Skip main navigation
We use cookies to give you a better experience, if that’s ok you can close this message and carry on browsing. For more info read our cookies policy.
We use cookies to give you a better experience. Carry on browsing if you're happy with this, or read our cookies policy for more information.

Summary of Week 6

This week we’ve looked at legal reasoning, focussing on three important aspects of such reasoning which connect to broader themes in logical and critical thinking.

We’ve described reasoning by analogy, a non deductive argument form which allows us to draw conclusions about some new case or situation - will my new car (probably) be reliable, was Double Falsehood (probably) written by William Shakespeare - on the basis of relevant similarities between the new case and other cases with which we are already familiar. We reason this way all the time, but such reasoning is essential to the law, where it lies at the heart of the process by which judges decide whether principles established in some cases apply to other, new, cases.

We also saw that appeals to authority, which we might properly treat with suspicion in most contexts - since they suggest that an arguer is not using their own critical thinking skills - might be justified in the law, because there consideration such as certainty give even good critical thinkers reason to treat some decisions as authoritative. Law’s particular attitude to authority can help us see why and when appeals to authority might be legitimate outside the law too.

Many of us will be most familiar with the idea of the burden of proof because of it’s role in legal reasoning. Examining the nature of the role of the burden of proof in law is useful for understating its role - and its limitations - outside the law as well.

And our important tendency to understand fairness either ‘historically’ or ‘substantively’ is also usefully examined in the law, where it features particularly clearly.

Understanding legal reasoning is important in its own right, but it also enriches our understanding of logical and critical thinking more generally.

Share this article:

This article is from the free online course:

Logical and Critical Thinking

The University of Auckland

Get a taste of this course

Find out what this course is like by previewing some of the course steps before you join:

  • Pohutukawa tree case study
    Pohutukawa tree case study

    When is it best to express your views by providing reasons? Are there cases in which other ways of expressing yourself might be better suited?

  • Arguments for and against the existence of God
    Arguments for and against the existence of God

    John Bishop and Patrick Girard from the University of Auckland discuss deductive and non-deductive arguments for and against the existence of God.

  • Irrelevant premises
    Irrelevant premises

    When is a premise irrelevant in an argument? Watch Patrick Girard explaining how to identify irrelevant premises in arguments.

  • Random controlled trials
    Random controlled trials

    Scientific processes guard against common obstacles to good logical and critical thinking. Perhaps the most powerful is the random controlled trial.

  • Clever Hans: cuing and the observer effect
    Clever Hans: cuing and the observer effect

    Hans seemed to have the maths skills of 14yr old, but O. Pfungst noticed that the horse’s handlers were inadvertently cueing him when to stop tapping.

  • Analogical reasoning in the law
    Analogical reasoning in the law

    Judges egal cases use analogical reasoning to decide which similarities between cases are important.

  • Being a good ethical reasoner
    Being a good ethical reasoner

    What does good ethical reasoning about such matters involve? Mainly, just good logical and critical thinking skills focussed on ethical issues.

  • Going Vegan
    Going Vegan

    A pretty wild exchange for and against becoming vegan. We'll use it to see how the skills you've learned during the course can be put into action.

Contact FutureLearn for Support