LENG5104 Legal English – II — Unit 1: Critical Thinking — The Language of Reasoning

Unit 1: Critical Thinking — The Language of Reasoning

Teaching Hours for this Unit: 7

Syllabus coverage in this unit
1.1 What is Critical Thinking and How to Improve It · 1.2 Identifying Reasons and Conclusions: The Language of Reasoning · 1.3 Understanding Reasoning: Different Patterns of Reasoning

---

1.1 What is Critical Thinking, and How to Improve It

Definition: critical thinking is the systematic evaluation of claims and arguments — deciding what to believe or do by examining the reasons offered, the evidence behind them, and the logic connecting them. “Critical” here means skilled judgment (from Greek krinein, to judge), not negativity.

The two components (learn this pair):

1. Skills — analysing arguments, spotting assumptions, evaluating evidence, detecting fallacies, drawing valid inferences;
2. Dispositions — the habits of mind: intellectual honesty, curiosity, scepticism in the right dose, willingness to revise, and listening to opposing views.

Why a law faculty teaches it: law is applied critical thinking. A judgment is an argument (facts → rule → conclusion); advocacy is argument construction; cross-examination is argument destruction; statutory interpretation is reasoning about texts. Lawyers who cannot evaluate reasoning lose cases they should win.

How to improve it (the practical list — a guaranteed short question):

1. Practise actively — analyse one argument daily (an editorial, a judgment, a minister’s speech);
2. Read arguments in standard form (see 1.2) until reconstructing becomes reflex;
3. Argue both sides — brief the case, then brief its opposite;
4. Ask the canonical questions — What is the claim? What are the reasons? Are they acceptable? Does the conclusion follow? What is assumed? What has been omitted?
5. Seek disconfirmation — deliberately hunt evidence against your view;
6. Study fallacies (Legal English-I’s list — ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, slippery slope, appeal to authority) — naming a fallacy is half of defeating it;
7. Write to think — writing forces the logic visible;
8. Cultivate intellectual humility — the strongest disposition of all.

1.2 Identifying Reasons and Conclusions: The Language of Reasoning

The core structure: an argument = a set of reasons (premises) offered in support of a conclusion. The arguer’s claim is the conclusion; the support is the reason. Everything in critical thinking hangs on telling them apart.

Signal words (the indicator map):

• Conclusion indicators — therefore, thus, hence, so, it follows that, we may conclude, in consequence, which shows that;
• Reason (premise) indicators — because, since, as, for, inasmuch as, owing to, the reason is that, in view of.

But beware: these words are clues, not laws — “since” can mark time (“since 2015”), “because” can explain (see below).

Writing arguments in standard form (the technique):

P1: The contract required delivery by 15 Jestha.
P2: Delivery occurred on 30 Jestha.
C: The contract was breached.
Number premises (P1, P2…), state the conclusion (C) last, add unstated premises in brackets. Standard form is the lawyer’s X-ray of any argument — use it on judgments and on your own drafts.

Three distinctions that carry marks:

1. Argument vs explanation — an argument proves a claim (why believe it?); an explanation accounts for an accepted fact (why did it happen?). “He breached because he was insolvent” explains; “He breached, for the delivery was late” argues.
2. Argument vs opinion/dispute — an opinion without reasons is a preference; a dispute without reasons cannot be resolved. The court wants arguments.
3. Reasons vs rationalisation — reasons aim at truth; rationalisations aim at protecting a prior conclusion. Critical thinking includes self-audit: am I reasoning, or defending?

Cover (hidden) premises: most real arguments leave steps unstated:

“The witness is a convicted perjurer; [honest testimony is unlikely from a convicted perjurer]; the testimony should be treated with caution.”
Finding the cover premise is the analyst’s key move — Unit 2.1 formalises it as assumptions.

1.3 Understanding Reasoning: Different Patterns of Reasoning

A. Deduction — reasoning from the general
From true premises, a valid deductive argument guarantees its conclusion. Test: if the premises were true, could the conclusion be false? If not — valid.

• Valid form (the lawyer’s syllogism):

  P1: Whoever intentionally kills another commits murder (major premise — the rule).
  P2: A intentionally killed B (minor premise — the fact).
  C: A committed murder.
  This is exactly the judicial syllogism — rule + fact = holding (Legal Method’s IRAC is its industrial form).

• Validity vs soundness: valid = the form holds; sound = valid and premises actually true. A perfectly valid argument from a false premise proves nothing — the daily lesson of appellate litigation.

• Formal fallacies (Unit 3.2’s full treatment): affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent — seductive invalid forms.

B. Induction — reasoning to the general
From observed cases to a probable general claim (or from a sample to a population). Never certain — only more or less strong.

• Inductive generalisation — 40 of 50 audited firms filed false VAT bills → the practice is likely widespread. Strength depends on sample size and representativeness (the classic exam points).
• Causal induction — from correlation to cause (Unit 3.4’s cautions: correlation ≠ causation).
• Argument from analogy — this case is like that decided case in material respects; it should be decided alike. Analogy is the common law’s engine (and stare decisis’s logic — Jurisprudence Unit 2.3.2); its strength turns on relevance of the similarities and absence of material differences.
• Argument from authority — expert X says so. Legitimate when the authority is competent in this field and the claim is within the consensus; fallacious otherwise.

C. Abduction — inference to the best explanation
From data to the hypothesis that best explains it: the doctors’ method (symptoms → diagnosis), the detectives’ (evidence → suspect), and the courts’ (evidence → the most probable account of events). Criteria of “best”: explains more, assumes less, is consistent with background knowledge, testable. The judgment of fact in a trial is abductive: which story best explains the evidence?

D. Conditional reasoning (the hypotheticals of law)
If P then Q structures: modus ponens (if P then Q; P; therefore Q — valid) and modus tollens (if P then Q; not-Q; therefore not-P — valid); the fallacy of affirming the consequent (if P then Q; Q; therefore P — invalid: the fire could have another cause) and denying the antecedent (if P then Q; not-P; therefore not-Q — invalid). Statutory and contractual reasoning is thick with such conditionals — test every one.

The patterns in one table:

Pattern	Moves	Guarantee?	Legal example
Deduction	rule → case	yes (if sound)	the judicial syllogism
Induction	cases → rule	probability	precedent by analogy; statistical proof
Abduction	evidence → best story	plausibility	findings of fact; diagnosis
Conditional	if-then chains	depends on form	statutory conditions; contract terms

---

---

Model Questions

Short-answer questions

1. Define critical thinking and name its two components.
2. List four conclusion indicators and four premise indicators.
3. Write the judicial syllogism in standard form.
4. Distinguish validity from soundness with an example.
5. What is inference to the best explanation?

Long-answer questions

1. “A lawyer is a professional critical thinker.” Discuss the meaning, importance and improvement of critical thinking for legal practice.
2. Explain the structure of arguments: identifying reasons and conclusions, indicator words, standard form, and hidden premises.
3. Compare deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning with applications to statutory interpretation, precedent and fact-finding.

---

📚 Get the complete notes: Download the full Legal English – II PDF (all units) — Law Info Nepal Original Notes Series.