We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
LOGIC, FALLACY, AND THE ART OF FRAMING A LEGAL ISSUE: THE TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER FALLACY.
- Authors
Rice, Stephen M.
- Abstract
Concepts of philosophical logic, like the Texas sharpshooter fallacy—the name given to an argument that assigns unwarranted significance to certain evidence—are useful tools for judges, lawyers, and law students seeking to develop new perspectives on common problems in legal argument. The tools of philosophical logic have been used for over one thousand years, providing objective frameworks for evaluating arguments. One such time-tested tool, the logical fallacy, is used in modern legal opinions on a weekly basis providing perspective, conceptual language, and reliable criteria for evaluating the persuasiveness of an argument’s design and propriety of framing of issues and evidence in legal arguments. The Texas sharpshooter fallacy, like other logical fallacies, has been used by lawyers and judges to explain why legal arguments are not always effectively designed and why one argument’s design might be more persuasive than another’s. This article explains how learning about the Texas sharpshooter fallacy and its application in legal argument unlocks new perspectives on thinking about legal argument that go beyond arguing about the facts and the law. It empowers new thinking about framing legal issues and encourages legal thinkers to consider, evaluate, and discuss the design of legal argument as much as they consider the persuasive value of law and the facts.
- Subjects
SHOOTERS of firearms; LEGAL liability; COMMON law; PERSUASION (Rhetoric); CRITICAL thinking
- Publication
University of Louisville Law Review, 2023, Vol 62, Issue 1, p133
- ISSN
1942-9274
- Publication type
Article