I N G O UT TH E A RG UM E NT

ROUGH
BALANCED PRESENTATION
• 1. A CLEAR STATEMENT OF YOUR THESIS OR WHERE YOU STAND ON THE
ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED;
• 2. THE ARGUMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE AGAINST YOUR POSITION BUT WITH
AN EXPLANATION THAT THOSE ARGUMENTS DO NOT DOOM SUCH POSITION;
• 3. THE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF YOUR POSITION; AND
• 4. AN APPEAL TO THE GOOD SENSE OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO WILL
RESOLVE THE ISSUE
“ PLAN AND ROUGH OUT A BALANCED
APPROACH TO YOUR ARGUMENTS
BEFORE WRITING THEM UP.
”
BALANCE SHEET

• STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE: W/N RONALD RAPED JULIA

• THESIS STATEMENT/PROPOSITION: RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA

 (WHERE YOU STAND ON THE ISSUE)
RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA
(Arguments Against You)
(Arguments that can be made against you)
(Arguments For You)
(How such arguments do not doom your case)
(Positive arguments in your favor)

(Appeal to Your Reader’s Good Sense)

ANATOMY OF A LEGAL ARGUMENT
Major premise: People who lie cannot be believed.

Minor premise: Amando lied in his testimony.

Conclusion: Therefore, Amando cannot be believed.

“ EVERY SOUND LEGAL ARGUMENT IS A
COMBINATION OF THE RIGHT RULE AND
THE RIGHT FACT.
”
ANATOMY OF A LEGAL ARGUMENT
State the rule (rule statement): Any person who, with intent to gain, but without
violence against or intimidation of person nor force upon things, shall take the
property of another without the latter’s consent, shall be punished for theft.
State the fact/s in the case (case fact statement): Cesar took, with intent to gain,
Mario’s cellphone from his desk when his back was turned and without his
consent.
State your conclusion (conclusion statement): Consequently, Cesar is guilty of theft.
THE KEY FACT IN RULES
State the rule (rule statement): Any person who, with intent to gain, but without
violence against or intimidation of person nor force upon things, shall take the
property of another without the latter’s consent, shall be punished for theft. (key
fact)
“ ONLY WHEN THE ‘KEY FACT’ EXISTS IN A
PARTICULAR CASE, I.E., IN THE ‘CASE FACT’
WILL THE RULES APPLY TO SUCH CASE.
”
THE CASE FACT
 (WHERE YOU STAND ON THE ISSUE)
RONALD RAPED JULIA
(Arguments Against You) (Arguments For You)

Being sweethearts, it was Ronald was only a suitor

not likely for Ronald to
rape Julia.
 (WHERE YOU STAND ON THE ISSUE)
RONALD RAPED JULIA
(Arguments Against You) (Arguments For You)

Being sweethearts, it was But, uncorroborated,

not likely for Ronald to Ronald’s claim is self-serving
rape Julia. since Julia never admitted it.
If so, being only a suitor, he
was capable of the crime.
 (WHERE YOU STAND ON THE ISSUE)
RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA
(Arguments Against You) (Arguments For You)

Vaginal lacerations As a virgin, Julia could

usually found in rape have vaginal lacerations
victims were found in during consented sex.
Julia.
 (WHERE YOU STAND ON THE ISSUE)
RONALD RAPED JULIA
(Arguments Against You)
Because women will rarely admit to
having been raped unless true, a rape
victim’s testimony can stand alone.
(Arguments For You)
But, not when the woman’s testimony
is inherently incredible.
Absence of bruises on her body despite
the rough ground negates rape by use of
force.

It is but fair that testimony inconsistent with common experience is not believed.
EXAMPLES OF ARGUMENTS THAT BUILD UP

• A.
THE FAVORABLE TESTIMONY COMES FROM A
CREDIBLE WITNESS.
• B. THE PARTY’S VERSION IS INHERENTLY CREDIBLE
AND CONSISTENT WITH COMMON EXPERIENCE.
• C. ALL THE ELEMENTS OR REQUISITES OF A VALID
CLAIM OR DEFENSE HAVE BEEN PROVEN.
EXAMPLES OF ARGUMENTS THAT DESTROY
• A. THE ARGUMENT IS IRRELEVANT.
• B. THE ARGUMENT HAS LITTLE WEIGHT.
• C. THE ARGUMENT IS BASELESS.
• D. THE ARGUMENT IS CONTRARY TO COMMON EXPERIENCE.
• E. THE ARGUMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH UNDENIABLE
FACTS.

• F. THE ARGUMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH PRIOR CLAIM.

PRE-WORK REVIEWED
A.Ascertain the legal dispute.

B.Make an outline of the relevant facts.

C.Identify the issues.

D.Rough out your argument.

THA N K Y OU