Once the judge has investigated and investigated an event or event, it means that he or she must «solve legal problems» and is obliged to find solutions or answers. This is because in life in society, there are problems of the same life. But the judge, as the person competent to give his answer/judgment, must be able to find the right. Therefore, the previous judge must be able to choose the problem and then formulate the law. Once a judge has determined the law of the event or incident, he or she must resolve the legal issues. The same thing was explained by R.G. Soekadijo about logic. The word «logic» as a term means a method or technique created to study the accuracy of thought. To understand logic, one must have a clear understanding of reasoning. Reasoning is a form of thinking.
As with other forms of thought, the simplest is understanding or concept (conceptus, concept), sentence or utterance (proposition, statement) and thought (ratio cinium, reasoning). There is no sentence without understanding (concept) and no reasoning without sentence. To understand thought, the three forms of thought must be understood together. Legal reasoning is defined as a search for «reason» about the law or basic research about how a judge decides a legal case. Legal reasoning is part of the court`s decision when deciding a case. A judge`s legal reasoning may be based on philosophical, legal, sociological or theological aspects that reflect the principles of legal certainty, justice and expediency for the parties, and may apply various methods of legal interpretation. This course introduces students before law to the role of basic deductive and inductive logic in the context of legal reasoning, including the application of legislation and the application of precedents. This course is ideal for students planning to attend law school. It will explain the basic logic of the LSAT exam and introduce students to the types of reasoning and reasoning that occur in the study of law. Questions about logical reasoning do not require special knowledge of logical terminology. For example, you don`t need to know the meaning of technical terms such as «ad hominem» or «syllogism.» On the other hand, you will be asked to understand and criticize the reasoning contained in the arguments. To do this, it is important to understand concepts such as argumentation, premise, hypothesis, and conclusion at the university level.
If you are not familiar with these concepts, it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with them. Explanations of these concepts and their use can be found in Questions about logical reasoning in SuperPrep and SuperPrep II. Etymologically, logic comes from the Greek word logikos, which means «to refer to knowledge», «to relate to language». The Latin word logos (logia) means word or word. David Stewart and H. Gene Blocker formulate logic as the thought of thought in the book Fundamentals of Philosophy. Patterson formulated logic as «the rules of righteous thought.» Irving M. Copi, in the book Introduction to Logic, formulates logic as «a science that studies the methods and laws used to distinguish correct thinking from false thinking.» While reasoning is the activity of reason to understand the meaning of each term in a sentence, connect one sentence to another sentence and draw conclusions based on those sentences. It is therefore clear that thought is a form of thought. The student will read Brown v. Board of Education and write a 2-3 page response that identifies the categorical syllogism, main premise and secondary premise, and explains how the premises and conclusion were determined.
The student will also discuss whether the court`s reasoning was logical. There are many social problems in society. Among the many social problems, we must be able to find or select the legal problem that must then be formulated and solved. It is not easy to choose legal issues from social issues that often overlap with legal issues and are difficult to delineate, such as political issues, moral issues, religious issues, etc. Here, the ability to select legal problems and then formulate them (identification of legal problems) is important. Another form of thinking besides induction is argumentation by deduction. Ross (2006), following Aristotle`s definition, argues that the syllogism is a fundamental form of deduction argumentation. The syllogism (deduction) is formulated as «an act of the mind in which we derive a third sentence from the relationship of two sentences to each other, that is, to understand and affirm». R.G. Soekadijo in the book Basic Logic: Traditional, Symbolic, and Inductive formulates the syllogism as a process of conclusions that depart from the universal proposition as a premise.
Logically, we can formulate a deduction or syllogism as a process of drawing conclusions that deviate from a universal sentence as a premise in order to arrive at a conclusion or conclusion in the form of a universal, special or singular sentence. For the reasoning of induction and deduction to be valid, the rules or laws of inference of these two models of argumentation must be observed. Legal reasoning is divided into two meanings, namely a broad sense and a narrow sense. In the broadest sense, legal reasoning has to do with the psychological process that the judge follows to arrive at the decision or case he or she is facing. The study of legal reasoning in the broad sense concerns aspects of psychology and aspects of biography. In the meantime, it refers in a narrower sense to the arguments on which a decision is based. This study deals with examining the logic of a decision. It therefore refers to the types of arguments, the relationship between reason (reasoning, alas) and the decision, and the precision of the reasons or considerations that support the decision.
LSAT logical reasoning questions are designed to assess your ability to study, analyze, and critically evaluate arguments as they appear in everyday language. These questions are based on brief arguments from a variety of sources, including newspapers, general interest journals, scientific publications, advertisements and informal speeches. These arguments reflect legal reasoning in the types of arguments advanced and in their complexity, although few of them actually deal with the law. In this context, the 3 levels of rational legal reasoning are as et.al by E.T. Feteris. (Drie niveaous van rationale jurisdische argumentatie), including: Even though many have met the same judge, it turns out that there are differences in the judgments. The prosecutor in charge of the investigation of the Attorney General`s Office has already charged him with alleged corruption, presumed satisfaction and money laundering. Essentially, Indonesia adheres to a legal system that includes the Anglo-Saxon (common law) legal system.
When judges in Indonesia adhere to the principle of «binding force of precedent» (the principle of precedent). A principle that obliges a judge to follow the judgment of another judge in a similar case or in the same case or a different concept is the principle of Similia Similibus (in the same case, it must be decided in the same way). With regard to court decisions, the theory of Stare Decisis Et Queita Nonmovere shows that the current court decision must decide for the same case in the same way as it was decided in the past. If the judge deviates from the judge`s previous decision in the same case, this can be done by providing a clear and logical reason (legal reasoning). Judges should be careful, systematic and with a correct and good Indonesian in formulating and deciding a case with legal considerations or legal reasons. The considerations are carefully compiled, which means that the legal considerations must be comprehensive, including the facts of events, the legal facts, the formulation of the legal facts, the application of legal norms both in positive law, customary law, jurisprudence and legal theories, as well as others, on the basis of the aspects and methods of interpretation of the law that are used in the compilation of arguments (reasons) or Legal bases in the judge`s decision is appropriate. As you may know, arguments are a fundamental part of the law, and argument analysis is a key element of legal analysis. Legal education is based on critical thinking skills. As a law student, you need to leverage the skills to analyze, evaluate, construct, and refute arguments.
You need to be able to identify information relevant to a problem or argument and the impact that other evidence might have. And you have to be able to reconcile opposing positions and use arguments to convince others. Any question about logical reasoning requires you to read and understand a short passage, and then answer one (or rarely two) question about it. The questions are designed to assess a wide range of skills associated with critical thinking, with a focus on skills that have proven essential to legal reasoning.