ST.

AUGUSTINE UNIVERSITY OF TANZANIA

SCHOOL OF LAW

COURSE NAME : ARGUMENTATION SKILLS

COURSE CODE : SLW 137

SUBMITTED TO : MR. FRANSISCO

SUBMITTED BY : MAHENDA, MAHENDA STEPHEN

REG NO : LLB 73761

DATE OF SUBMISSION : 10th JULY, 2020

TYPE OF WORK : INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT

QUESTION;

Explain methods of Argumentation skills.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………1

1.0 Meaning of Argumentation………………………………………………………………….1

1.1 Meaning of Argumentation skills………………………………………………………….1

1.2 The purpose of Argumentation skills……………………………………………………...1

MAIN BODY…………………………………………………………………………………...2

2.0 Methods of argumentation skills…………………………………………………………….2

2.1 Validity, soundness and truthfulness of judgment in argumentation……………………...2

2.2 Deductive reasoning………………………………………………………………………2

2.3 Inductive reasoning…………………………………………………………………….....3

2.4 Reason by analogy……………………………………………………………………….3

3.0 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………...4

BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………….5

INTRODUCTION
1.0 MEANING OF ARGUMENTATION

According to Richard K. argumentation “is an act of a person to be able to persuade a

contention designed to persuade”1, these kinds of comments might be useful raw materials but
they become an argument only when coalesce into a coherent presentation, that influences the
audience good argumentation leads readers through reasoning so convincingly that they are
pleased to be persuaded, so Richard K. further explained an argument is not an emotional
experience of which a person’s ideas get out of control leaving them ready, it is a reasonable
discussion in which one person advances and provide of provision of point a particular subject
person advances and provide of provision of point a particular subject.

1.1 MEANING OF ARGUMENTATION SKILLS.

According to Langan J. in his book said, an argumentation skill is “ability in which one has to
make a point and to provide persuasive evidence and logical evidence on it’’2. However Langan
J. further explained that argumentation is part of our daily activities of people.

1.2 THE PURPOSE OF ARGUMENTATION SKILLS.

According to copi 13, it says always many people prefers to use Argumentation skill for different
purpose, like advocates, lawyers use it for the aim at advancing, convincing or persuading their
listeners or judges before the court at all especially judges, also copi 1 further explain many
different purpose of Argumentation skill as to encourage people, help to seek good reasons for
their beliefs and to reach decision.

1
Richard Neumann. Jr. Legal reasoning and legal Writing. 2nd edition 1994. Pg. 254

2
Langan J. Ten steps to improve college reading skills 4thed. 2003. Pg. 379

3
Copi 1. Essential of logic. 2nd edition. 2009. Pg. 150

MAIN BODY
2.0 METHODS OF ARGUMENTATION SKILLS

2.1 VALIDITY, SOUNDNESS AND TRUTHFULNESS OF JUDGMENT IN

ARGUMENTATION.

According to Baker C. who provide the meaning of validity, is a property of arguments that they
have a good structure, soundness to the statement are true and lastly, truth to mean a property of
statement in them, the argument is valid and all the statement are, truth i.e. that they are the case.
In the book of Baker C, he goes further to explain in evaluating arguments we begging by
evaluating the inferential claim, then mere to the factual claim, a valid deductive argument is an
argument such that it is impossible for the premises to be and the conclusion is false. The
conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises and sound argument is valid argument
with true premises.4

2.2 DEDUCTIVE REASONING

It has been contended that the application of legal rules to particular cases cannot be regarded as
a syllogism or any other kind of deductive inference, on the grounds that neither legal rules nor
particular statements of law can be carried as either true or false and thus cannot be logically
related either among themselves or to statements of fact, hence they cannot figure as premises or
conclusions of a deductive argument. This view depends on a restrictive definition. In terms of
truth falsehood of the notion of a valid deductive inference and a logical relations such as
consistency and contradiction.5

This would exclude from the scope of deductive inference not only legal rules or statements of
law but also commands and many other sentential forms which have common regarded as
susceptible of a logical relations and as constituents of valid deductive arguments.

4
Baker CBA studio, Art & English. 3rd edition. 2008. Pg 358

5
M.D.A. FREEMAN. Introduction to Jurisprudence 2008. 8thedition. Pg 1566

2.3 INDUCTIVE REASONING

It is involved in the judicial use of precedents. Reference to induction is usually made in this
connection to point a contract with the allegedly deductive reasoning involved in the application
of legislative rules to particular cases. Instead of starting with a general rule the judgment must
to the relevant cases discover the general rule implicit in them.

It is of course true that courts constantly refer to past both to discover rules and to justify their
acceptance of them as valid. This past cases are said to be authority for the rules extracted from
them.

One necessary condition must be satisfied if past cases are in this way to justify logically the
acceptance of rule; the past case must be an instance of the rule in the sense that decision in the
case could be deducted from a statement of the rule together with the statement of the facts of the
case.6

2.4 REASON BY ANALOGY

The process of reasoning by analogy involve saying that if a number of a different thing are
similar to each other in a number of different specific ways they should be similar to each other
in other ways as well. This process may be seen operating in the doctrine of president which
requires that the case with similar facts should be treated as being similar in law. The problem of
reasoning by analogy is to identify which points need to be similar and how similar they need to
be. This pursued at some ranks in chapter nine in the context of identifying the ratio of acse.7

6
M.D.A. Ibid at page 1566

7
Ian McLeod. Legal method. 5th edition. 2005, Pg. 11

3.0 CONCLUSION
The methods of argumentation skills are potential and useful to human conducts as used to
convince and persuade judges likewise audience to agree the particular matter or topic.

But also there are some methods of argumentation skill seems to have weakness in their
explanation and application like deductive method for example the premises may be false and the
reasoning may be invalid, but there are some methods which are useful and good like analogy
and inductive methods are used to judge a case by using a similar cases of past hence it leads to
good decision and judgment in court and application of justice system.

Another method is adductive method usually starts with an in completed self of observation and
precedes to the like list possible explanation for the group of observation to Buttle Collage it’s
based on making and testing hypothesis using the best information available it often entails an
advocated guess after observing a phenomena for which there is no clear explanation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS

 BAKES C. A studio, Art & English. 3rd edition. 2008

 FREEMAN M.D. Introduction to Jurisprudence 8th edition.
 LANGAN J. Ten steps to improve college reading skills 4th edition. 2007
 MCLEON I. Legal method. 5th edition. 2005
 RICHARD K. Neumann Jr. Legal Reasoning and Legal writing 2nd edition. 1994