This document discusses legal reasoning and constructing arguments. It provides guidance on distinguishing cases by identifying relevant facts, comparing them to the facts and reasoning of another case, and determining whether the other case can be distinguished based on different facts or is applicable based on similar facts. The document also discusses building legal arguments using the IRAC method of outlining an issue, rule, application of the rule to the facts, and conclusion. It provides examples of strong and deficient legal arguments.

1. REASONING: CONSTRUCTING
AN ARGUMENT AND
DISTINGUISHING A CASE
Dr. Heba Hazzaa

2. WHAT SHOULD WE LEARN FROM
THIS COURSE?
1. Reading effectively​
2. Thinking systematically: Relevant facts+ IRAC​
3. Writing efficiently: Clear, Concise, Structured, Supported by
Authority
4. Presenting your case: Oral presentation skills

3. WHAT ARE WE DOING TODAY?
Part 1: How to construct an argument Part 2: Distinguishing a case
• A statement vs. an argument vs. a legal
argument
How can you distinguish a case?
• What are the basic skills of reasoning? Relevant facts – stare decisis & obiter
dicta
Irrelvant facts

4. LEGAL REASONING: WHAT DOES IT
MEAN TO YOU?

5. WHAT IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
A STATEMENT AND A LOGICAL
ARGUMENT?
The 4th grade students want to
learn. They come to class
motivated
A student is ready to learn when
they are prepared and engaged.
Students who undertake their
pre-class readings and participate
in discussions are prepared.
Whereas the 4th grade class read
their pre class readings and
participate in class, therefore the
4th grade class is ready to learn.
This is called a logical argument.

6. WHAT IS A LEGAL ARGUMENT?
A legal argument is:
a logical statement
supported by legal
authority
and admissible
evidence.

7. HOW TO BUILD A LEGAL
ARGUMENT?1. Major premise: Statement of law general
and detailed
1.1 Main/original legal authority for major premise
1.2 Subsidiary legal authority for major premise
2. Minor premise: Statement of relevant
facts that satisfy the rule both general and
detailed
2.1 legally admissible evidence that the facts needed
to satisfy the rule have been proven
3.Conclusion
Whereas, relevant fact as proven satisfies the minor

8. A MAJOR PREMISE IS: THE GENERAL RULE
+ detailed rule
A MINOR PREMISE IS: Statement of fact
THE CONCLUSION IS REACHED WHEN THE
RELEVANT FACTS PROVE THE MINOR
PREMISE, WHICH IN TURN PROVES THE

9. I WANT TO ARGUE THAT YOU WILL
ACHIEVE HIGHER GRADES WHEN YOU
PARTICIPATE IN CLASS.

10. HERE IS HOW I DO IT:
1. Major premise: Students who participate constructively in
class achieve higher grades.
2. Minor premise: Students who complete pre-class readings
participate more constructively.
3. Whereas, relevant fact, therefore conclusion: Whereas, this
group of students complete pre class readings & participate
more constructively therefore, those students are more likely to
achieve higher grades.

11. SEE IF THIS HELPS:
Students who participate constructively in class achieve higher grades.
Students who complete pre-class readings participate more constructively.
Whereas, this group of students complete pre class readings & participate
more constructively therefore, those students are more likely to achieve
higher grades.

12. LET US ADD ANOTHER LAYER:
1. Major premise: Students who participate constructively in class
achieve higher grades.
Authority for major premise: As evidenced by [insert actual number]
education theory and research studies on the topic.
2. Minor premise: Students who complete pre-class readings
participate more constructively.
Evidence on minor premise: Dr. Abbas and Dr. Hazzaa commissioned
a report from a formal committee of experts to measure student
quality of in class participation and analyze their quiz answers and
their final exam grades. The report stated that “it was found that
students who completed their pre class readings participated
constructively and scored higher than their peers in exams.”
3. Whereas, relevant fact, therefore conclusion: Whereas, this group
of students complete pre class readings & participate more
constructively therefore, those students are more likely to achieve
higher grades.

13. DO NOT WRITE YOU ARGUMENT
LIKE THIS!!!!!1. Major premise: Students who participate constructively in
class achieve higher grades.
Authority for major premise: As evidenced by [insert actual
number] empirical studies.
2. Minor premise: Students who complete pre-class readings
participate more constructively.
Evidence on minor premise: Dr. Abbas and Dr. Hazzaa measure
student quality of in class participation, quizzes measure their
pre-class readings, and final exam measure their grades.
3. Whereas, relevant fact, therefore conclusion: Whereas, this
group of students complete pre class readings & participate
more constructively therefore, those students are more likely to
achieve higher grades.

14. A LOGICAL EVIDENCED STATEMENT
‫النهائي‬ ‫الشكل‬
As evidenced by [insert actual number] empirical
studies, students who participate constructively in
class achieve higher grades. Since we measured the
quality of your participation and your readiness for
discussion, we can say that students who complete
pre-class readings participate in class more
constructively.
It is, therefore, more likely that this group of students
who completed their pre class readings & participated
more constructively in class will achieve higher grades.

15. WHAT IS NEXT?

16. THINK OF IT THIS WAY:
Buil
d
Brea
kdow
n
Rebuil
d

17. HOW TO SCORE A GOAL WITH
YOUR ARGUMENT?
List your supporting arguments
Counter your own argument with
what your opponent might say
Rebut: respond to each counter
argument.

18. IN CLASS EXERCISE 1:
LET’S BUILD OUR OWN
LEGAL ARGUMENTS!
Using Strawberry farm
hypothetical or the Oxford
Price Media Moot case,
Take 5 minutes to build an
argument.

19. UMANI’S PROSECUTION FOR POST
FIVE “PURIFY YOUR COUNTRY”
VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW
Free speech is a universally recognized right and is protected under
international law as per (Art. ** of ****). Unfavorable speech is still
free speech (Authority). However, hate speech is not protected speech
under domestic and international law.
Speech is considered hate speech when it incites violence even if the
intended outcome did not happen. Unfavorable speech is the type of
speech that offends a person or a group of persons, is rude, or
repulsive.
A person incites violence when their speech creates a “clear and
present” danger that the violent will occur, in other words: when
violence is imminent.
Although Umani’s post 5 appears to include offending speech, we
cannot say that it incites violence since no violence immediate or
otherwise occurred as a direct result to the defendant’s speech.
Umani’s speech is not hate speech since it did not incite violence.

20. AN EXAMPLE OF A DEFICIENT
REASONING:
Umani’s post five “Purify your Country” is protected under
international law. Umani’s prosecution violates international law.
Umani is not guilty under the Anti Terrorism Act. He is exercising his
legally protected right. Moreover, no violence occurred on the
borders on that day. Therefore, Omeria’s persecution of Umani
violates international law.

21. STRAWBERRY FARM’S FAILURE TO
DELIVER UNDER THE CONTRACT IS
A BREACH
A valid contract is legally binding as long as it is in force. Strawberry
farm is under a contractual obligation to deliver the contractual
quantity (between min and max) at contract price.
A hardship, under Art. ## of ####, applicable to the dispute, is an
unforeseeable event that disrupts the performance of the contract
and threatens the obligee with a major loss.
The heat wave was a foreseeable impediment for a sophisticated
merchant such as Strawberry Farm esp. in light of past experiences.
Moreover, Strawberry Farm’s total loss of (35%) is not considered a
major loss given its huge market share.
It is reasonable to conclude that, Strawberry farm cannot claim
hardship to exempt its obligation to deliver. Therefore, SF failure to
deliver is a breach of contract.

22. PART 2: DISTINGUISHING A
CASE

23. DISTINGUISHING OR ANALOGIZING
A CASE
1. Find relevant facts in the fact pattern you want to distinguish
2. Look at the issue and the facts and ask why is my issue
different/similar
3. Take those differences/similarities and put them in comparison to
the analysis (reasoning) in the case
4. If the reasoning relies on those facts different from yours then you
have distinguished the case
5. If the reasoning relies on the similar facts than most likely this
case will apply to your fact pattern.