Legal Reasoning ImportanceLegal reasoning is a vital skill that should be instilled to future lawyers.

. In Mariano Magsalins journal entitled:The State of Philippine Legal Education visited He said that The present legal education system does not properly inculcate the fundamental lawyering skills needed for the practice of law. In a recent study, the American Bar Association identified fundamental lawyering skills such as problem solving, communication and is also including the skill of legal reasoning. Legal reasoning is a multifaceted ability that is incorporated in legal knowledge and training. Law students should look into improving in this areas aforementioned. With this, to be able to better enhance our legal reasoning it pays to be a critical thinker in studying law rather than being faithful on what is tackled in books and articles pertaining to legal law. Harvard professor case method: Langdell believed that law is a science, and that students can best understand the law by reading the cases that create the law, rather than by reading treatises or listening to lectures that describe black letter rules of law Logical thinking is an essential skill for lawyers to provide valid reasoning. This could be achieve with the mastery in the basics of logic. Wherein the ability to analyse and process information is applied to the practice of law. What is logic? Definition of logic- Logic Maybe defined asthe science of the principles and conditions of correct thinking; or,in otherwords,the science which directs our mental operations in the discovery and proof of truth. Logic is a science in the sense that it is organized knowledge involving principles.() In this quote by Nicholas Lucas that encapsulates the true essence of logic in the practice of law and that is: It is by this mental training rather than by the explicit, positive knowledge of its technical rules,that logic gives us the power and habit of thinking clearly. This quote coincides with Aldiserts approach in teaching future lawyers not just to master the technicalities of the law subject but also learn to think critically and objectively of your legal opinions and legal arguments. The logical concepts that I will discuss later on played an important role in the foundation of our legal rules .From the Common law , we have adapted their principles and some of these principles form a part in our legal system. An example of a legal principle is Stare decisis. wherein this Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property are the same.[71] The doctrine of stare decisis is based upon the legal principle or rule involved and not upon the judgment, which results therefromG.R. No. 188302 () Another legal principle

The nature of this doctrine is a rule applicable to all question of law, whether declaring a principle of common law or the construction of a statute. Forms of Logical Reasoning First legal reasoning I will be discussing is the deductive reasoning. Ronald Granberg Deductive ReasoningIt contains syllogisms . A syllogism is a deductive scheme of a formal argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion. This can be seen applied to judicial opinions, briefs etc. An example is that a general rule is use as a major premise. Then construct a minor premise for the facts given. Afterwards, draw a conclusion based upon how that general rule applies to minor premise about facts. . . The basic idea of deductive reasoning is that if something is true of a class of things in general, this truth applies to all members of that class. One of the keys for sound deductive reasoning, then, is to be able to properly identify members of the class, because incorrect categorizations will result in unsound conclusions. -example: If A and B are true so must C Inductive Reasoning-the opposite of deductive reasoning. is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given. Rather than beginning with a general principle (People who comb their hair wake up on time), the chain of evidence begins with an observation and then combines it with the strength of previous observations in order to arrive at a conclusion. Example: Almost all people are taller than 26 inches Gareth is a person Therefore, Gareth is almost certainly taller than 26 inches Inductive Generalization- An inductive generalization generalizes from a sample to an entire class.is an argument in which a generalization is claimed to be probably true on the basis of information about a particular class. Example Most Republicans I know are conservative. Therefore, most Republicans are conservative Analogy(importance in the test of the validity of an argument)-forms of reasoning found in many legal systems, especially Common Law system when are two cases similarAn analogical argument in legal reasoning is an argument that a case should be treated in a certain way because that is the way a similar case has been treated.( Analogies do not bind: they must be considered along with other reasons in order to reach a result. That an analogy is rejected in one case does not preclude raising the analogy in a different nalogies, like precedents, arise within a doctrinal context. Analogical reasoning helps to make the outcome of cases more predictable by giving weight to existing legal decisions and doctrines Structure of analogy: A has a char C , b has a charac C, A also has charac D. Because A and B share C they must share D well.

Fallacy In constructing legal arguments, a lawyer should be heedful of not committing a fallacy that will defeat the soundness of his argument, because fallacies are extremely common. At first glance, they often seem persuasive. Because legal arguments can be quite complex, fallacies can be especially hard to detect in judicial opinions or legal arguments. A remedy for this is by familiarizing yourself to various fallacies to avoid error in reasoning.