Legal arguments. What are they?

Legal argument is not a theatrical performance or a mere appeal to emotion, though those elements exist. It is an exercise in structured logic. 

A lawyer begins with an ultimate conclusion-"my client is not guilty" or "this contract is void." To prove this, they must establish a series of interlocking premises, each supported by admissible evidence or controlling legal authority. This process mirrors the construction of a syllogism in formal logic. 

The major premise is often a rule of law: "A contract requires an offer, acceptance, and consideration to be valid." 

The minor premise is a statement of fact proven by evidence: "The email dated March 1st constituted an offer, which the plaintiff accepted on March 2nd, and the attached invoice shows consideration was paid." 

If both premises are sound and the logical structure is valid, the conclusion is inescapable: "A valid contract exists." 

The entire adversarial system is a test of whose logical construct is more sound, whose premises are better supported, and whose reasoning contains fewer fallacies. Judges and opposing counsel are constantly probing for weaknesses in this logical chain-an unsupported premise, a flawed analogy, or a non sequitur. 

Understanding this framework is the first step in moving from passionate advocacy to effective persuasion.

**

Syllogism – A form of logical reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from two premises.

Example:

All humans are mortal.

Socrates is human.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Non sequitur – A conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises.

Example:

She owns many books, therefore she must be intelligent.

Fallacies – Errors in reasoning that weaken or invalidate an argument. They may appear persuasive but rely on flawed logic.

Examples include: ad hominem (attacking the person), false dilemma (presenting only two options), straw man (misrepresenting an argument), and slippery slope (assuming extreme consequences without proof).