Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation (Law and Philosophy Library)

Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation (Law and Philosophy Library)

Language: English

Pages: 222

ISBN: 3319161474

Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub

This book provides theoretical tools for evaluating the soundness of arguments in the context of legal argumentation. It deals with a number of general argument types and their particular use in legal argumentation. It provides detailed analyses of argument from authority, argument ad hominem, argument from ignorance, slippery slope argument and other general argument types. Each of these argument types can be used to construct arguments that are sound as well as arguments that are unsound. To evaluate an argument correctly one must be able to distinguish the sound instances of a certain argument type from its unsound instances. This book promotes the development of theoretical tools for this task.

Pirates of the Digital Millennium: How the Intellectual Property Wars Damage Our Personal Freedoms, Our Jobs, and the World Economy

Don't Trust, Don't Fear, Don't Beg: The Extraordinary Story of the Arctic 30

Canon Law: A Comparative Study with Anglo-American Legal Theory

Getting To Maybe: How to Excel on Law School Exams

The Run of His Life: The People v. O. J. Simpson



















situation. Apart from the cases in which a judge must apply a legal rule that contains the norm of reasonableness, there are also cases in which the judge is of the opinion that the requirement of reasonableness should be applied to correct a legal rule by making an exception for the concrete case, without the existence of a legal norm that specifies the relevant factors. An example of such a case is the decision in the case of the Unworthy Spouse I discussed where the courts were of the opinion

In the context of a conversation, or a discussion, or an exchange of reasons in general, what is wrong is the act of making a statement unsupported by evidentiary reasons. This is related to Grice’s maxim of quality (1989, 27): “Try to make your contribution one that is true”. This maxim is constituted of two more specific maxims, or sub-maxims: (1) Do not say what you believe to be false; (2) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. The second sub-maxim is what interests us here. It

account. For supervaluationism, a proposition p -containing a vague concept- is true if and only if it is true for all its completions; it is false if and only if it is false for all its completions; otherwise it has no truth-value -it is indeterminate. A completion is a way of converting a vague concept into a precise one. So now we should distinguish two senses of ‘true’: ‘true’ according to a particular completion, and ‘true’ according to all completions, or supertrue. If a number x of grains

fails to indicate if any gay and lesbian congressional representatives supported the passage of DOMA in 1996. He also asserts that “Since the 1960s and 1970s, the political power of homosexuals and their libertarian and [right to] privacy has grown, not shrunk” (28). He provided no evidence for this argument probably because the special interests that he represented likely would assume his claim to be true based on their belief in the social myth that homosexuals experience no discrimination.

la systématisation d’un droit coutumier et d’une jurisprudence fragmentaire et hétérogène. Les grandes codifications […] ont d’ailleurs été le travail d’éminants jurisconsultes”. 12 Chiassoni (1999a, p. 91): “At the first-interpretation stage, interpreters perform the following activities: (a) they identify an object as a sentence, or a string of sentences, in a (to them) familiar language; (b) they ascribe to the sentence(s) a first, tentative, meaning – or an array of tentative, possible,

Download sample