Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An argument map or argument diagram is a visual representation of the structure of an argument.An argument map typically includes all the key components of the argument, traditionally called the conclusion and the premises, also called contention and reasons. [1]
An argument derived after an event, having the knowledge about the event. Inductive reasoning from observations and experiments. / ˌ eɪ ˌ p ɒ s t iː r i oʊ r aɪ / a priori: from earlier An argument derived before an event, without needing to have the knowledge about the event. Deductive reasoning from general principles. / ˌ eɪ p r aɪ ...
A simple concurring opinion arises when a judge joins the decision of the court but has something to add. Concurring in judgment means that the judge agrees with the majority decision (the case's ultimate outcome in terms of who wins and who loses) but not with the reasoning of the majority opinion (why one side wins and the other loses).
Persuasive definition – purporting to use the "true" or "commonly accepted" meaning of a term while, in reality, using an uncommon or altered definition. (cf. the if-by-whiskey fallacy) Ecological fallacy – inferring about the nature of an entity based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which that entity belongs. [27]
Only the reason for the decision of the majority can constitute a binding precedent, but all may be cited as persuasive, or their reasoning may be adopted in an argument. Apart from the rules of procedure for precedent, the weight given to any reported judgment may depend on the reputation of both the reporter and the judges. [7]
In the IRAC method of legal analysis, the "issue" is simply a legal question that must be answered. An issue arises when the facts of a case present a legal ambiguity that must be resolved in a case, and legal researchers (whether paralegals, law students, lawyers, or judges) typically resolve the issue by consulting legal precedent (existing statutes, past cases, court rules, etc.).
The arguments and reasoning of a dissenting judgment (the term used in the United Kingdom [14] also constitute obiter dicta. These, however, might also be cited should a court determine that its previous decision was in error, as when the United States Supreme Court cited Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dissent in Hammer v.
Arguments to definition are aimed to include certain objects into the extension of given definition – sometimes this might be the end of reasoning ("this is racism"). Obviously, the semantic modification is being introduced through persuasive definition in definition premise. Individual Premise: A possesses some property F.