{"product_id":"a-primer-on-legal-reasoning-hardback-9781501730276","title":"A Primer on Legal Reasoning (Hardback) 9781501730276","description":"\u003cfont face=\"Georgia\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cfont size=\"6\"\u003eA Primer on Legal Reasoning\u003c\/font\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cfont size=\"4\"\u003eMichael Evan Gold (Author)\u003c\/font\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cfont size=\"3\"\u003e9781501730276\u003c\/font\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cfont size=\"3\"\u003eHardback, published 15 November 2018\u003c\/font\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cfont size=\"3\"\u003e360 pages, 11 charts - 11 Charts\u003cbr\u003e22.9 x 15.2 x 3 cm, 0.907 kg\u003c\/font\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cp align=\"justify\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cfont size=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAfter years of teaching law courses to undergraduate, graduate, and law students, Michael Evan Gold has come to believe that the traditional way of teaching – analysis, explanation, and example – is superior to the Socratic Method for students at the outset of their studies.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn courses taught Socratically, even the most gifted students can struggle, and many others are lost in a fog for months. Gold offers a meta approach to teaching legal reasoning, bringing the process of argumentation to the fore.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing examples both from the law and from daily life, Gold's book will help undergraduates and first-year law students to understand legal discourse. The book analyzes and illustrates the principles of legal reasoning, such as logical deduction, analogies and distinctions, and application of law to fact, and even solves the mystery of how to spot an issue.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Gold's experience, students who understand the principles of analytical thinking are able to understand arguments, to evaluate and reply to them, and ultimately to construct sound arguments of their own.\u003c\/p\u003e\u003c\/font\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cfont size=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntroduction\u003cbr\u003e 1. Issues\u003cbr\u003e I. Definitions\u003cbr\u003e II. Creation of Issues\u003cbr\u003e III. Resolution of Issues\u003cbr\u003e A. Frame the Issue in the Dispute\u003cbr\u003e B. Find the Facts That Pertain to the Issue\u003cbr\u003e C. Identify and Interpret, or if Necessary Create, theAuthority That Governs the Issue\u003cbr\u003e D. Apply Law to Fact (i.e. use the authority to determine the legal consequences of the facts of the dispute)\u003cbr\u003e IV. Identifying Issues\u003cbr\u003e A. Identifying Issues in Documents\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe College Daily\u003cbr\u003e When Is an Offer Accepted?\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eB. Identifying Issues in Facts\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe Coconut Cases\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eV. Review\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eSally's Case\u003cbr\u003e The Case of the Research Papers\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eVI. References\u003cbr\u003e 2. Identifying the Governing Rule of Law\u003cbr\u003e I. Definition of a Rule of Law\u003cbr\u003e II. Identifying an Existing Rule of Law\u003cbr\u003e Using Precedents\u003cbr\u003e Identifying the Governing Rule of Law Using Authoritative Texts\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eTwo Cases of Second Thoughts\u003cbr\u003e Diallo's Case\u003cbr\u003e Niner's Case\u003cbr\u003e Packard Motor Car Company\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eIII. Review\u003cbr\u003e IV. References\u003cbr\u003e 3. Levels of Abstraction\u003cbr\u003e I. Levels of Abstraction: The Basic Idea\u003cbr\u003e II. The Definition of \"Level of Abstraction\"\u003cbr\u003e A. Unrelated Issues and Levels of Abstraction\u003cbr\u003e B. Related Issues and Levels of Abstraction\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eBen and Gerrie's Case\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eIII. Why the Level of Abstraction Matters\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eGuenevere v. Arthur\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eIV. Review\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eMary's Case\u003cbr\u003e Wimp v. Bully\u003cbr\u003e The Spat\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eV. References\u003cbr\u003e 4. Deduction\u003cbr\u003e I. In General\u003cbr\u003e A. Syllogisms\u003cbr\u003e B. Enthymemes\u003cbr\u003e II. Categorical Syllogisms and Quasi Syllogisms\u003cbr\u003e A. The Major and Minor Premises Are Affirmative\u003cbr\u003e 1. The Valid Form\u003cbr\u003e 2. The Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle\u003cbr\u003e B. The Major Premise Is Affirmative and the Minor Premise Is Negative\u003cbr\u003e 1. The Valid Form\u003cbr\u003e 2. The Fallacy of the Illicit Major\u003cbr\u003e III. Hypothetical Syllogisms\u003cbr\u003e A. Modus Ponens\u003cbr\u003e 1. The Valid Form\u003cbr\u003e 2. The Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent\u003cbr\u003e B. Modus Tollens\u003cbr\u003e 1. The Valid Form\u003cbr\u003e 2. The Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent\u003cbr\u003e IV. The Soundness of Syllogisms\u003cbr\u003e V. Moral Syllogisms and Legal Syllogisms\u003cbr\u003e A. Moral Syllogisms\u003cbr\u003e B. Legal Syllogisms\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eWillie Sutton's Case\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eVI. The Value of Syllogisms\u003cbr\u003e VII. Review\u003cbr\u003e 5. Induction\u003cbr\u003e I. Inductive Generalizations\u003cbr\u003e A. The Nature of Induction\u003cbr\u003e B. Probability of Conclusions\u003cbr\u003e C. Analysis of Arguments in the Form of InductiveGeneralization\u003cbr\u003e D. Some Errors Associated with Inductive Generalization\u003cbr\u003e 1. Hasty Generalization\u003cbr\u003e 2. Unrepresentative Sample\u003cbr\u003e 3. Vivid Counterexample\u003cbr\u003e 4. Argument Ad Hominem\u003cbr\u003e 5. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc\u003cbr\u003e 6. Failure to Falsify Alternative Hypotheses\u003cbr\u003e Excerpt from the \u003ci\u003ePhaedo\u003c\/i\u003e by Plato\u003cbr\u003e II. Statistical Syllogisms\u003cbr\u003e A. The Nature of a Statistical Syllogism\u003cbr\u003e B. The Force of a Statistical Syllogism\u003cbr\u003e C. Statistical Syllogisms in Ordinary Speech\u003cbr\u003e III. Practical Syllogisms\u003cbr\u003e IV. Review\u003cbr\u003e V. References\u003cbr\u003e 6. Arguments in General\u003cbr\u003e I. Definition of an Argument\u003cbr\u003e II. Elements of an Argument\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eShould Use of Marijuana Be Legal?\u003cbr\u003e Katzenjammer for Congress\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eIII. Recognizing Arguments\u003cbr\u003e IV. Incomplete Arguments\u003cbr\u003e V. Issues, Arguments, and Rhetoric\u003cbr\u003e VI. Review\u003cbr\u003e 7. Arguments Classified by Function\u003cbr\u003e I. Arguments as to the Issue in a Case\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eClinics v. Hospitals\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eII. Arguments as to the Facts\u003cbr\u003e III. Arguments as to the Law\u003cbr\u003e A. Arguments as to Which Authority Governs the Case\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eHere v. There\u003cbr\u003e Round v. About\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eB. Arguments as to How to Interpret the Governing Authority\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eScarpia v. Sky\u003cbr\u003e Puss v. Boots\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eIV. Arguments Applying Law to Fact\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eDon Juan in Hell\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eV. Review\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eJefferson Standard Broadcasting Company\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eVI. References\u003cbr\u003e 8. Arguments Based on Evidence\u003cbr\u003e I. Varieties of Evidence\u003cbr\u003e II. Uses of Evidence\u003cbr\u003e 9. Policy Arguments\u003cbr\u003e I. The Nature of Policy Arguments\u003cbr\u003e A. Normative Claims\u003cbr\u003e 1. Values\u003cbr\u003e 2. Varieties of Arguments about Values\u003cbr\u003e 3. Sources of Values\u003cbr\u003e B. Assertions of Fact\u003cbr\u003e 1. Retrospective and Prospective Facts\u003cbr\u003e 2. Sources of Assertions of Fact\u003cbr\u003e II. Uses of Policy Arguments\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eLockouts\u003cbr\u003e Employees or Independent Contractors?\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eIII. Evaluating Policy Arguments\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe Case of the Bargaining Order\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eIV. Review\u003cbr\u003e V. References\u003cbr\u003e 10. Doctrinal Arguments\u003cbr\u003e I. Varieties of Authority\u003cbr\u003e A. Binding Authorities\u003cbr\u003e B. Advisory Authorities\u003cbr\u003e II. Uses of Authority\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003ePeople v. Ledfoot\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eIII. Varieties of Doctrinal Argument\u003cbr\u003e IV. Review\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eSure-Tan v. National Labor Relations Board\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eV. References\u003cbr\u003e 11. Analogies and Precedents: The Structure and Criteria for Evaluation of Legal Analogies\u003cbr\u003e I. Analogies, Similes, and Metaphors\u003cbr\u003e A. The Nature of Analogies\u003cbr\u003e B. The Danger of Analogies\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eAspasia\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eII. The Legal Analogy\u003cbr\u003e A. Differences between an Ordinary Analogy and a Legal Analogy\u003cbr\u003e B. The Structure of a Legal Analogy\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe Captain's Analogy\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eC. Truncated Analogies\u003cbr\u003e 1. Failure to Demonstrate That the Facts of the Precedent Are Similar to the Facts of the Case at Bar\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe Case of Illegal Questions\u003cbr\u003e The \"Phantom Analogy\"\u003cbr\u003e The Seat Belt Cases\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003e2. Failure to Demonstrate That the Rationale\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eChurch of the Holy Trinity v. United States\u003cbr\u003e The Case of Gay Marriage\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003e3. Legal Citations as Truncated Analogies\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe Case of the Second Bite\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eD. The Uses of Analogies\u003cbr\u003e 1. Using an Analogy to Identify the Issue\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eFord Motor Company v. National Labor Relations Board\u003cbr\u003e Relations Board\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003e2. Using an Analogy to Find the Facts\u003cbr\u003e 3. Using an Analogy to Identify and Interpret the Governing Rule of Law\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe Taggers' Cases\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003e4. Using an Analogy to Apply Law to Fact\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eFord Motor Company v. National Labor Relations Board (continued)\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eE. Four Criteria for Evaluating Analogies\u003cbr\u003e 1. The Precedent Must Be Authoritative; If the Precedent Can Be Vitiated, the Analogy Fails\u003cbr\u003e 2. The Legally Significant Facts of the Precedent and the Case at Bar Must Be Analogous in the Important Ways; If the Case at Bar Can Be Distinguished from the Precedent (that is, if the legally significant facts of the case at bar and the precedentdiffer), the Analogy Fails\u003cbr\u003e 3. The Analogy Must Be Relevant to the Issue at Hand\u003cbr\u003e 4. No Other Analogy May Be More Convincing\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThomas the Mover\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eIII. Review\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe Fine Print Cases\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eReferences\u003cbr\u003e 12. Distinctions: Distinguishing Precedents, Disanalogies, and Precedents and Levels of Abstraction\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe Musician's Case\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eI. The Elements of a Distinction\u003cbr\u003e A. Difference(s) of Fact between the Precedent and the Case at Bar\u003cbr\u003e B. The Importance of the Difference(s) of Fact\u003cbr\u003e 1. Some Differences Do Not Matter\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eSeth's Case: An Unsuccessful Distinction\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003e2. Merely Identifying Difference(s) of Fact Does Not Distinguish a Precedent from a Case at Bar: The Importance of the Difference(s)of Fact Must Be Explained\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eA Brick and a Rose Petal\u003cbr\u003e Daniela's Case: A Successful Distinction\u003cbr\u003e Seymour's Case\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eC. The Conclusion\u003cbr\u003e II. The Uses of Distinctions\u003cbr\u003e III. Disanalogies\u003cbr\u003e IV. Distinctions and Levels of Abstraction\u003cbr\u003e V. \u003ci\u003eSeymour's\u003c\/i\u003e Case Expanded\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eShady Sam v. Esme\u003cbr\u003e Seymour v. Hard Luck Hank\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eVI. Review\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe War between the Unions\u003cbr\u003e The Case of the Supervisor's Questions\u003cbr\u003e Young Tom's Case\u003cbr\u003e The Fine Print Cases\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003e13. Holding and Dictum\u003cbr\u003e I. Definitions\u003cbr\u003e II. Effect of a Holding\u003cbr\u003e III. The Scope or Meaning of a Holding\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eUnion Access to Company Property\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eIV. References\u003cbr\u003e 14. Reductios ad Absurdum\u003cbr\u003e I. The Elements of a Reductio ad Absurdum\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe Paradox of the Arrow\u003cbr\u003e The Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise\u003cbr\u003e The Paradox of the Minimum Wage\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eII. The Criteria of a Sound Reductio ad Absurdum\u003cbr\u003e III. Reductios ad Absurdum in Law\u003cbr\u003e A. Reductios and Precedents\u003cbr\u003e B. Reductios and Fact Finding\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe Philosopher's Reductio\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eC. Reductios and Policy Arguments\u003cbr\u003e IV. Review\u003cbr\u003e V. References\u003cbr\u003e 15. Subjective and Objective Standards\u003cbr\u003e I. Standards\u003cbr\u003e II. Subjective Standards\u003cbr\u003e III. Objective Standards\u003cbr\u003e IV. Mixed Standards and Evidence\u003cbr\u003e V. Subjective versus Objective Standards\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe One-Year Misunderstanding\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eVI. Review\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe House of Tantalus\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003e16. Interpreting Statutes\u003cbr\u003e I. Sources\u003cbr\u003e A. Text of the Statute\u003cbr\u003e B. Purpose of the Statute\u003cbr\u003e C. Legislative History of the Statute\u003cbr\u003e D. Scholarly Publications\u003cbr\u003e E. Public Policy\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eCannery Row\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eF. Administrative Interpretations\u003cbr\u003e G. Precedent\u003cbr\u003e II. Principles\u003cbr\u003e A. The Principle of Meaningfulness\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eDuplex v. Deering\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eB. The Principle of Wholeness\u003cbr\u003e 1. Within One Statute\u003cbr\u003e 2. Between Statutes\u003cbr\u003e III. The Effect of Precedents on the Meaning of Statutes\u003cbr\u003e IV. References\u003cbr\u003e 17. Prima Facie Case, Affi rmative Defense, Burden of Proof\u003cbr\u003e I. Prima Facie Case\u003cbr\u003e A. The Basic Idea\u003cbr\u003e B. Two Meanings of \"Prima Facie Case\"\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eProving Battery\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eII. Defenses\u003cbr\u003e A. Destruction of the Plaintiff's Prima Facie Case\u003cbr\u003e B. Affirmative Defense\u003cbr\u003e III. Burden of Proof\u003cbr\u003e A. Burden of Persuasion\u003cbr\u003e 1. Who Carries the Burden of Persuasion?\u003cbr\u003e 2. How Heavy Is the Burden of Persuasion?\u003cbr\u003e 3. What Happens If a Party Fails to Carry the Burden of Persuasion?\u003cbr\u003e B. Burden of Production\u003cbr\u003e IV. Prima Facie Case + Affirmative Defense = Rule of Law\u003cbr\u003e V. Review\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eBattery on a Barstool\u003cbr\u003e The Two-Timer\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eVI. References\u003cbr\u003e 18. Application of Law to Fact\u003cbr\u003e I. Application of Law to Fact Operates Issue by Issue\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe Raid\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eII. Direct Application of Law to Fact\u003cbr\u003e A. Direct Application of Law to Fact by Force of Logic\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eCaroline's Case\u003cbr\u003e Tommy's Case\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eB. Direct Application of Law to Fact by Use of Judgment\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe Coach\u003cbr\u003e Adora's Case\u003cbr\u003e Amanda's Case\u003cbr\u003e Ben-El's Case\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eIII. Application of Law to Fact Using Precedent\u003cbr\u003e A. Application of Law to Fact Using Binding Precedents\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe Honor Society Cases\u003cbr\u003e Harry the Harrier\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eB. Application of Law to Fact Using Guiding Precedents\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThe Battle of the Sexes\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eIV. Review\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eDipaboli's Case\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eV. References\u003cbr\u003e 19. A Model of Legal Argument\u003cbr\u003e I. Neither a Quasi Syllogism nor a Statistical Syllogism Can Capture a Legal Argument\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eShimul's Case\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003eII. A Model of Legal Argument\u003cbr\u003e A. Toulmin's Model\u003cbr\u003e B. Our Revision of Toulmin's Model\u003cbr\u003e 1. Issues as to the Issue\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eJanus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/i\u003e2. Issues of Fact\u003cbr\u003e 3. Issues of Law\u003cbr\u003e 4. Issues of Application of Law to Fact\u003cbr\u003e III. The Value of the Model\u003cbr\u003e IV. Review\u003cbr\u003e V. References\u003cbr\u003e Answers\u003c\/p\u003e\u003c\/font\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c\/font\u003e","brand":"ILR Press","offers":[{"title":"Brand New","offer_id":52607774654744,"sku":"9781501730276","price":109.19,"currency_code":"GBP","in_stock":true}],"url":"https:\/\/freshlyprintedbooks.co.uk\/products\/a-primer-on-legal-reasoning-hardback-9781501730276","provider":"Freshly Printed Books","version":"1.0","type":"link"}