Rule Statements, Analogical Reasoning and Counteranalysis: every key term you need (+ practice quiz)
25 flashcard terms for Legal Research and Writing Topic 6, written to match the course framework. Study them here, then drill them as interactive flashcards, or test yourself with the 15-question quiz — free, no account needed.
A precise sentence or short set of sentences declaring what the law requires, drawn from enacted text and synthesized case law, written so a reader can apply it without reading the sources.
Synthesized rule
A rule assembled from several decisions that accounts for every outcome in the line, stated as a general proposition with its qualifications rather than as a list of case summaries.
Rule proof
The demonstration, through citation and case illustration, that the stated rule is really the law of the jurisdiction, including the authority for each qualification asserted.
Case illustration
A compact paragraph giving a prior case's key facts, its holding, and the court's reason, written so the reader can see the pattern the rule follows in practice.
Analogical reasoning
Arguing that the client's case should come out like a prior case because the facts the earlier court found decisive are present here in substantially the same form.
Distinguishing a case
Arguing that a prior decision does not control because a fact the earlier court treated as decisive is absent or reversed, or because the legal question differs.
Factual comparison
Placing a specific client fact beside the corresponding fact from a precedent and explaining why the similarity or difference matters under the rule's rationale.
Rationale based analogy
Comparing cases at the level of the reason behind the rule rather than surface facts, which is stronger because it survives factual differences the rule never cared about.
Counteranalysis
The good faith development of the strongest opposing argument, including the best adverse authority and the most damaging facts, followed by an assessment of its likely force.
Rebuttal
The response to the counterargument, which must engage its logic rather than restate the original position, and which should concede where the opposing point genuinely has weight.
Conclusory analysis
Writing that asserts a legal conclusion without connecting facts to the rule's language or to precedent, the most common and most fatal defect in first year legal writing.
Fact to element linkage
Explicitly naming which client fact satisfies which part of the test, so the reader never has to guess why a fact was mentioned or which requirement it addresses.
Policy argument
Reasoning from the consequences a rule produces, such as deterrence, administrability, fairness, or notice, used where authority runs out or where the court must choose between readings.
Slippery slope argument
A consequential argument that adopting the opponent's reading would compel unacceptable results in foreseeable future cases, most effective when a concrete example is supplied.
Reductio argument
Showing that the opposing interpretation produces an absurd or self contradictory result, which pressures the court to prefer the reading that keeps the statute coherent.
Burden of proof
Which party must establish a proposition and to what degree of certainty, a point that often decides close cases and that a rule statement should specify when it is contested.
Question of law
An issue resolved by the court through interpretation, such as the meaning of a statute or whether a duty exists, reviewed independently on appeal.
Question of fact
An issue about what happened, ordinarily for the jury, which shapes how a memo predicts outcomes because a genuine factual dispute defeats summary disposition.
Mixed question
An issue applying a legal standard to established facts, such as whether conduct was reasonable, which draws review standards that vary by jurisdiction and subject.
Strongest argument first
The ordering principle that within an issue the most powerful supporting authority and reasoning come first, because reader attention and energy decline as the section proceeds.
Concession
Acknowledging a point that cannot be won, which preserves credibility and lets the writer redirect attention to the ground where the case is actually decided.
Adverse authority duty
The professional obligation, reflected in Model Rule 3.3, to disclose controlling authority in the jurisdiction directly adverse to the client's position when opposing counsel has not.
Analogous jurisdiction argument
Urging adoption of a sister state or federal rule by showing the forum's existing doctrine shares the same premises, which is how first impression questions are usually argued.
Rule with exceptions
A statement that gives the general requirement and then each recognized carve out with its own authority, so a reader can see immediately whether the client falls into an exception.
Level of generality problem
The difficulty that any rule can be stated broadly or narrowly, so a writer must choose the statement the authorities support rather than the one that flatters the client.