In the assigned reading of the PHILJA Judicial Journal, there were a total of seven methods of

formulating an argument discussed. Namely, Standard Logical Techniques, the handcuff Technique, by
Emphasizing the Purpose of the Rule, thru a Paradigm case, thru a Hypothetical Cases, the Extreme
Consequences Technique, and thru Policy Arguments. Such are discussed below.

In Standard Logical Techniques, inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and an A fortiori argument
are the most common. The first deals with formulating a generalized legal proposition by looking at
several particular holdings or applications of a statute. Basically, it is from specific to general. The second
is the opposite of the first. Here, a major general premise such as a legal doctrine is used as foundation to
the minor premise which concerns the specific case. It’s from general to specific. The last is where one
validates the proposition arguing that because a certain fact is found to be true, the proposition (which is
analogous or included in) it should likewise be true.

The handcuff Technique is where one argues a chain of proposition based on a general premise
which is readily accepted. Usually, such a general premise is abstract in nature and the conclusion
concrete.

In Emphasizing the Purpose of the Rule, as can be inferred it deal with the purpose. Here, one
argues that an application of the rule should be in consonance with the reasoning as to its enactment.
This method argues a claim by arguing for the intent of the enacted law.

The Paradigm case method is one where an argument is validated or invalidated by using a
paradigm or an outstandingly clear or typical example. Here, one asserts that the paradigm and the case
to be argued are substantially the same or different thus application should also by the same or
different respectively. What first comes to mind with such method is the use or invalidation thereof of
the invocation of stare decisis.

The Hypothetical Cases methods is similar to the former method. As can be inferred, this method
functions by proposing a hypothetical case for the purposes of compering the same with the actual case
at hand. As directly taken from the cited reading “A hypothetical case is one in which facts are assumed
for the purpose of explaining and discussing the applicable law.” Simply, one validates an argument by
proposing a hypothetical scenario which benefits said argument.

The Extreme Consequences Technique, as can be inferred, looks at the consequences of a certain
application or non application of a rule. This is quite connected to the Emphasizing Purpose rule but
here, what is emphasized is the potential adverse application of the rule. This is usually done by using
the prior method of a hypothetical case.

Lastly, the Policy Arguments method. This method is important in cases where conflicting legal rules
apply. There are three common Policy Arguments. The first is that the argued rule should by applied
since it is the lesser of two evils. The second which is a “Floodgates Argument” appeals to the possible
adverse consequences an initial decision might have. Lastly, the third policy argument appeals to social
or economic justifications where one argues for the efficiency, or that the more economic (cheaper) rule
should be what is applied.