You are on page 1of 2


Gualberto, Jell Vie T.
Jakosalem, Angel Mae T
Mana-ay, Frances Ann
Otaza, Stacy Shara C

Define and explain each of these four modes of legal reasoning.
1. Rule –based reasoning
In rule-based reasoning, the conclusion in reached by analyzing and
applying the law, rule or legal principle (Tabucanon, 2010).
2. Analogical ( and, by extension, the “counter-analogical”) reasoning
There are three possible types of analogical argument:
a. Argument From precedent this type of analogical argument happens when the
conclusion is reached by showing similarities between the case decided by
Supreme Court and the case of the client. This is usually achieved by invoking
the doctrine 1stare decisis.
The lawyer reasons by showing that there is a direct factual similarity between
case decided upon by the high court and his client’s case. If the Supreme
Court decided the case this way, then the client’s case must be decided this
way due to the similarities of facts. To put it conversely, my client’s case
should be decided in “this manner” because after all, the Supreme Court in a
case with similar fact also decided in “this manner” (Tabucanon, 2010).
b. Arguments of same legal Application - analogical reasoning may also be used
to show similarities that if the law applies to one area, it may be understood to
apply to other similar areas. In a case that attempts to impose damages on the
seller of immovable or real property for failing to disclose a major defect of
the property, the lawyer might argue that the law has imposed such duty on
sellers of personal property as well. He might argue that rule for real and
personal properties are the same (Tabucanon, 2010).
1 *stare decisis - is the doctrine that, when the court has once laid down a principle of

law as applicable in certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all
future cases where the facts are substantially the same.

description and perspective that appeals to commonly-held ideas of justice.2 c. Gil Marvel P (2010). While the latter concludes by pointing out the similarities. thus no common conclusion can be inferred from both situations (Tabucanon. Philippines: Published & distributed by Rex Book Store . Explanation A way of understanding other person as well as their behavior by way of narrating the important events that affect the issue (Tabucanon. 2010). 2010). Counter-analogical reasoning -the opposite of analogical reasoning. d. 3. It is “recognized or established by the State deemed injurious to the public or contrary to the public good” (Sorongon v. 2010).is defined as a reasoning in which it “reaches a conclusion by connecting the facts of the case to the state’s existing policy”. Counter-analogical reasoning is usually used to debunk or destroy the other party's prior use of analogical reasoning. 17098-R. counter-analogical reasoning concludes by pointing relevant differences between the case and the client's facts. Manila. Most of the time it is based on what would be the best for the society at large. 1957). Narrative reasoning – the conclusion by telling a story that shows the context. Legal writing: a competency-based approach.analogical arguments may be used by starting with something everyone accepts (Tabucanon. Thus an agreement is against public policy if it appears to be in opposition to public interest. by stating that the case cited and the client's situation are actually different. _______________________________________________________________________ Reference: Tabucanon. 2010). Arguments using common sense analogy . City of Davao. 4. Policy-based reasoning . a violation of a public statute or in conflict with good morals (Tabucanon. June 17. mercy or fairness.