💡Tired of Studying?There's a shortcut.
Hire an expert to take your LSAT!Harder Must Be True Questions
The Daily Gazette - MBT Question
Lesson Note
No note. Click here to write note.
Click here to reset
Caffeine is Addictive - MBT Question
Lesson Note
No note. Click here to write note.
Click here to reset
Athletes and Drugs - MBT Question
Lesson Note
No note. Click here to write note.
Click here to reset
Multiauthored Technical Articles - MBT Question
Lesson Note
No note. Click here to write note.
Click here to reset
Public Funding - MBT Question
Lesson Note
No note. Click here to write note.
Click here to reset
Legal Arguments Use the Same Logic
If you feel like the past few lessons have been a lot, that's because they have been. If you've never encountered formal arguments in college, say through a logic class, then it'll take some time for you to get comfortable with it.
Needless to say, you already know that becoming proficient in the logic of arguments matters for your LSAT score but perhaps you'll also find this to be motivating: legal arguments operate by the same logic.
Legal reasoning works by constructing arguments out of legal premises to support legal conclusions.
The premises come in two varieties. One type is called "laws" which are just conditional rules. The other type is called "facts" which either trigger or don't trigger the conditions in the rules. In the event that the right conditions are triggered, we get to draw valid legal conclusions.
Perhaps you've never encountered a legal argument so what I've just said seems like nonsense. That's okay.
Legal Argument
Let's take a look at a legal argument. I've already said that the underlying logic will be the same as what we've been learning. The only difference is that now we'll constrain the applicability of that logic to a narrow domain, that of the law. Actually, even narrower, since we'll be looking only at Criminal Law.
Consider this argument:
On Tuesday night, without the owner's permission, Attila, intending to steal his neighbor's tv, broke into his neighbor's house. If a person knowingly enters, without permission, someone else's home, then that person has committed trespass. Therefore, Attila has committed trespass.
Let's break this argument down.
Premise (the law): If a person knowingly enters someone else's home without the owner's permission, then that person has committed trespass.
Premise (the facts): Attila didn't have permission. He knowingly entered his neighbor's house because he broke in with the intent to steal something.
(Legal) Conclusion: Attila has committed trespass.
Not bad right? The law is a fairly straightforward conditional. The facts here satisfy or trigger those conditions. That in turn enables us to draw the valid legal conclusion.
Admittedly, legal arguments that you'll actually encounter in law school and beyond will be more complicated but that doesn't change the fact that they will all have this logical form.
Let's look at something more complicated. But, instead of looking at an explicit legal argument, we'll look at a multiple choice question from the bar exam. That's the exam you'll take in a few years to get your license to practice law.
Question from the Bar Exam
Attila suggested to his friend Lushan that they steal a large-screen TV from a neighbor’s house. Lushan was angry with Attila and decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested. Lushan said he would help, and that night, he drove Attila to the neighbor’s house. Attila broke in while Lushan remained outside. Lushan called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as Attila was carrying the TV out the back door.
Of what crime, if any, as defined at common law, can Attila be properly convicted?
(A) No crime.
(B) Larceny.
(C) Burglary.
(D) Burglary and larceny.
What's going on here?
Well, one way you can frame that question is by asking what the right answer is. But another way you can frame that question is by viewing each answer as a possible conclusion and only one of them is properly supported by the facts (premises) in the stimulus.
So the two questions are equivalent. What's the right answer is the same question as what's the properly supported conclusion.
Okay, so what is the right / proper conclusion?
Well, that's not something we can figure out unless we know what the law is and you no doubt noticed that "the law" has been omitted from the question. What is "larceny" or "burglary" at "common law?" That's kind of the point of the bar exam. You're supposed to know.
But whatever, there's plenty of time for you to learn the law in law school and as you prep for the bar exam. Right now, I only want to emphasize the logical form of the argument, whatever the law happens to be.
Law / Rule / Conditional Premise
Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it.
The "is" in that statement is doing a lot of work. It's laying out a bi-conditional. If you satisfy all the elements, then you've committed larceny. If you fail any element, you've not committed larceny. In other words, those elements are jointly sufficient and independently necessary for larceny. Jointly sufficient meaning if you satisfy all of them, that's sufficient for larceny. Independently necessary meaning if you fail even one of them, then there is no larceny.
Now that we have this law, this rule, this conditional premise, we can use it along with the other premises, i.e. the facts, to see if a valid conclusion can be drawn. Are the conditions of larceny (called "elements") satisfied? There are many conditions (or elements) so let's look at each in turn.
Was there "trespass?" Yes, because Attila had no permission to be in the house.
Was there "taking and carrying away?" Yes, because Attila took and carried away (even a short distance counts) the tv.
Was the tv the "property of another?" Yes, because the neighbor owned the tv.
Was there "intent to permanently deprive the owner of [the tv]?" Yes, because that's the whole point of enacting a plan to steal something.
So, each element or piece of the sufficient conditions for larceny is satisfied. That allows us to validly draw the legal conclusion that Attila has committed larceny. That means we can eliminate (A) and (C).
To decide between (B) and (D), we need to know if we can validly conclude that Attila has committed burglary as well.
Burglary is the breaking and entering into a dwelling house at nighttime with the intent to commit a felony therein.
Was there "breaking and entering?" Yes, because Attila "broke in" and entered.
Was this a "dwelling house?" Yes, because it's the neighbor's "house" where the neighbor lives.
Was it "at night?" Yes, because it said so.
Was there "intent to to commit a felony therein?" Yes, though you'd have to already know another piece of law, namely, that larceny is a felony. Because Attila intended to commit larceny and larceny is a felony, Attila satisfies this element.
Therefore, we can validly draw the legal conclusion that Attila has committed burglary as well. That means the correct answer is (D), Attila has committed both larceny and burglary.
Okay, so as you might have suspected, even what we just did was a simplified version of an actual bar prep question. If you want to see the original, you may do so here. As you think about the question and listen to Prof. Epps explain the correct answer, you might feel a bit overwhelmed by unfamiliar concepts and jargon. But I want you to see if you can nonetheless extract the logic of the argument from the full version of the question. I think you can. And I think you'll see that even though the laws are a bit different (and perhaps more complex), the logic is exactly the same.
Lesson Note
No note. Click here to write note.
Click here to reset