the law, the level of preparation, thought and reflection that has gone into the argument construction. What one gets back is proportional to the quality of what has gone in. A strong argument may ultimately be rejected if there is a fair amount of discretion, but the person who has forwarded it will know it is good. Indeed, often an adjudicator, even when deciding against an argument, will compliment the argument constructor on the art with which it was done. 7.10 THE MODIFIED ‘WIGMORE CHART METHOD’ Anderson and Twining (1991) brought the Wigmore Chart Method to the attention of legal educators. This is an interesting method using symbols, numbers and key lists to allow simultaneous consideration of evidence and facts to enhance factual analysis and ultimately impact legal analysis. The chart is set out in Figure 7.16, below, as a preview. The remainder of this section explains how such a chart is produced, what it says, and why it is indeed extremely useful as a teaching tool for argument construction.

DOI link for predict counter-arguments to your own. Then you can consider how you would deal with them. The essential quality of a well structured argument is that it takes the reader/ listener from the beginning to the end and makes them hold to the opinion that the argument is correct or the most plausible argument. Sometimes, the process of argument uses bridges from one fact to another that are not made of evidence but of inference. It is not wrong to assert a proposition that is not backed by evidence, but an adjudicating body is not compelled to accept the validity of an unproved proposition. It is difficult to refute a proposition backed by strong evidence but of course evidence is not always strong, it may be tenuous, or medium strong, etc. So, there are many variables present in an argument. One has to look for the weak points. Most adjudicating bodies have elements of discretion and can accept the tenuous but plausible explanatory bridge from one proven fact to another as the argument progresses to conclusion. Much depends on the minor or major nature of the proposition asserted. If it is pivotal for the case, then it must be backed by evidence. Lawyers will tend to take the little jumps with plausibility and, hopefully, the big jumps with proven propositions! At the everyday level of explanation, a legal argument tends to say: • This happened. • The following law states that this behaviour is illegal in certain circumstances. • These witnesses, these official documents, this forensic evidence prove that it happened. • It can be proved therefore that X did this. • X, therefore, broke the law. An essay may argue about theory, rather than fact, but the structures remain the same. Argument construction is not difficult if there has been meticulous preparation of information. The argument will be basic or elegant depending upon the development of skills, understanding of the law, the level of preparation, thought and reflection that has gone into the argument construction. What one gets back is proportional to the quality of what has gone in. A strong argument may ultimately be rejected if there is a fair amount of discretion, but the person who has forwarded it will know it is good. Indeed, often an adjudicator, even when deciding against an argument, will compliment the argument constructor on the art with which it was done. 7.10 THE MODIFIED ‘WIGMORE CHART METHOD’ Anderson and Twining (1991) brought the Wigmore Chart Method to the attention of legal educators. This is an interesting method using symbols, numbers and key lists to allow simultaneous consideration of evidence and facts to enhance factual analysis and ultimately impact legal analysis. The chart is set out in Figure 7.16, below, as a preview. The remainder of this section explains how such a chart is produced, what it says, and why it is indeed extremely useful as a teaching tool for argument construction.

predict counter-arguments to your own. Then you can consider how you would deal with them. The essential quality of a well structured argument is that it takes the reader/ listener from the beginning to the end and makes them hold to the opinion that the argument is correct or the most plausible argument. Sometimes, the process of argument uses bridges from one fact to another that are not made of evidence but of inference. It is not wrong to assert a proposition that is not backed by evidence, but an adjudicating body is not compelled to accept the validity of an unproved proposition. It is difficult to refute a proposition backed by strong evidence but of course evidence is not always strong, it may be tenuous, or medium strong, etc. So, there are many variables present in an argument. One has to look for the weak points. Most adjudicating bodies have elements of discretion and can accept the tenuous but plausible explanatory bridge from one proven fact to another as the argument progresses to conclusion. Much depends on the minor or major nature of the proposition asserted. If it is pivotal for the case, then it must be backed by evidence. Lawyers will tend to take the little jumps with plausibility and, hopefully, the big jumps with proven propositions! At the everyday level of explanation, a legal argument tends to say: • This happened. • The following law states that this behaviour is illegal in certain circumstances. • These witnesses, these official documents, this forensic evidence prove that it happened. • It can be proved therefore that X did this. • X, therefore, broke the law. An essay may argue about theory, rather than fact, but the structures remain the same. Argument construction is not difficult if there has been meticulous preparation of information. The argument will be basic or elegant depending upon the development of skills, understanding of the law, the level of preparation, thought and reflection that has gone into the argument construction. What one gets back is proportional to the quality of what has gone in. A strong argument may ultimately be rejected if there is a fair amount of discretion, but the person who has forwarded it will know it is good. Indeed, often an adjudicator, even when deciding against an argument, will compliment the argument constructor on the art with which it was done. 7.10 THE MODIFIED ‘WIGMORE CHART METHOD’ Anderson and Twining (1991) brought the Wigmore Chart Method to the attention of legal educators. This is an interesting method using symbols, numbers and key lists to allow simultaneous consideration of evidence and facts to enhance factual analysis and ultimately impact legal analysis. The chart is set out in Figure 7.16, below, as a preview. The remainder of this section explains how such a chart is produced, what it says, and why it is indeed extremely useful as a teaching tool for argument construction.