JD Juris Doctor: Logical Reasoning 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: In a common law negligence case, a court reasons: 'In cases A, B, and C, defendants who failed to warn were liable. Defendant here also failed to warn. Therefore, defendant is liable.' This is an example of:
- Deductive reasoning from a statute
- Analogical (inductive) reasoning from precedent (Correct answer)
- A priori reasoning
- Syllogistic deduction from a constitutional rule
Correct answer: Analogical (inductive) reasoning from precedent
Common law reasoning by analogy to prior cases is a form of inductive reasoning—moving from specific instances to a general rule applied to new facts.
Question 2: Which of the following best illustrates a 'straw man' fallacy in legal argument?
- Citing a case that is factually distinguishable
- Misrepresenting the opposing party's argument so it is easier to refute (Correct answer)
- Relying on a statute that has been amended
- Using an expert whose credentials are disputed
Correct answer: Misrepresenting the opposing party's argument so it is easier to refute
A straw man fallacy attacks a weakened or distorted version of the opponent's actual argument rather than the argument itself.
Question 3: A contract clause states: 'Seller warrants the goods are merchantable unless the buyer inspects the goods before purchase.' Buyer inspects but goods are still defective. Under strict logical reading, is the warranty disclaimed?
- Yes, because inspection always disclaims the warranty
- Yes, because inspection before purchase triggers the exception (Correct answer)
- No, because inspection is a necessary but not sufficient condition to disclaim
- No, because 'unless' functions as a biconditional here
Correct answer: Yes, because inspection before purchase triggers the exception
The clause creates a conditional: if buyer inspects, the warranty is excluded—the exception is triggered by the inspection itself.
Question 4: A court holds that a statute is ambiguous. Under the rule of lenity, the court should:
- Construe the ambiguity in favor of the government
- Construe the ambiguity against the government in criminal cases (Correct answer)
- Refer the ambiguity to the legislature for clarification
- Apply the narrowest possible reading regardless of who benefits
Correct answer: Construe the ambiguity against the government in criminal cases
The rule of lenity requires courts to resolve genuine statutory ambiguity in criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.
Question 5: Plaintiff argues: 'Defendant had a duty; defendant breached it; I was harmed; therefore defendant is liable.' Defendant responds that Plaintiff's harm was caused by an unforeseeable intervening act of a third party. This response attacks which element of the argument?
- Duty
- Breach
- Causation (proximate cause) (Correct answer)
- Damages
Correct answer: Causation (proximate cause)
An unforeseeable superseding cause breaks the chain of proximate causation, attacking the causal link in the negligence analysis.
Question 6: Which of the following is an example of the fallacy of 'begging the question' (circular reasoning) in legal argument?
- Arguing a statute is unconstitutional because it violates the Constitution, without explaining how (Correct answer)
- Citing a case from a different jurisdiction
- Raising a new argument for the first time on appeal
- Relying on legislative history that contradicts the statute's text
Correct answer: Arguing a statute is unconstitutional because it violates the Constitution, without explaining how
Begging the question occurs when the conclusion is assumed in the premise—asserting unconstitutionality based solely on 'it violates the Constitution' adds nothing.
Question 7: A judge applies 'Chevron deference' by (1) finding the statute ambiguous and (2) deferring to the agency's reasonable interpretation. Logically, what assumption underlies step 2?
- Courts have superior expertise over agencies in statutory construction
- Congress implicitly delegated interpretive authority to the agency when it left the statute ambiguous (Correct answer)
- The agency's interpretation is the only permissible one
- Ambiguous statutes are automatically unconstitutional
Correct answer: Congress implicitly delegated interpretive authority to the agency when it left the statute ambiguous
Chevron rests on the premise that statutory ambiguity signals an implicit congressional delegation of gap-filling authority to the responsible agency.
JD Juris Doctor: Logical Reasoning 3
In a common law negligence case, a court reasons: 'In cases A, B, and C, defendants who failed to warn were liable.
Defendant here also failed to warn.
Therefore, defendant is liable.' This is an example of: