Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 10 (2017)


Thinking Like a Lawyer. Two Determinants of Legal Reasoning

DOI:  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2017-12-31


This paper aims to show circumstances deciding on legal reasoning. This is undertaken with reference to the rhetorical concept of an argument and in regard to attributes of legal interpretation. Thus, on the basis of an argument conceived as a set of utterances, the author investigates utterances formulated in a perspective of law application. Then, there are examined points of common agreement among legal scholars on rules of legal interpretation. The received data disclose two determinants of legal reasoning.


  1. Aldisert, Ruggero J. 1997. Logic for Lawyers: A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking. Boulder: NITA. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander, Larry. 1998. "The Banality of Legal Reasoning." Notre Dame Law Review 73(3):517-534. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexy, Robert. 1991. Theorie der juristischen Argumentation: Die Theorie des rational en Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begriindung. franfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alexy, Robert. 2010. Teoria praw podstawowych, translated by Bożena Kwiatkowska, and Jerzy Zajadło, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe. [Google Scholar]
  5. Atria, Fernando. 2001. On Law and Legal Reasoning. Oxford-Portland: Hart Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  6. Barszcz, Tomasz. 2015. "On the argumentative structure of the references of the term "argument" in legal discourse." Argumentum 11:38-47. [Google Scholar]
  7. Brewer, Scott. 1996. "Exemplary Reasoning: Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Rational Force of Legal Argument by Analogy." Harvard Law Review 109(5):923-1028. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brożek, Bartosz. 2008. "Analogy in Legal Discourse." Archiv for Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 94(2):188-201. [Google Scholar]
  9. Burton, Steven J. 2007. An Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning. New York: Aspen Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chauvin, Tatiana, Tomasz Stawecki, and Piotr Winczorek. 2014. Wstęp do prawoznawstwa. Ed. 9. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. New York: Gerald Duckworth & Co Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hart, Herbert L.A. 1994. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kahane, Howard, and Nancy M. Cavender. 2013. Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kennedy, Duncan. 1976. "Form and Substance in Private Law Adjudication." Harvard Law Review 89:1685-1778. [Google Scholar]
  15. Korolko, Mirosław. 1990. Sztuka retoryki. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kość, Antoni. 2005. Zasady filozofii prawa. Lublin: Petit. [Google Scholar]
  17. Levi, Edward H. 1948. "An Introduction to Legal Reasoning." University of Chicago Law Review 15(3):501-574. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lewandowski, Sławomir. 2013. Retoryczne i logiczne podstawy argumentacji prawniczej. Warszawa: LexisNexis Polska. [Google Scholar]
  19. Marciszewski, Witold. 1994. Sztuka rozumowania w świetle logiki. Warszawa: Aleph. [Google Scholar]
  20. Mclnerny, Ralph. 1996. Aquinas and Analogy. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press. [Google Scholar]
  21. Morawski, Lech. 2006. Zasady wykładni prawa. Torm1: Dom Organizatora. [Google Scholar]
  22. Natt Gantt TI, Larry O. 2007. "Deconstructing Thinking Like a Lawyer: Analyzing the Cognitive Components of the Analytical Mind." Campbell Law Review 29(3):413-482. [Google Scholar]
  23. Oaksford, Michael. 2003. "Reasoning." In Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, edited by Nadel Lynn, 863-869. Vol. Ill. London-Tokio-New York: Nature Publishing Group. [Google Scholar]
  24. Perelman, Chaïm. 1966. "Judicial Reasoning." Israel Law Review 1(3):373-375. [Google Scholar]
  25. Perelman, Chaïm. 1976. Logique juridique. Nouvelle rhetorique. Paris: Dalloz. [Google Scholar]
  26. Perelman, Chaïm. 2002. L'empire rhetorique: rhetorique et argumentation. Paris: Vrin-Bibliotheque des Textes Philosophiques. [Google Scholar]
  27. Postema, Gerald J. 2007. "A similibus ad similia: Analogical thinking in law." In Common Law Theory, edited by Douglas E. Edlin, 102-133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pulka, Zbigniew. 2010. "Argumentacja prawnicza." In Wprowadzenie do nauk prawnych. Leksykon tematyczny, edited by Andrzej Bator, 244-249. Warszawa: LexisNexis. [Google Scholar]
  29. Read, William. 1986. Legal Thinking. Its Limits and Tensions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sagan, Carl. 1996. Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. London: Headline Book Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  31. Savellos, Elias, and Richard F. Galvin. 2000. Reasoning and the Law: The Elements. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  32. Soccio, Douglas J., and Vincent E. Barry. 1991. Practical Logic. An Antidote for Uncritical Thinking. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  33. Stelmach, Jerzy, and Bartosz Brożek. 2006. Methods of Legal Reasoning. New York: Springer Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  34. Struck, Gerhard. 1971. Topische Jurisprudenz: Argument und Gemeinplatz in der juristischen Arbeit. Frankfurt: Athenaum Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  35. Vandevelde, Kenneth J. 2011. Thinking Like a Lawyer: An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Boulder: Westview Press. [Google Scholar]
  36. Weinreb, Lloyd L. 2005. Legal Reason. The Use Of Analogy In Legal Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ziembiński, Zygmunt. 1976. Practical Logic. Dordrecht-Boston: Reidel. [Google Scholar]


Download data is not yet available.