Legal Reasoning

Legal reasoning is the way lawyers and judges talk publicly about the law. This legal language gives us the tools to tell the difference between impartial and partisan legal decisions. Legal reasoning also provides a language tool, which enables people of different beliefs and worldviews to arbitrate their differences in a way that is acceptable to all, resulting in decisions that are seen as legitimate in a pluralistic society.

Legal reasoning matters, because it is the means by which judges can convince us of their integrity. Even though we disagree with the decision we may not disagree with the way the decision was made.

Deductive and Inductive Reasoning:

Deductive reasoning
Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories.
In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class. For example, "All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal." For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the premises, "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true.
It's possible to come to a logical conclusion even if the generalization is not true. If the generalization is wrong, the conclusion may be logical, but it may also be untrue. For example, the argument, "All bald men are grandfathers. Harold is bald. Therefore, Harold is a grandfather," is valid logically but it is untrue because the original statement is false.

Inductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here’s an example: "Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald." The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements.
Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories. Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations.   

Elements:

Elements	Definition	Issue	Decision
1. Case Facts	Testimony as to what happened that is preserved as evidence in a trial.	Did the Judge follow the facts as established in the trial, or did he ignore them?	Yes Good Reasoning	No Poor Reasoning. Judge is not persuasive that he arrived at his decision fairly.
2. Social Background Facts	How we believe the world works. The facts, conditions, events that we observe as to how the world works.	Did the Judge give due recognition to facts that we observe on how the world works.	Yes Good Reasoning. Reflects reality.	No. Judge lives on another planet and only commutes to Earth.
3. Rules of Law	Uses the official legal texts in their hierarchy of value that are intended for cases like this	Did the Judge read the texts correctly and use them in their proper hierarchy.	Yes. Good authority for the decision	No. Authority for the decision is not creditable.
4.Widely Share Moral Values and Social Principles	A due recognition that some things are right and some things are wrong as acceptable social behavior	Did the Judge follow the community's consensus about moral values and social principles	Yes. Decision fits moral code of community	No. Decision is contrary to the accepted moral code of the community. Therefore it is not what the law ought to be.