Neldon Jay F.

Verzosa
January 24, 2015
JD 1
408

EH -

A Book Review on
Logic for Law Students: How to Think Like a Lawyer
By: Ruggero j. Aldisert, Stephen Clowney, and Jeremy D. Peterson

Logic is the lifeblood of . . . law. LOGIC FOR LAW STUDENTS: HOW TO

THINK LIKE A LAWYER by Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert, addresses the need for students
of the law to employ logic to construct sensible and compelling arguments. It is a
fact that logic and logical reasoning is not being given the attention it ought to have
despite its significance in the legal profession. There should be a reform on this
view; all law schools should, and at least, orient students in the principles of logic
and how they should be applied in legal reasoning and argument. As said by the
author, Leaving students to distill the principles of logic on their own is like asking
them to design a rocket without teaching them the rules of physics. With this work
the author attempts to explain the core principles of logic and how they apply not
only in the academe but ultimately in the legal arena. It is the claim of the authors
that a person familiar with the basics of logical thinking is more likely to argue
effectively than one who is not.
The work delves into three primary parts of logic, namely: (1) deductive
reasoning; (2) inductive generalizations; and lastly, (3) reasoning by analogy
another form of inductive reasoning.
In the first part, the author talks about deduction as a reasoning in which a
conclusion is compelled by known facts. Syllogism is one of the most specific forms
of deductive reasoning that can be found in most judicial opinions and briefs. In this
form of reasoning, we are made to infer that what is true of the universal is true to
the particular. If we know that every member of a class has certain characteristic,
and that certain individuals are members of that class, then those individuals must
have that characteristic. For example, we know that all cars have wheels, and that a
Toyota is a car, then a Toyota must have wheels. However, this is not absolute. Be
aware of flawed syllogisms wherein the certain characteristics of a class may not
apply to a certain individuals. For example: Some men are tall, Socrates is a man,
and therefore Socrates is tall.

In the second part, the author speaks about inductive generalizations as a

form of logic in which big, general principles are divined from observing the
outcomes of many small events. In this form of inductive logic, you reason from
multiple particulars to the general. However, the difficulty comes in ascertaining
how many instances are sufficient to make a generalization. Therefore, to avoid the
fallacy of hasty generalization, expert research and keen attention to statistics will
divine workable rules that are grounded in the wisdom of human experience. For the
words of the author, Notwithstanding its shortcomings, inductive generalization
remains a vital tool, because the ability to shape persuasive legal arguments when
no clear precedent exists is often what separates a star attorney from your run-ofthe-mill ambulance chaser.
Lastly, reasoning by analogy. This is one of the most crucial aspects of the
study and practice of law. Analogy is a process of reasoning from the particular to
the particular. Analogies serve a specific purpose; to compare new legal issues to
firmly established precedents. Hence, this means that a current case is compared to
an older one, and that outcome of the new case is predicated on the basis of the
others outcome. As the author puts it, analogy can help a budding lawyer advance
untested legal arguments in the classroom and the courtroom. However, there is a
danger that should be cautioned. Analogy based on irrelevant similarities is false
and of no use at all.
However, as an endnote, it cannot be ignored that there is more to the law
than mere assembling of logical expression. Yes, understanding basic logical forms
will assist students of the law in both law school and law practice. However, as
stated by the author, logic is not the whole game . . . even if your premises are
true and your logical statements constructed property, it is crucial to recognize that
judges are motivated by more than the mandates of logic. It can never be brushed
aside the meta-legal stimuli inherently present in each and every person such as
biases, opinions, experiences, culture, morality and upbringing. But as the author
puts it: An argument that is correctly reasoned may be wrong, but an argument
that is incorrectly reasoned can never be right.