Legal Arguments & Reasoning (504) Page 1 of 17

Subject Legal Arguments & Reasoning

YouTube Channel LawWits

BASIC CONCEPT OF LOGIC

Terminology: The term Logic is derived from Greek work “logos”, which means
“thought” or “reason”.
History: In the Western World, logic was first developed by Aristotle, who
called the subject 'analytics'. The idea of logic was a major achievement of
Aristotle. The basic principles of logic center on the law of contradiction, which
states that a statement cannot be both true and false, and the law of the
excluded middle, which stresses that a statement must be either true or false.
Definition: Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish
correct from incorrect reasoning. It may simple be called as the ‘science of
reasoning’. The logic is the science that evaluates argument and reasoning. It is
the process to evaluate truth from the falsehood, and reasonableness from
unreasonableness.
Explanation: When we reason about any matter or case, we produce
arguments to support our conclusions. Our arguments include reasons that we
think justify our beliefs. However, not all reasons are good reasons. Therefore
we may always ask when we confront an argument: Does the conclusion
reached follow from the premises assumed? To answer this question there are
objective criteria; in the study of logic we seek to discover and apply those
criteria.
PROPOSITION: A statement; what is typically asserted using a declarative
sentence, and hence always either true or false, although its truth or falsity
may be unknown.
Propositions are the building blocks of our reasoning. A proposition asserts
that something is the case or it asserts that something is not. We may affirm a
proposition, or deny it—but every proposition either asserts what really is the
case, or it asserts something that is not. Therefore every proposition is either
true or false.
Example: There are many propositions about whose truth we are uncertain.
For example, “There is life on some other planet in our galaxy,”, is a proposition
AHSAN ALI (44/2k18)
LLB (HONS) 3 r d Year (1 s t semester)
GSLC, HYD.
Legal Arguments & Reasoning (504) Page 2 of 17

that, so far as we now know, may be true or may be false. Its “truth value” is
unknown, but this proposition, like every proposition, must be either true or
false.
STATEMENT: A proposition; what is typically asserted by a declarative
sentence, but not the sentence itself. Every statement must be either true or
false, although the truth or falsity of a given statement may be unknown.
The term statement is not an exact synonym of proposition, but it is often used
in logic in much the same sense. Some logicians prefer statement to
proposition, although the latter has been more commonly used in the history
of logic. Other logicians eschew both terms as metaphysical, using only the
term sentence. However, the concept of a proposition is seen by many as
making a useful distinction between a sentence and what the sentence asserts.
The very same sentence can be used to make very different statements (or to
assert very different propositions), depending on the context in which it is
expressed. For example, the sentence, “The largest state in the United States
was once an independent republic,” once expressed a true statement or
proposition (about Texas), but if asserted today would express a false
statement or proposition (about Alaska). The same words assert different
propositions at different times.
Furthermore, many sentences are not statements, such as "Close the door,
please" , "How old are you?"
INFERENCE: A process by which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed on
the basis of some other proposition or propositions.
In any argument we affirm one proposition on the basis of some other
propositions. In doing this, an inference is drawn. Inference is a process that
may tie together a cluster of propositions. Some inferences are warranted or
correct; others are not. The logician analyzes these clusters, examining the
propositions with which the process begins and with which it ends, as well as
the relations among these propositions. Such a cluster of propositions
constitutes an argument. Arguments are the chief concern of logic.

AHSAN ALI (44/2k18)

LLB (HONS) 3 r d Year (1 s t semester)
GSLC, HYD.
Legal Arguments & Reasoning (504) Page 3 of 17

ARGUMENT: An argument is a group of statements including one or more

premises and one and only one conclusion. Arguments are the reason that
support conclusion and thus considered as the chief concern of logic.
An argument is a statement or set of statements that an arguer raises to
convince people that his opinion about something is correct.
An argument may also be defined as a group of propositions/ statements of
which one is claimed to follow from the others, which are regarded as
providing support or grounds for the truth of that one.
There is no particular form of argument is necessary for its validation. The only
requirement of an argument is that it includes premise and a conclusion. The
premise and conclusion may be in a single sentence or in different, and they
may be on any order.
For example: Let us sort out the premise and conclusion in this sentence:
“Houses are built to live in, not to look on; therefore, let use be preferred before
uniformity.”
Premise: Houses are built to live in, not to look on.
Conclusion: Let use be preferred before uniformity.
Types of Arguments: There are two general types of arguments: inductive and
deductive arguments.
1. An inductive argument uses a collection of specific examples as its
premises and uses them to propose a general conclusion.
For example:
a. The last mayor was honest. The current mayor is honest. All mayors
are honest.
b. When I went to the store last week I forgot my purse, and when I
went today I forgot my purse. I always forget my purse when I go the
store.
2. A deductive argument uses a collection of general statements as its
premises and uses them to propose a specific situation as the
conclusion.
For example:

AHSAN ALI (44/2k18)

LLB (HONS) 3 r d Year (1 s t semester)
GSLC, HYD.
Legal Arguments & Reasoning (504) Page 4 of 17

a. Every word has the letter e in it. Therefore, your name has the
letter e in it.
b. All cats are mammals and a tiger is a cat, so a tiger is a mammal.
PREMISE: A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or
support for the conclusion. There can be one or many premises in a single
argument.
In other words, premise in an argument means the propositions upon which
inference is based; the propositions that are claimed to provide grounds or
reasons for the conclusion.
Premise Indicators: In an argument, a word or phrase (like “because” and
“since”) that normally signals that what follows it are statements serving as
premises. Other examples include: since; as indicated by; because; the reason
is that; for; for the reason that; as; may be inferred from; follows from; may be
derived from; as shown by; may be deduced from; inasmuch; or as in view of
the fact that, etc.
CONCLUSION: Conclusion in any argument means the proposition to which the
other propositions in the argument are claimed to give support, or for which
they are given as reasons. It can also be said that conclusion of an argument is
the proposition that is affirmed on the basis of the other propositions of the
argument.
In other words, conclusion is a statement in an argument that indicates of
what the arguer is trying to convince the reader/ listener. What is the
argument trying to prove? There can be only one conclusion in a single
argument.
Conclusion Indicators: A word or phrase (such as “therefore” or “thus”)
appearing in an argument and usually indicating that what follows it is the
conclusion of that argument. Other examples are: therefore; for these reasons;
hence; it follows that; so; I conclude that; accordingly; which shows that; in
consequence; which means that; consequently; which entails that; proves that;
which implies that; as a result; which allows us to infer that; for this reason;
which points to the conclusion that; or thus we may infer, etc.

AHSAN ALI (44/2k18)

LLB (HONS) 3 r d Year (1 s t semester)
GSLC, HYD.
Legal Arguments & Reasoning (504) Page 5 of 17

FORMAL LOGIC
Formal logic is the branch of logic that examines patterns of reasoning to
determine which ones necessarily result in valid or formally correct
conclusions. In other words, it is the means of determining an inference’s or
conclusion’s validity or invalidity from two or more statements or premises.
Logic consists of a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. A major
premise explains a general rule and known as statement of law. A minor
premise makes a factual assertion about a particular person or thing or group
of persons or things and known as statement of fact. A conclusion connects
particular statement in the minor premise with that of major premise and
explains how general rules apply to the facts at hand. In legal arguments, this
process is called application of law to the facts.
Example: To qualify as a “citizen” of a State for purposes of jurisdiction, a party
must (a) currently reside in that State and (b) intend to remain there
indefinitely (Major Premise). The Plaintiff currently does not reside in Pakistan
(Minor Premise). Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be a “citizen” of Pakistan for
jurisdictional purposes (Conclusion).
However, sometimes it may be that our statement in argument is true or valid
but logically it may not be valid if the given statement is not connected with
the facts and law.
For example: All cats are mammals. Some mammals are excellent swimmers.
Therefore, some cats are excellent swimmers.
Each of these statements is true. But this argument is not valid. The fact that
cats are mammals and that some mammals are excellent swimmers does not
prove anything about the swimming ability of cats. Hence this argument is not
logically valid.
REASONING
Reasoning: The process of creating or generating conclusions from evidence. It
connects evidence to the claim and creates the logic of the argument.
Legal Reasoning: Legal reasoning is the method of thought and arguments
used by lawyers and judges when they apply legal rules to specific situations. It
holds paramount importance because the reasons given by Courts in its ruling
or judgment helps the other Courts, lawyers and judges to use and follow the

AHSAN ALI (44/2k18)

LLB (HONS) 3 r d Year (1 s t semester)
GSLC, HYD.
Legal Arguments & Reasoning (504) Page 6 of 17

ruling in subsequent proceedings. Furthermore, a reasoned decision also helps

out the student of law and other people concerned with legal profession to
comprehend the practical aspect of a law. Therefore, it is required that the
discussion or analysis section must be well reasoned and well written.
Informal and formal reasoning: Formal reasoning refers to the application of
logical procedures to evidences or premises, guaranteeing that the conclusion
will be valid if you do it right. While on the other hand, informal reasoning
refers to the use of logical thought and the principles of logic using mental
shortcuts working in a quick and easy manner but it does not guarantee a valid
conclusion.
ELEMENTS OF LEGAL REASONING: The core elements that must appear and
should be addressed in the legal reasoning are as under:
 The question or the legal issue before the Court;
 The relevant facts of the case;
 The legal rule;
 Other considerations that may be brought before the Court.
TYPES OF LEGAL REASONING: There are two types of legal reasoning as under:
1. Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning is the process of reasoning
from specific to the general. It is supported by inductive logic. In this
form of legal reasoning, an inference is a logical connection between
two statements: premise and conclusion. A general conclusion based
on some specific instances that purports to account for all instances will
not always or necessarily be true. It will only probably be true based on
the available evidence. If the premise is true, then conclusion may be
true or false.
Examples:
a. Premise: Mr. A, the employee of ABC company is very disciplined.
Conclusion: therefore all the employees of ABC company are well
disciplined.
b. Premise: An inspection team comes at SLC and visits Batch 2018.
They ask three questions from three different students which are
answered correctly.

AHSAN ALI (44/2k18)

LLB (HONS) 3 r d Year (1 s t semester)
GSLC, HYD.
Legal Arguments & Reasoning (504) Page 7 of 17

Conclusion: Since the three students answered correctly, the

inspection team taking into account the performance of three
students says that “Students of batch 2018 are highly intellectuals”.
c. Premise: This raven is black bird
Conclusion: Therefore all ravens are black birds.
2. Deductive Reasoning: Deductive reasoning is the process of reasoning
from the general to the specific. It is supported by deductive logic. A
specific conclusion based on general instance will necessarily be true.
Deductive reasoning is accomplished using what is known as a
syllogism. Every syllogism has three parts, a major premise, a minor
premise, and a conclusion. The major premise is the general rule. The
minor premise is specific facts. And the conclusion is a statement that
the specific facts meet the rule.
Examples:
a. Major Premise: All people are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a person
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
b. Major Premise: All ravens are black birds.
Minor Premise: This bird is raven.
Conclusion: Therefore it is black.
LEGAL REASONING MODELS: Two essential cognitive abilities for legal
reasoning models include:
1. Case-based Reasoning: It refers to the use of legal precedents to
interpret open-textured or conflicting rules and concepts.
2. Adversarial Reasoning: It refers to the ability to create persuasive
arguments for both sides of an issue.

SYLLOGISM
The term syllogism is derived from Greek word “syllogismos” which means
“conclusion” or “inference”. It is a form of deductive reasoning consisting of: a
major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion.
For any set of premises, if the conclusion is guaranteed, the argument is said to
be valid. If the conclusion is not guaranteed, the argument is said to be invalid.
AHSAN ALI (44/2k18)
LLB (HONS) 3 r d Year (1 s t semester)
GSLC, HYD.
Legal Arguments & Reasoning (504) Page 8 of 17

When all the premises are true and the syllogism is correctly construed, the
syllogism is an ironclad logical argument.
Example:
a. Major Premise: All boys of this class smoke.
Minor Premise: Ali is student of this class.
Conclusion: Ali also smokes.
b. Major Premise: All lawyers know the law.
Minor Premise: Ahsan is a lawyer.
Conclusion: Therefore, Ahsan knows the law.

METHODS OF LEGAL REASONING: Methods of legal reasoning are as under:-

1. Rule-based Reasoning: Rule-based reasoning is the most important type
of legal reasoning. In rule-based reasoning, we take a rule, either a
statute or precedent, and apply it to a set of facts. This method is a type
of deductive reasoning. Richard Neumann stated in his book “Legal
Reasoning and Legal Writing: Structure, Strategy, and Style (2005)”, that
rules have at least three parts:
a. A set of elements, collectively called a test;
b. A result that occurs when all the elements are present (and the
test is thus satisfied); and
c. A causal term that determines whether the result is mandatory,
prohibitory, discretionary, or declaratory.
Moreover, rule-based reasoning requires an exact match on the
precondition(s) to predict the conclusion(s). For example, the law
prohibits killing people. Mr. A murders Mr. B and for such reason
becomes guilty.
2. Reasoning by Analogy: Reasoning by analogy concerns finding
similarities. It occurs when one argues that 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.
For example: Supreme Court of Pakistan sets a precedent that it is
prohibited to keep wild animal, like tiger, in house owing to its
dangerous nature. This precedent also applies to pit-bulls because a pit

AHSAN ALI (44/2k18)

LLB (HONS) 3 r d Year (1 s t semester)
GSLC, HYD.
Legal Arguments & Reasoning (504) Page 9 of 17

bull, although not a wild animal, is inherently dangerous just like a wild
animal.
3. Distinguishing Cases: Distinguishing cases is the opposite of reasoning
by analogy. In distinguishing cases, 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. For
example, a toy-poodle is not like a wild animal because toy poodles are
not inherently dangerous so that the rule from the wild animal cases
that an owner of a wild animal should be strictly liable for any damage
caused by that wild animal should not apply to toy poodles.
4. Reasoning by Policy: In policy based-reasoning, the writer argues that
applying a particular rule to a case would create a precedent that is good
for society. For example, when a product injured a consumer, the
lawyers could argue to establish because manufacturers could better
bear the cost of injuries than consumers.
5. Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning is reasoning from the specific
to the general. Lawyers use inductive reasoning to synthesize rules. In
other words, lawyers take the holdings from several cases and by
synthesizing those specific cases, they come up with a general rule. To
synthesize a rule look at the similarities among the facts of the
precedent cases and the differences among the facts of the precedent
cases. Also, look at the reasoning behind the holdings.
Example: Case 1: A person who owns a tiger that escapes and causes
personal injury is strictly liable for that property damage.
Case 2: A person who owns a tiger that escapes and causes property
damage is strictly liable for that property damage.
Case 3: A person who owns a pit-bull that escapes and causes personal
injury is strictly liable for that personal injury.
Case 4: A person who owns a toy poodle that escapes and causes
personal injury is not strictly liable for that personal injury.
Synthesized Rule: A person who owns an inherently dangerous animal
that escapes and causes personal injury or property damage is strictly
liable for that personal injury or property damage.

AHSAN ALI (44/2k18)

LLB (HONS) 3 r d Year (1 s t semester)
GSLC, HYD.
Legal Arguments & Reasoning (504) Page 10 of 17

KINDS OF ARGUMENTS FOR LEGAL REASONING:

1. Textual Arguments: Arguments which are based on statute, written law
or any legislation are called textual arguments. These arguments are the
strongest among other arguments as they are based upon legislated law
of competitive authority; that is Parliament in Pakistan. For example,
Pakistan Penal Code, Specific Relief Act, Contact Act, etc.
2. Legislative History and Drafter’s Intention Arguments: These types of
arguments are based on the intention of the legislature or legislative
history of an enactment. Legislation is backed by several reasons and
longstanding history which compels the legislatures to make laws in
order to preserve peace in the society. If any law which is not clear by its
plain meaning, then intention of the legislature is taken into account.
Lawyers may base their arguments on such legislative history and
intention of the legislature.
3. Precedential Arguments: Precedential arguments are the arguments on
the basis of previous case laws having the same facts and cause of
action.
4. Traditional Arguments: Traditional arguments are the arguments which
are based on customs and traditions as they were the most effective
source of law in recent times. Whenever law is not available to address a
specific situation, lawyers may base their arguments on customs and
traditions.
5. Policy-based Arguments: These arguments are based on previous
existing policy. If any previous term or condition of policy is breached
then arguments may be based on the existing police. For example, AB
and CD are the life insurance companies with same terms and conditions
of policies. After some years AB Life Insurance Company breaches a
condition. The consumer or his lawyer may argue that CD Life Insurance
Company has not breached the same term and therefore AB life
insurance is liable to make compensation.
6. Arguments from Concepts/ Evidence: Lawyers often argue on the basis
of purpose of act or omission and try to explain good faith or bad faith
by the support of evidence. Evidence is very useful in law and sufficient
evidence is required to prove a case.
AHSAN ALI (44/2k18)
LLB (HONS) 3 r d Year (1 s t semester)
GSLC, HYD.
Legal Arguments & Reasoning (504) Page 11 of 17

7. Argument from Legal Principles of Equity: Lawyers may base their

arguments on legal principles of equity as they hold great importance in
the field of law.

TWO CENTRAL FORMS OF LEGAL REASONING:

1. Precedent refers to an already decided case which is to be followed by
the Courts in succeeding cases due to the similarity between the two.
2. Analogy involves an earlier decision being used in a later case because
the later case is similar to the earlier one.

FALLACY
A fallacy is a type of argument that seems to be correct, but contains a mistake
in reasoning. It is an error in legal reasoning. In other words, a fallacious
argument is a kind of argument which by its face may appear correct, but while
we may examine it proves not to be true. Even if the premises and conclusion
are all correct, an argument may still be fallacious or erroneous.
Classification of Fallacies: There are the most common groups of fallacies
which are listed and described below:
1. Fallacies of Relevance: A fallacy in which the premises are irrelevant to
the conclusion. It occurs when the premises miss the point and fail to
provide logical support for the conclusion. However, because they are
made to appear to be relevant, they may deceive. It can further be
classified into as under:-
a. The Appeal to the Populace (ad Populum): It is an informal fallacy
in which the support given for some conclusion is an appeal to
popular belief. Also known as argument ad populum.
b. The Appeal to Emotion: A fallacy in which the argument relies on
generosity, altruism, or mercy, rather than on reason. Also known
as argument ad misericordiam.
c. The Red Herring: An informal fallacy committed when some
distraction is used to mislead and confuse.
d. The Straw Man: An informal fallacy committed when the position
of one’s opponent is misrepresented and that distorted position is
made the object of attack.
AHSAN ALI (44/2k18)
LLB (HONS) 3 r d Year (1 s t semester)
GSLC, HYD.
Legal Arguments & Reasoning (504) Page 12 of 17

e. The Attack on the Person: An informal fallacy committed when,

rather than attacking the substance of some position, one attacks
the person of its advocate, either abusively or as a consequence of
his or her special circumstances. This fallacy is also known as
“argument ad hominem.”
f. The Appeal to Force (ad Baculum): An informal fallacy committed
when force, or the threat of force, is relied on to win consent. Also
known as “argument ad baculum.”
g. Missing the Point/ Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi): An
informal fallacy committed when one refutes, not the thesis one’s
interlocutor is advancing, but some different thesis that one
mistakenly imputes to him or her. Also known as “irrelevant
conclusion” and “ignoratio elenchi.”
2. Fallacies of Defective Induction (argumentum ad ignorantiam): A
fallacy in which the premises are too weak or ineffective to warrant the
conclusion. There are many fallacious arguments in which the premises
are relevant and yet are wholly inadequate and they are called fallacies
of defective induction.
a. The Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): A
fallacy in which a proposition is held to be true just because it has
not been proven false, or false because it has not been proven
true. Also known as “argument ad ignorantiam.”
b. The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (Argumentum ad
Verecundiam): A fallacy in which a conclusion is accepted as true
simply because an expert has said that it is true. This is a fallacy
whether or not the expert’s area of expertise is relevant to the
conclusion. Also known as “argument ad verecundiam.”
c. False Cause (Argument non Causa pro Causa): A fallacy in which
something that is not really the cause of something else is treated
as its cause. Also known as non causa pro causa.
d. Hasty Generalization: A fallacy of defective induction in which one
moves carelessly from a single case, or a very few cases, to a large
scale generalization about all or most cases. Also known as
“converse accident.”
AHSAN ALI (44/2k18)
LLB (HONS) 3 r d Year (1 s t semester)
GSLC, HYD.
Legal Arguments & Reasoning (504) Page 13 of 17

3. Fallacies of Presumption: Any fallacy in which the conclusion depends

on a tacit assumption that is dubious, unwarranted, or false are called
fallacies of presumption. It can be further categorized as under:-
a. Accident: A fallacy in which a generalization is mistakenly applied
to a particular case to which the generalization does not apply.
b. Complex Question: An informal fallacy in which a question is
asked in such a way as to presuppose the truth of some conclusion
buried in that question.
c. Begging The Question: An informal fallacy in which the conclusion
of an argument is stated or assumed in any one of the premises.
Also known as “circular argument” and petitio principii.
4. Fallacies of Ambiguity: An informal fallacy caused by a shift or confusion
in the meanings of words or phrases within an argument. Also known as
a “sophism.” It can be further categorized as under:
a. Equivocation: A fallacy in which two or more meanings of a word
or phrase are used, accidentally or deliberately, in different parts
of an argument.
b. Amphiboly: The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when one is arguing
from premises whose formulations are ambiguous because of
their grammatical construction. The word “amphiboly” is derived
from the Greek, its meaning in essence being “two in a lump,” or
the “doubleness” of a lump.
c. Accent: A fallacy of ambiguity that occurs when an argument
contains a premise that relies on one possible emphasis of certain
words, but the conclusion relies on a different emphasis that gives
those same words a different meaning.
d. Composition: A fallacy of ambiguity in which an argument
erroneously assigns attributes to a whole (or to a collection) based
on the fact that parts of that whole (or members of that
collection) have those attributes.
e. Division: A fallacy of ambiguity in which an argument erroneously
assigns attributes to parts of a whole (or to members of a

AHSAN ALI (44/2k18)

LLB (HONS) 3 r d Year (1 s t semester)
GSLC, HYD.
Legal Arguments & Reasoning (504) Page 14 of 17

collection) based on the fact that the whole (or the collection) has
those attributes.

DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS

Terminology: The phrase Stare Decisis literally means “to stand by decided
matters”. It is derived from a Latin phrase “stare decisis et non quieta movere”
which means “to stand by decisions and not to disturb the settled matters”.
Definition: Precedents hold great importance in Pakistan. Doctrine of Stare
Decisis requires that the precedents should be followed in the subsequent
cases as they involve the practical interpretation of the law.
In other words, stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow
historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case. It ensures that cases
with similar scenarios and facts are approached in the same way.
Historical Background: The doctrine of stare decisis in American jurisprudence
has its roots in 18th century English common law. In 1765, the English jurist
William Blackstone described the doctrine of English common law precedent
as establishing a strong presumption that judges would "abide by former
precedents, where the same points come again in litigation" unless such
precedents were "flatly absurd or unjust" in order to promote stability in the
law.33 And the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, who conferred the "judicial
power" of the United States on the Supreme Court and lower federal courts,
echoed Blackstone in their writings during the late 18th century, favoring
judges' adherence to judicial precedent because it limited judges' discretion to
interpret ambiguously worded provisions of written law.
Structure of Precedents: Interpretation of precedents involves two types of
precedent, known as the “ratio decidendi” and “Obitor Dicta”. Ratio decidendi
of a case represents the holding or ruling, whereas obitor dicta represent other
statements and views expressed in the judgment. Ratio decidendi is binding
while obitor dicta is nonbinding.
Pakistan’s Perspective: The Constitution of Pakistan also involves the doctrine
of stare decisis in its article 189 and 201. In accordance with Article 189, the
decisions of Supreme Court are binding on all the subordinate Courts in the
Country and as per article 201, the decisions of High Courts are binding on all
its subordinate Courts. It is of paramount importance to note that Supreme

AHSAN ALI (44/2k18)

LLB (HONS) 3 r d Year (1 s t semester)
GSLC, HYD.
Legal Arguments & Reasoning (504) Page 15 of 17

Court of Pakistan is not bound to follow its own prior decisions or decisions of
the High Court or other subordinate Courts, but they can be used as a
persuasive source. But all subordinate Courts of Pakistan are bound to follow a
precedent of Supreme Court. Furthermore, a provincial High Court is not
bound to follow a decision of same rank court of another province, although it
can be considered as a persuasive source. But the precedents of all High Courts
are binding on subordinate Courts. High Courts are also bound by their own
prior decisions unless the liberty of subjects is involved or unless the decision
was given per incuriam.
Benjamin Cardozo’s View: It would be injustice to decide the same question
one way between one set of litigants and the opposite way between another
set of litigants. Adherence to precedent must be a rule rather than exception if
litigants are to have faith in the evenhanded administration of justice in the
Courts.
Glanville Williams’s View: What the doctrine of precedent requires is that
cases must be decided the same way when their material facts are the same.
CRITICISM TO THE DOCTRINE: Lord Denning, the former Master of the Rolls
argued that “If lawyers hold their precedents too closely, forgetful of the
fundamental principles of truth and justice which they should serve, they may
find the whole edifice come tumbling down about them. Just as the scientists
seek for truth, lawyers should seek for justice. Just as the scientist takes his
instances and from them builds up general propositions, so the lawyer should
take his precedents and from them build up his general principles. Just as the
proposition of scientists fail to be modified when shown not to fit all instances,
or even discarded when shown in error, so the principles of lawyers should be
modified when found to be unsuited to the times or discarded when found to
work for injustice.

HYPOTHETICAL / SCIENTIFIC REASONING

Hypothetical reasoning is a kind of reasoning used to produce a hypothesis.
Hypothesis is defined as a supposition or proposed explanation made on the
basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. When
evidence is not sufficient to indicate exactly what is going on, then resort to

AHSAN ALI (44/2k18)

LLB (HONS) 3 r d Year (1 s t semester)
GSLC, HYD.
Legal Arguments & Reasoning (504) Page 16 of 17

construct hypothesis to make sense of situation and direct choice of future

action.
For instance, if I say that you will pass if you study. It means that I can be sure
of this as long as hypothetical relationship meaning I expressed with that word
“if” really is true and it is also true that you do study.
Steps of Hypothetical Method:
1. Occurrence of a problem
2. Formulating a hypothesis
3. Drawing implications for the hypothesis
4. Testing the implications
For example: Let us take another example involving the steps of hypothetical
method as under:
1. State Problem
Grades are bad
2. Formulate hypothesis
Not studying leads to bad grades
3. Implications of the hypothesis
If you don't study, then you will get a bad grade
4. How would you Test?
Study for the next test

TECHNIQUES FOR FORMATTING JUDGMENT

A good judgment, like a well written document has clearly identifiable parts
arranged in a logical sequence. It can be done by breaking up the trial into
several distinct parts and looking at the individual pieces rather than the
whole. In this way, a judge will be able to draft each segment easily and
thereafter to cobble the entire document seamlessly together.
FORMAT OF JUDGMENT
1. Preliminary Issues
2. Summary of Prosecution/ Plaintiff’s case
3. Summary of Defense/ Defendant’s case
4. Issues to be Determined

AHSAN ALI (44/2k18)

LLB (HONS) 3 r d Year (1 s t semester)
GSLC, HYD.
Legal Arguments & Reasoning (504) Page 17 of 17

Evidence and Factual Findings

5. Prosecution/ Plaintiff’s Allegations on Issue A.
 Prosecution Evidence in Support of the Allegation
 Defense Evidence on the Allegation
 The Judge’s Evaluation of the Evidence
6. Prosecution/ Plaintiff’s Allegations on Issue B.
 Prosecution Evidence in Support of the Allegation
 Defense Evidence on the Allegation
 The Judge’s Evaluation of the Evidence
7. Prosecution/ Plaintiff’s Allegations on Issue C.
 Prosecution Evidence in Support of the Allegation
 Defense Evidence on the Allegation
 The Judge’s Evaluation of the Evidence
Applicable Law
8. Statement of Law on Issue A.
 Statutory Law
 Case Law
9. Statement of Law on Issue B.
 Statutory Law
 Case Law
10. Statement of Law on Issue C.
 Statutory Law
 Case Law
Deliberations
11. Applying the Law to the Facts
 These facts [In issue A, B or C…]
 When viewed in context of this section of the constitution/ law/
regulation/ contract/ precedent/ principle of equity [choose
one]…
 Logically lead to this Conclusion [judgment] that…
Judgment

AHSAN ALI (44/2k18)

LLB (HONS) 3 r d Year (1 s t semester)
GSLC, HYD.