FOUR TYPES OF LEGAL ARGUMENTS

1) Rule-Based Reasoning
- one takes a rule and applies it to a set of facts
- it is the answer because the principle of law articulated by the governing
authorities mandates it
- break the rule into separate elements to be established
- match the facts and circumstances with each element to see if proven
- can originate from a case or a law
- rules have at least 3 parts
a) a set of elements
b) a result that occurs when all elements are present
c) a causal term that determines whether result is mandatory, prohibitory,
discretionary, or declaratory.
d) exceptions, if any
2) Reasoning by Analogy
- you draw parallels between your factual situation and cases that have already
been decided
- most often used in case analysis
- no two cases are exactly the same
- question of degree
- occurs when one argues when the facts of the precedent case are like the facts
of the present case so that the rule of the precedent case should apply to the
present case
- ex. X is the answer because the facts of this case are just like the facts of A v. B
and X was the result there.
3) Distinguishing Precedent
- one argues that the facts of the precedent case are not like the facts of the
present case so that the rule from the precedent case does not apply to the
present case.
- ex. X is not the answer because the facts of this case and A vs. B are different
and X is the result there.
4) Policy-Based Reasoning
- can also be combined with reasoning by analogy
- the policy behind the rule in the precedent case also applies to the present case
so the rule in the precedent case should also apply to the present case
- one argues that applying a particular rule to case would create a precedent that
is good for society