PRINCIPLE OF CAUSATION

According to a prominent philosopher Aristotle stipulates that, quid quid movetur ab alio
movetur that is whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another or whatever moves is
moved by another. The principle of causation states/asserts that there must be a causal link
between the defendant’s actions and the harm suffered by the victim for the defendant to be held
liable. In other words, to hold someone legally responsible there must be evidence demonstrating
that the action is directly caused the harm. It is about demonstrating how one event directly leads
to another. This principle is crucial in determining guilty or liability in legal proceeding.

EXAMPLES OF THE PRINCIPLES OF CAUSATION IN ARGUMENTATION SKILLS

i. In criminal case involving a car accident the prosecution argues that the accused was
intoxicated running a red light causing a collision that resulted in the death of another
driver. To prove causation, the prosecution presents evidence such as eyewitness
testimonies, traffic camera footage and blood alcohol test result demonstrating that the
accused action directly led to the accident. This establishes the causal link necessary to
hold the accused liable for the victim’s death.
ii. In case involving environmental harm such as pollution or contamination, the plaintiff
must prove that the defendant’s actions directly cause the damage. This could involve
scientific studies and expert testimony to establish the causal connection between the
defendant’s activities and the environmental aspect.
iii. Product liability, in a lawsuit against a manufacturer for a defective product the plaintiff
must show that the defect directly caused the injury. This might involve presenting
evidence of products design flaw or manufacturing defect and how it is led to the
plaintiff’s specific harm.

In each of these examples, the principle of causation requires the party making the argument to
provide evidence direct link between the defendant’s action and plaintiff’s harm. Without
establishing this causal connection, it become difficult to hold someone legally responsible.
 TOPIC FOUR

CASE TECHNIQUES AND LEGAL LANGUAGE SKILLS

This topic including the following aspects;

 Case technique
 The use of legal language
 Philosophy for lawyers
 The art of persuasion for lawyers

I. CASE TECHNIQUE

Case technique is a cornerstone of legal education and practice. It involves studying and
examining facts, issues, arguments, legal decisions and the reasons behind of such decisions,
principles of law, precedent and logical reasoning and applying that understanding to analyze
and solve new legal problems. It develops critical thinking and analytical skills essential for legal
practice. Example of case methods used in law serve as foundational for students to analyze
and understand legal principles, reasoning and precedent.

In contract law, students might study the famous case of CARLILL V CARBOLIC SMOKE
BALL COMPANY to understand principle of offer, acceptance and consideration.

In torts law, students might study the famous case of DONOGHUE V STEVENSON as a
landmark case in the law of tort to understand the concept of negligence and the duty of care
owed to others.

II. PHILOSOPHY FOR LAWYERS

Philosophy provides lawyers with valuable tools for critical thinking, ethical reasoning, a deeper
understanding the foundations of justice and fairness and the nature of law itself. By studying
philosophy or by integrating philosophical principles lawyers can develop more ability to
analyze complex legal issues, argue persuasively and navigate moral dilemmas inherent in the
practice of law.
PHILOSOPHY PLAYS A CRUCIAL ROLE IN SHAPING THE ARGUMENTATION
SKILLS FOR LAWYERS. THE FOLLOWING ARE EXAMPLES OF THE KEY
PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS THAT ARE OFTEN APPLIED IN LEGAL
ARGUMENTATION.

I. Philosophical Principles

Understanding philosophical principles such as Aristotle’s principles of rhetoric including ethos

(credibility), pathos (emotion) and logos (Logic) are fundamental to persuasive advocacy in the
court room and help lawyers analyze complex legal issues, anticipate counter arguments and
present their case effectively in court. Likewise, lawyers use these strategies to appeal to judges.

II. Philosophical theories /Jurisprudence

Understanding different theories of law such as natural law, legal positivism, utilitarianism,
social contract theory and legal realism help lawyers frame their arguments within broader
philosophical framework.

i. Natural Law

Examine the idea that certain laws are inherent in nature and can be discovered through reasons
regardless of human legislation. This concept can influence legal arguments about fundamental
rights and moral principle. A lawyer may argue for a particular legal decision unjust because it
violate fundamental human rights or natural law principle.

ii. Legal Positivism

Exploring the idea that the validity of law is derived from its authority rather than its moral
content. Legal positivism suggest that laws are valid simply because they have been enacted by a
legitimate authority regardless of their ethical implications. In case where the law is clear but
morally questionable a lawyer might argue that judge should interpret and apply the law as it is
written regardless of personal moral belief.
 iii. Utilitarianism

Considering the greatest good for the greatest number of people when making legal decisions.
This philosophy finds out the consequences of actions and can guide decisions related to public
policy and legislation. Maximize overall happiness or utility.

iv. Social Contract Theory

Analyzing the agreement among individuals to form a society and abide by its laws for mutual
benefit. This concept can inform discussions about the legitimacy of government authority and
the rights and responsibilities of citizens.

III. Persuasive Dialogue

Drawing from the works of philosophers like Plato and Socrates lawyers engage in persuasive
dialogue to convince judges of the validity of their arguments. They ask leading questions,
present compelling evidence and anticipate counterargument.

IV. Pragmatism

A pragmatic approach to argumentation skills involves focusing on practically effectiveness and

adaptability in presenting and defending one’s viewpoints. It emphasizes using logical reasoning,
evidence based arguments and clear communication to persuade others rather than relying solely
on emotional appeals or rigid ideologies. Incorporating pragmatic philosophy into argumentation
can enable lawyers to focus on practical solution and outcomes adapt their strategies to different
contexts and engage in constructive negotiation. An example could be negotiating a settlement to
avoid litigation.

III. THE ART OF PERSUASION FOR LAWYERS

Lawyers often rely on various persuasive technique to present their arguments convincingly such
as;

i. Maintain confidence

Project confidence, maintaining composure and delivering your arguments articulately but avoid
arrogance can enhance persuasiveness.
 ii. Use of evidence and logical reasoning

Lawyers use evidence and logical strategically to support their arguments. Presenting strong
evidence and making logical arguments are fundamental to persuasion in the legal context. This
can include citing legal precedent, witnesses, expert opinion or physical evidence to demonstrate
their knowledge and competence in the subject matter which can enhance their persuasive.

iii. Body language and delivery

The use of posture, gesture and tone of voice can influence how your arguments are received.

iv. Building Credibility

Establishing yourself as a credible and trustworthy advocate can enhance the persuasiveness of
your arguments. This involves maintaining professionalism, honesty and integrity throughout the
legal process.

v. Use of Language

Lawyers carefully choose their words, be flexible in their approach and willing to adjust strategy
based on how the case unfolds (open out something). Positive language can create a sense of
hope while negative language can highlight risk or consequences influencing the audience’s
perception and attitudes.

vi. Anticipate counterarguments

Pay attention to the others part’s arguments and addressing potential objections to strengthen
your case or your own position.

vii. Establish Common Ground

Find areas of agreement with the opposing side to foster goodwill and make it easier to persuade
on contentious issues (is the one that people are likely to argue about).

viii. Rhetorical technique

Rhetorical technique is persuasive device or method the speaker uses to convey the listener.
Lawyers employ persuasive language such as repetition, storytelling, emotional appeal to make
your arguments more persuasive and memorable. These techniques can help capture the
audience’s attention and move their opinion.

ix. Understand Audience

Know your audience whether it is a judges, opposing counsel and increase the effectiveness of
your arguments accordingly.

IV. THE USE OF LEGAL LANGUAGE

Legal language is a specialized form of language used in the field of law. It is precise, formal and
often complex aiming to convey exact meaning and interpretations to avoid ambiguity or
misinterpretation. Legal language used in drafting legal documents, statutes, regulations and
court proceeding, often incorporating Latin phrases to convey legal concepts accurately. It is
designed to be precise to ensure clarity and accurately convey legal rights, duties and obligations.
Understanding legal language requires familiarity with legal principles, statutes, case law and
terminology to ensure that arguments are interpreted correctly by judges and other legal
professional. Effective legal argumentation requires ability to use appropriate language.

HOW TO USE LEGAL LANGUAGE

Using legal language in argumentation can add weight and precision to your argument. By
following these guideline, you can effectively use legal language in law to communicate your
intentions, rights and obligation clearly and accurately.

i. Practice

Like any skill, using legal language in argumentation takes practice. Reviewing legal documents,
observing courtroom and engage in debates can help improve your proficiency.

ii. Be Precise

Legal language is known for its precision and specificity. Use clear and concise language to
articulate your point, avoiding ambiguity or vagueness to strength your argument. Define key
legal concepts clearly.
 iii. Know Your Legal Terms

Incorporate legal terminology where appropriate but ensure it is used correctly. Misuse of legal
terms can weaken your argument. Be familiar with legal terminology relevant to your argument
for example, use standard legal terminology and structure such as “whereas”, “hereby” and
“herein” in legal documents.

iv. Avoid Latin Phrases

While Latin phrases are common in legal language they can come across as confusing if
overused. Only use them when necessary and ensure your audience understands their meaning.

v. Be Objective

Legal language tends to be objective and impartial, avoiding emotional language and stick to
factual evidence and logical reasoning.

vi. Use Formal Structure

Structure your argument in a formal manner using headings, subheadings and numbered points to
organized your point effectively.

QUESTION

With vivid examples, illustrate how philosophical concepts underpin argumentation and
shape the way lawyers advocate for their clients in the court room.
 TOPIC FIVE
METHODS OF ARGUMENTATION AND ARGUMENTATION PROCESS

 Inductive Method
 Deductive Method
 Analogical Method
 Reasoning Process/Process of Thought
 Validity, Soundness and Truthfulness of Judgement in Argumentation

INDUCTIVE METHOD

It is a logical approach based upon with specific observation and form general conclusion.
Lawyers use inductive method with an observation, articulation of facts and evidence in line with
the law across various case so as to reach to the point of a judgement.

For example, a serious of court cases have consistently ruled that employers have a duty to
provide a safe working environment for their employees. Each case involved different
circumstances such as workplace hazard, accidents or negligence by the employer. Through
analyzing these specific cases legal scholars may induce a broader legal principle that employers
have a general obligation to ensure working place safety. Using the inductive method lawyers
can argue in a new case that the employer’s failure to provide a safe working environment
violates this broader legal principle established through previous cases. They would present
evidence from past case to support their argument and persuade the court to rule in favor of their
client.

Inductive can be strong or weak. If an inductive argument is strong the truth of the
premise would mean the conclusion is likely. If an inductive is weak the logic connecting
the premise and conclusion is incorrect. Inductive reasoning also involves critical thinking.
A conclusion can seem to be true at one point until further evidence emerges and a hypothesis
must be adjusted. When inductive is used in legal situation critical thinking is used to update the
likelihood of the accused being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as evidence is corrected.
For example, hypothetical criminal case, we can picture the utility of critical inference
combined with inductive reasoning. Let us say someone is murdered in a house where five other
adults were present at the time. One of them is primary suspect and there is no evidence of
anyone else entering the house. The initial probability of the prime suspects having committed
the murder is 20%. Other evidence then adjusts that probability, if the four other people testify
that they saw the suspect committing the murder, victims blood were found on the suspect
clothes. Judge may consider the probability of that person guilty to be closed enough to 100% to
convict.

Inductive method involves drawing probabilistic inferences from the given information.
When the category membership of an object is known with certainty.

For example, a man at robbery crime scene was carry a knife the process of inductive inference
is relatively straightforward. The knife was likely being used as a weapons in the robbery.
However, the evidence presented in criminal cases is typically different and cause of action with
uncertainty an eyewitness may not be certain about the identity of the object that the suspect was
holding.

In such cases inductive involves the consideration of multiple possible object categories that
may have different implications for judgements about the suspect guilty. If the accused was
thought to be caring a knife, then a judge may decide the accused as likely to be guilty of
committing a crime. If the suspect was holding a mobile phone the probability of guilty will be
much lower. Holding a knife referred to primary category, holding a mobile phone referred to
secondary category.

How judges respond to such uncertain alternative when making inferences about guilty or
innocence? The legal answer to this question is straightforward and perspective. Most criminal
jurisdictions specify that judge should consider all evidence presented at trial when determining
a suspect guiltiness or wrong.

CHARACTERISTICS OF INDUCTIVE METHOD

The process moves from specific observation to general conclusion

It is a bottom up approach because you start from observation and formulate hypothesis to reach
a conclusion.

The truth of the premises does not mean that the conclusion is true as well.

ADVANTAGE OF INDUCTIVE REASONING

Persuasive

Lawyers use inductive reasoning to build persuasive arguments by presenting a series of specific
examples that lead to a general conclusion, convincing judges of the validity of their position.

DEDUCTIVE METHOD

Deductive method is a logical approach based upon a general idea to specific conclusion. In law
deductive method is fundamental to logical reasoning and decision making. It involves starting
with general legal principles, statutes and precedents and then applying them to specific cases to
reach conclusion.

For example, if the law state that theft is illegal or a crime and evidence shows that someone
stealing. Deductive reasoning would conclude that the person broke the law.

Deductive reasoning is black and white a conclusion is either true or false and cannot be partly
true or partly false. We decide whether a deductive statement is true by assessing the strength of
the link between the premise and a conclusion.

CHARACTERISTICS OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING

Deductive method moves from general to specific to reach a conclusion.

It is a top down approach because it starts from general to specific.

The truth premise means the conclusion is true as well.

ADVANTAGES OF DEDUCTIVE METHOD

It helps to develop critical thinking skills

Critical thinking is the process of analyzing the facts in line in line with laws and evidence
provided so as to reach a better conclusion.

It is very useful during trials since it can help the judge to make good decision.

It involves an interpretation of the law from general to specific premises.

It helps lawyers to defend their clients.

Lawyers are in good position to use facts and evidence to pursue judges and magistrates to make
decision on their side.

It helps in dispensation of justice.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDUCTIVE REASONING AND DEDUCTIVE

REASONING

Both play crucial roles in logical thinking and problem solving often help to process information
evaluate argument and make conclusion.

By using both types of reasoning lawyers can combine the strength of each approach and avoid
the pitfall (difficult) of relying on one alone.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDUCTIVE REASONING AND DEDUCTIVE

REASONING

Inductive method starting from specific observation and form general conclusion while
deductive reasoning based upon a general rule to determine the appropriate outcome in a
specific case.

ANALOGICAL METHOD

An analogy means a comparison between two things. Analogical reasoning in law involves using
new or uncertain legal situations. Lawyers and judges often use analogical reasoning to apply
existing legal principles to new cases by identifying similarities between the facts and issues at
hand and those of previous cases. The rationale behind analogical argument is that rely on the
standard argument created from the bases of the original situation.

IMPORTANCE OF ANALOGICAL REASONING

i. It helps in maintaining consistency and fairness in legal judgement.

ii. It plays a crucial role in law by allowing legal professionals to apply precedents to new
cases.
iii. It helps in interpreting statutes, making legal arguments and predicting outcome based on
similar situation.

REASONING PROCESS/PROCESS OF THOUGHT

Reasoning process in law refer to the logical steps lawyers, judges and legal scholars use to build
arguments and reach conclusion based on legal principles, statutes, precedent and interpretation
of the law. It involves identifying relevant facts, applying relevant laws and precedents and
drawing conclusion supported by sound legal reasoning.

VALIDITY, SOUNDNESS AND TRUTHFULNESS OF JUDGEMENT IN

ARGUMENTATION

VALIDITY refers to the logical structure of an argument ensuring that the conclusion logically
follows from the premises/statements.

SOUNDNESS goes beyond validity by ensuring that argument is both valid and that all
statements are true.

TRUTHFULNESS guarantee the accuracy of the information presented within the argument. A
judgement in argumentation is valid if it follows logical rules, sound if its statements are true and
truthful if it accurately represents the facts.