why critical thinking is important in law

Critical Thinking: An Essential Skill for Law Students, Lawyers, Law Professors, and Judges

Kindle Direct Publishing 2022

17 Pages Posted: 26 Jul 2022

Edwin S. Fruehwald

Independent

Date Written: July 16, 2022

Critical thinking is essential for law students, lawyers, law professors, and judges. Yet law schools have never systematically taught critical thinking to their students. The main purpose of this book is to help law students, lawyers, law professors, and judges become critical thinkers. Chapter One introduces the reader to the need for critical thinking in the law, and it will give two methods of evaluating how critical thinking works within legal education. Chapter Two helps the reader understand the basics of critical thinking. Most scholars think that critical thinking is domain specific, so Chapter Three presents the domain of the law. Chapter Four introduces an important facet of critical thinking–self-regulated (self-directed) learning. Chapter Five applies critical thinking basics to law’s domain, and it presents the details of critical thinking in the law. Chapter Six demonstrates how critical thinking can produce better legal writers. Chapter Seven focuses on judges and critical thinking. Chapter Eight shows how critical thinking can make you a better law professor. Chapter Nine shows how critical thinking processes can improve the use of the Socratic method in legal education. The final chapter brings everything together and highlights the most important aspects of critical thinking for law students, lawyers, law professors, and judges. Two appendices contain sample Socratic dialogues that employ critical thinking. I have included exercises and problems on critical thinking throughout the book.

Keywords: Critical Thinking, Legal Education, Lawyers, Judges

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Edwin S. Fruehwald (Contact Author)

Independent ( email ), do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on ssrn, paper statistics, related ejournals, social sciences education ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Legal Education eJournal

Legal writing ejournal.

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

Clinical Law Teaching & Practice eJournal

Law educator: courses, materials & teaching ejournal.

Subscribe to this journal for more curated articles on this topic

Law & Society: The Legal Profession eJournal

Law, brain & behavior ejournal, cognitive psychology ejournal.

Developing Critical Thinking Through the Study of Law

By major taren wellman, assistant professor, u.s. air force academy, break it down to build it up.

A Practical Approach to Develop Critical Thinking

For better or worse, the military has a reputation for breaking people down before building them back up.  The military throws recruits into immersive training programs with the end goal of replacing many individual tendencies, assumptions, and behaviors with the professional and technical skills needed to perform their jobs.  Good critical thinking [1] is a trait desired by business leaders [2] and military commanders alike [3] .  But, a gap often exists between what industry needs and what higher education produces for the work force. [4]   Educators are on the front lines of bridging this gap.   

Fig. 1.  Critical thinking’s

“micro-skills” TO DEVELOP Analogical reasoning AND ADVOCACY ¥

• Identify issue(s) in need of solving.
• Seek and summarize relevant information.
• Synthesize information from separate sources.
• Identify assumptions and deficient information.
• Evaluate the strength of an interpretation or argument.
• Evaluate how strongly a relationship or analogy supports a claim.
• Develop alternative explanations.
• Distinguish reasonable from unreasonable inferences.
• Select and apply an appropriate process to develop solutions.
• Evaluate suitable solutions to a problem.
• Explain the best solution.
• Describe how changes to the problem or assumptions may affect the solution.
• Counter anticipated alternative solutions or arguments.

¥ See note 11.

Perhaps ironically, inspiration can be drawn from this “break it down” approach in the development of critical thinking.  By identifying subskills for critical thinking and designing activities to intentionally practice these subskills, immersing students in an environment that routinely practices and requires the essential skills of critical thinking can replace more shallow habits of thought.  By breaking down the skill of critical thinking into smaller, more manageable parts and designing activities to intentionally practice the parts, educators can make real progress in producing more creative problem-solvers and deep thinkers in and out of the classroom. [5]

Critical thinking as a whole is often assessed by being broken into essential sub-skills. [6]   While overlap may exist among the varying discrete skills tested, the exact complement of skills and phrasing varies. [7]   Not all sub-skills collections are created equal—some are more easily understood and put into practice than others.  The important point for educators is that critical thinking is developed by selecting a set of critical thinking sub-skills most applicable to one’s discipline, and then explicitly communicating and reinforcing those skills for students. [8]   In order to maximize applicability to the particular discipline of law, in which analogical reasoning [9] and advocacy is paramount, I have modified one such complement of sub-skills [10] to create the thirteen essential “micro-skills” shown at Figure 1. [11]  

Each of these micro-skills is unique and can be strengthened when specifically targeted and practiced.  The challenge for educators is to design activities and assessments that require students to practice the particular sub-skills of their discipline.  When regularly practiced through activities in the context of the course’s objectives, the overall goal of building better critical thinkers becomes much more natural and manageable than it may initially seem. [12]   The purpose of this article is to provide examples of small, [13] practical steps employed in an undergraduate, core law classroom to iterate the skills that together form robust critical thinking, particularly in the areas of analogical reasoning and advocacy.  While some of these are specific to the law discipline, we believe that analogous examples for other disciplines can fairly easily be created from the ones we share here.

Critical Thinking’s Critical parts

Identify Your Discipline’s Micro-skills to Practice  

While broad definitions of critical thinking vary widely [14] , themes emerge from the varying literature of skills and competencies that combine to form the broader concept of critical thinking. [15]   Generally, these skills are grouped into categories that include evaluating information, self-aware and reflective reasoning, creative thinking, problem-solving, decision-making, and effective communication. [16]   The categories describe habits of inquiry and analysis that serve students well when applied to new and changing contexts in both an academic setting and real world problems. [17]

The thirteen “micro-skills” identified above in Figure 1 were developed by starting with a validated [18] complement of subskills, then were gently modified to maximize applicability to the particular field of law.  For example, the CAT sub-skill of “identifying additional information needed to evaluate a hypothesis/interpretation” was simplified to merely “identifying deficient information”—a condition which naturally exists in trial where perfect information is always lacking but in which the scientific term hypothesis is rarely used.  Additionally, sub-skills which are used infrequently in the field of law were omitted, such as “using basic mathematical skills” and “determine whether an invited inference in an advertisement is supported by information.”  The terminology of sub-skills can be modified, of course, to maximize application in any field of study.  The order of sub-skills matters and should be matched to the particular field as well.  They should be intentionally sequenced to typify a problem-solving methodology within the discipline.  The “micro-skills” sequence developed here generally entails progressing through problem-defining (#1), fact-finding (#2-4), idea-finding and evaluation (#5-8), and solution-finding (#9-13). 

Within a particular course, students should be provided with multiple, varying opportunities to practice the essential micro-skills, and then reinforced and improved through skill-oriented feedback.    Repetition combined with well-designed assessments and feedback lead to student growth in the areas practiced. [19]   Even if courses vary in their particular selection, phrasing, and order of micro-skills, consistent practice and feedback across multiple courses will reinforce broader critical thinking habits and skill categories.

The discipline of law is ripe for micro-skill repetition.  Law is studied through reading cases—typically a judge’s opinion solving a controversy between two parties in a proceeding.  Many, if not all, of the thirteen micro-skills often appear in sequence in a court’s written opinion.  By dissecting cases, students learn to identify the relevant (or necessary) facts on which a case depends, deduce the rules that emerge from legal precedent, and see how courts select and apply those rules in new contexts.  New law is created by the parties applying and advocating particular lines of analogical reasoning.  As such, the discipline of law is a natural fit for practicing the particular critical thinking micro-skills of Figure 1 in nearly every reading and assignment. 

In law, the problem-finding, fact-finding, idea-finding, and solution-finding process is captured by the universally-utilized “FIRAC” model. [20]   FIRAC, which stands for Fact, Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion, is the necessary components of every fully developed legal opinion, motion or court filing.  The model captures the relevant information from the controversy, informs which rule(s) apply, and demonstrates the reasoning as to how the rules are applied to solve the problem.  The model can be applied to nearly every assignment in the study of law because it represents a method of organizing thought that is widely accepted in legal writing and oral advocacy.  It is through the lens of this model that law professors are able to exercise creativity in further developing the essential micro-skills by presenting a wide variety of assignments for students.  Whether students identify the FIRAC components of the cases they read, rewrite an opinion in the FIRAC format, or develop a legal argument by delivering an opinion or brief, the model and micro-skills permeate the pedagogy.  Some of our courses’ specific implementation methods of the FIRAC model are further explained below to demonstrate implementation.  A similar model can be utilized in any discipline to aid the iteration of the discipline’s particular micro-skills. [21]

Implementing MICRO-Skill Practice

Real examples from the core law class

  Give them a Model to Apply:  FIRAC Practice

The most common method of developing critical thinking skills in the field of law is by requiring (or otherwise motivating) students to “FIRAC.”  To “FIRAC” means to distinguish the relevant [22] facts, formulate the issue, deduce the necessary rule(s) to apply, understand how the facts are applied to the rules in an analysis, and draw or identify conclusions.  The exercise can mean labeling the parts of a legal opinion, rewriting and summarizing the parts of an opinion, or creating a FIRAC by writing an opinion organized by FIRAC components.  The process necessarily requires practice in each micro-skill as outlined in the table below:

Micro-Skill Practice through the FIRAC MODEL

• FACTS: Students discriminate relevant facts from irrelevant facts, identify when more facts are needed and or reasonable inferences can be drawn, and summarize relevant facts (micro-skills #2, 4, and 8).  A summary of relevant facts are often the starting point for any legal writing or argument.
• ISSUE: Students determine the issue before the court that supplies precedential value or simply solves the controversy before the court (micro-skill #1).  Precisely isolating the issue in need of solving defines the purpose of the exercise and helps to frame the scope of rules which should be applied in the next step.
• RULES: Students identify and often synthesize from precedent the appropriate rule framework and sub-rules needed to solve the problem (micro-skills #3, 9, and 10).  Rules are the concepts which shape legal reasoning.  In a foundational law course, students are typically provided a finite set of cases from which they may derive rules as opposed to seeking rules from all possible sources.  The latter, where legal research skills are required, represents a more advanced step in critical thinking development.
• ANALYSIS: Students must evaluate arguments, draw necessary inferences, anticipate counterarguments, explain or justify an application of a rule, and explain the limits of an application as to how far the precedent extends (micro-skills #5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13).  The deeper the analysis, the greater the strength of the overall solution in the next step.
• CONCLUSION: Students must draw conclusions and, when applicable, define the limits of conclusions (micro-skills #10 and 11).  The conclusion(s) drawn must relate back the issue(s) identified in part (b) above.

The skill of “FIRACing” is scaffolded [23] and developed over the course of a semester.  Professors press their students early on to skillfully summarize only the facts on which the case depends and explain why each fact is dispositive.  Professors demonstrate “good” issue statements and help students craft their own.  Rule frameworks are developed together with the students during class.  Analyses are broken into prompted sub-questions to push students to articulate assumptions and anticipate counterarguments.  Cumulatively across a semester in a foundational law course, students may be asked to read between 30 and 40 abridged legal opinions, write or orally deliver at least five arguments in FIRAC format, and are provided targeted feedback as to when the FIRAC is lacking in depth or thoroughness of any components.  The amount of assistance provided by the professor becomes less supportive with each of these opportunities for iteration.  By the end of the course, students are more able to independently compartmentalize the components of a legal opinion.  They can then more aptly use the rules and analyses to advance their own arguments through analogical reasoning. 

Spotlight on Problem-Identification:  Formulating the “Issue Statement”

Perhaps the most important step in complex problem-solving is to identify the issue in need of solving and apply an appropriate process to solve it. [24]   This is just as true in the law.  The “issue statement,” which may be answered as a yes or no, ultimately communicates the precedential value of the case.  A complete issue statement includes a summary of the relevant facts on which the case turns, the framework of law which supplies the rules, and the rule(s) that ultimately solve the problem.  We cannot expect students to create precise, correct issue statements without a significant amount of initial support by using a formula:

The issue in this case is whether [ necessary facts ] is/are/fit within [ the specific rule(s) that solves the problem ] under the [ law that supplies the legal framework of rules ]? 

Spotting and developing the real issue(s) before the Court is a skill developed through iteration, which occurs with every FIRAC.  It is also taught through demonstration and modeling within the cases students read as well as by the professor. 

The pivotal case of Marbury v. Madison [25] is an excellent example of issue identification and formulation.  The opinion describes the issues framed by the parties and then explains how they are not really the issues the Court must decide.  Following the Supreme Court’s identification of the real issues in need of solving, (the real issue was much broader than whether Marbury should receive his position and actually implicated the ultimate power of the Court), students learn to look behind the curtain to identify the true problem underlying the surface presentation of the controversy.  The case itself demonstrates how the arbiter must question the issues presented by the parties, and provides opportunity for students to learn what questions are useful and relevant.  The case shows a situation in which a statute does not present an acceptable solution, and asks where else could the Court look for a process or rule to apply?  Why is the Constitution a viable source for a solution?  How can Art III of the Constitution supply a rule which solves this problem?  In Marbury , the Court examines the assumptions inherent in rules of construction (i.e., a list of objects necessarily implies other objects do not fit within the category), and reframes the issue in need of solving.  This reframing ultimately enables the Court to establish the power of judicial review within the United States’ balance of governmental powers.  The importance of issue framing is thus imparted on students, sometimes on the first day of the semester, because it shaped the course of history in this particular case.

Educators may find it helpful to provide a case study, such as Marbury , early on in a course where assumptions must be explicitly questioned in order to frame and then solve the problem.  Targeting micro-skills #1, 4, and 12 early on may help avoid students framing the wrong problem or solutions based on flawed assumptions later in the course.  

Breaking Down Conclusions to Develop Depth of Analysis

Students often struggle with developing thorough analyses early on in the study of law.  Students may give conclusions based on assumptions they bring to the course without breaking down those assumptions to explain the reasoning underlying them.  An effective way to develop this skill is to identify a student’s conclusions at each step and ask them how or why they drew this conclusion.  Doing so forces the student to articulate their assumptions and inferences so that they can examine them critically. 

The scaffolding for deepening analysis can be customized to meet students where they are.  One might demonstrate to students through feedback what arguments or counterarguments they failed to address for a particular application.  Early on in the course, I may identify, or ask the student to identify, the analogies and differentiations they could have made from precedent (cases they were assigned to read), or other analogous situations from real-life, to strengthen their argument.  A critical question I pose to my students struggling with depth of analysis is, “What is the best argument that your opponent has?”  I then ask them to address that argument while maintaining strong advocacy for their original position. 

I also ask my students to develop more than one line of reasoning, or alternative justifications, for an argument or conclusion.  Often these alternatives are contingent upon their interpretations of a set of facts.  When this is the case, they should describe that contingency.  This enables students to have primary arguments and alternative arguments in the event the primary argument fails or their original interpretation of the facts was flawed.  Law educators can link this idea to real-life examples of judges’ opinions being appealed (or perhaps more pressing for students, developing a thesis in another course or merely winning an argument with a friend), to help students understand the value of evaluating the strength of multiple solutions (thus strengthening micro-skills #5, 6, 7, 10, and 11).

An additional means of teaching depth of analysis is to ask students to define the boundaries of their solution.  Does their solution fall apart when they pull the string to its logical end?  In law, educators may often encounter the “slippery slope” argument from students. [26]   But students can be pressed to draw the line where it does make sense and explain why that line works for one context and results in it not working in another context.  In other words, they must articulate the rationale behind the rule.  For example, a student may be prompted to explain why a routine traffic stop is not considered “custodial” when most drivers would not feel free to leave the interaction and drive away.  If the rule revolves around feeling free to leave, what is the underlying rationale behind this exception?  Exploring the limitations of a line of reasoning causes students to assess their own thinking and criticality.  Students are then more able to exhibit critical creativity, or generate solutions which are useful and insightful. [27]

Socratic Questioning in Class Discussion

Law school professors are notorious for Socratic questioning. [28]   This type of questioning involves calling on students without asking for volunteers, which tends to quickly reveal who has prepared for class and who has not.  The Socratic method can be anxiety-producing for students but effective at examining the process of thought through accountability.  By asking questions rather than giving answers, the educator models the inquiring, probing mind and steps into the role of the inner voice of reason. [29]   In a nutshell, the Socratic method is questioning students “so that they, in turn, analytically question what they read, write, think, and believe.” [30]   The Socratic method can be highly beneficial in non-law disciplines as well.  It encourages students to be responsible for their own learning process rather than rely on passively absorbing material provided to them in a more lecture-based format. 

What does the Socratic method look like in practice?  Students must read a case or other material prior to class and then are called upon to start the discussion (“What are the relevant facts of Marbury v . Madison?”).  Then, the discussion progresses with questions of clarification (“what do you mean by ____?”).  It utilizes questions that probe purpose (“what was your purpose when you said ____?”).  It is questioning that probes assumptions and inferences (“all of your reasoning depends on the idea that _____; why have you based your reasoning on ____ rather than ____?”).  And, it involves questions that probe causes (“why do you think that is true?” or “what led you to that belief?”). [31]   By modeling and subjecting students to Socratic questioning in the classroom, students learn to think deeply about what they read in preparation for class rather than passively attempt to memorize or otherwise absorb the content.  Socratic questioning ultimately develops critical reading in students because it helps students master the content by questioning the purpose of each word and its underlying bases or assumptions. [32]   This skill ties back to developing depth of analysis and directly targets micro-skills #5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13.

In a foundational law course, the questions revolve around the nuance of the facts and the reasoning the court used to resolve the case.  A useful line of questioning to hone micro-skills #5, 6, and 12 is asking students to modify the facts as little as possible such that it changes the outcome of the case.  For example, an exam question may present a novel set of facts and ask students to use precedent to analyze and solve the new controversy.  Then, students are asked to change the facts such that they would arrive at the opposite result.  This exercise works in small group settings as well.  For example, I have presented my students with brief scenarios of various homicide offenses from real-life and assigned each scenario to a small group.  I then ask them to collaborate to identify the most appropriate crime and then modify the facts to make them fit the homicide offenses they did not select.  Training students to exercise this skill themselves as they critically read develops the ability to recognize the boundaries of rules and the logical conclusions of their own reasoning.  Understanding the consequences of a solution creates a better problem-solver because the student can anticipate second and third order effects of their reasoning, which ultimately helps to reveal the best solution. [33]

  Collaborative Assignments and Role-Playing

Collaborative learning combines two key goals: learning to work and solve problems in the company of others, and sharpening one’s own understanding by listening seriously to the insights of others, especially those with different backgrounds and life experiences. [34]  Approaches range from study groups within a course, to team-based assignments and writing, to cooperative projects and research. [35]   Collaborative assignments are a high-impact practice to develop critical thinking. [36]   Having multiple perspectives to analyze a problem often produces a deeper, broader, and fairer solution.

A step beyond working collaboratively is imaginatively placing oneself in the shoes of another through role-playing.  Role-playing requires students to demonstrate intellectual empathy and defend beliefs other than their own. [37]  

To combine the power of both high-impact practices, educators can place students into collaborative partnerships but with opposing roles assigned.  In a foundational law course, this might look like assigning one student to advocate a position as the government prosecutor and their collaboration partner as their opposing criminal defense counsel.  The advocacy might take the form of a 5-10 minute oral argument or written essay (or “motion”) to the Court.  The opposing pair of students are explicitly allowed to collaborate on the assignment where normally they would not be permitted to collaborate with any other students.  This kind of collaboration encourages original thought, because each has to bring their own ideas to the table (because each ultimately wants a different outcome).  It also allows students to strengthen each other’s analytical reasoning by exploring and sharing the best arguments for their side.  For example, one of the ways I have taught my students to strengthen their analyses is to address counterarguments.  This particular activity allows them to explore counterarguments by listening to their opposing counsel partner.   It reaps all the benefits of the collaborative exchange of ideas with individual accountability built into the assessment.  The students do not receive the same grade like they would on most group projects, but they are also not in direct competition in a zero-sum game because they can each earn a top score despite wanting different conclusions.  The stronger their contribution to the partnership, the better both of them will likely do on the assignment.  Such a construct allows students to use each other in developing micro-skills #5, 6, 8, 10, and 13. 

An additional benefit is that students directly observe their own growth in these micro-skills because they are more accessible when demonstrated by a classmate of similar skill level as opposed to demonstration or feedback by a professor.  Student A gets to question partner student B while she is working through understanding the scenario and developing her own argument.  Student A then gets to see student B develop multiple possible lines of argument to advance her position, and student A is even able to contribute her own ideas.  They can test each other’s rationale and pose examples to each other from their own experiences.  At the very least, if student A is struggling with breaking down conclusions and explaining rationale, student A is at least able to hear student B’s arguments and ensure she addresses those counterarguments in her own assignment.  By working through this process together but with opposite goals, the analyses both improve from diverse thought and with a much-reduced risk of inequitable work distribution or inflated grading.  Students are also better able to appreciate their own growth by seeing the process at work without any or with less aid from a professor.   

Emphasizing Inclusivity, Diversity, and Examining the Broader Context

While targeting the micro-skills, it is important to periodically and consistently take a step back and encourage students to draw connections between the discipline and the world around them.  This might include asking students to examine their own unique experiences and how these experiences affect their interpretation of the material.  Educators might consider the use of discussion boards, self-reflection journals, or old-fashioned classroom discussion to encourage such metacognition. 

The study of law with its cases and controversies stemming from real-world conflict naturally lends itself to explicitly question the human mind and its “native prejudicial tendencies.” [38]   Examining context surrounding legal controversies creates space for students to develop intellectual courage by fairly examining underlying beliefs and emotions. [39]   This helps students begin to understand and “guard against […] egocentric and sociocentric tendencies.” [40]

An example of putting this into practice is focusing on a particular case with underlying themes or emotions relatable to students.  One such topic in most foundational law courses includes the progeny of cases dealing with diversity in higher education.  What assumptions have your students formed from their own backgrounds and experience in applying for college or law school?  I simply ask my students to think about how their own experiences or emotions complement or conflict with the Court’s evaluation (in which the Court finds that the goal of achieving racial diversity in the classroom is a compelling government interest)?  Despite any personal disagreement, can the student apply the precedential framework and fairly evaluate (and even advocate) for a schema which benefits an applicant based on diversity?  Before we even begin these questions, I introduce my students to the history of equal protection in America.  At the end, I ask them to examine how their initial opinions about controversial topics like affirmative action and equality of opportunity might have changed after studying this block of instruction. 

Examining the broader context that frames a particular substantive topic challenges students to think deeply about the history of the discipline and the controversies within it.  It causes students to question how context shapes outcomes. [41]   This metacognitive work and intentional design in the learning activity fosters connections between disciplines (e.g., law, political science, and history) and reflection with one’s own assumptions and background.  Prior to diving into the nuance of a topic, consider asking students to take a step back and reflect on the context.  Educators can do so with additional readings, short videos, in-class lecture, Socratic questioning, powerful photos or art, or with a salient podcast.  It will foster a more objective view of an interpretation or solution, and in doing so will pay dividends in developing micro-skills #5, 6, 7, and 12.

The preceding examples are a few ways to design instruction and educational activities to maximize micro-skill practice specific to the study of law.  However, educators should not shy away from crafting a set of critical thinking subskills from peer-reviewed and validated sources which are most applicable to their discipline in order to develop critical thinking in students.  Educators can even gently modify the language of the subskills to increase accessibility and application within the field.  Regardless of how educators put their micro-skills into practice, having the intentional objective of practicing one or more of the skills with each activity, and then providing meaningful subskill-focused feedback, will lead to cumulative overall growth in critical thinking in students.  

PA#: USAFA-DF-2020-254

[1] Critical thinking has varying definitions.  The U.S. Air Force Academy defines critical thinking as the process of self-aware, informed, and reflective reasoning for problem-solving and decision-making in the absence of ideal information.  U.S. Air Force Academy, Outcomes: Critical Thinking, https://www.usafa.edu/academics/outcomes/ (last visited Jun. 6, 2020).

[2] Raising the Bar: Employers’ Views on College Learning in the Wake of the Economic Downturn, Ass’n of Am. C. & U. (2010), available at https://www.aacu.org/ sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2009_EmployerSurvey.pdf.

[3] See , e.g. , Carl Von Clausewitz, On War 112 (Michael Howard et al. eds., Princeton NJ:  Princeton University Press, 1976).

[4] Raising the Bar, supra note 2, at 1, 5-6.

[5] Ilea Heft & Lauren Scharff, Aligning Best Practices to Develop Targeted Critical Thinking Skills and Habits, Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 17, No. 3 (July 2017), 48-49, 64.

[6] See , e.g. , CAT Skills Checklist, Tenn. Tech Univ. Center for Assessment and Improvement of Learning (2019), https://www.tntech.edu/cat/pdf/training/CAT_App_Presentation.pdf; California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST), https://www.insightassessment.com/article/california-critical-thinking-skills-test-cctst-2; and .

[7] Id. ; see also Richard Paul & Linda Elder, Critical Thinking Competency Standards, The Foundation for Critical Thinking (2007), 47-51.

[8] Ilea Heft & Lauren Scharff, Aligning Best Practices to Develop Targeted Critical Thinking Skills and Habits, Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 17, No. 3 (July 2017), 51-52.

[9] “Reasoning by analogy involves identifying a common relational system between two situations and generating further inferences driven by these commonalities.”  Dedre Gentner & L. Smith, Analogical Reasoning, Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (2d Ed.), (2012), 130.  Available at http://groups.psych.northwestern.edu/gentner/papers/gentnerSmith_2012.pdf.

[10] The sub-skills referenced are those measured by the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT).  The CAT is a standardized critical thinking test created by the Center for Assessment and Improvement of Learning, Tennessee Technological University, funded by National Science Foundation grants.  Additional information is available at https://www.tntech.edu/cat/pdf/training/CAT_Introduction.pdf.

[11] This particular complement of “micro-skills” relies primarily upon the CAT Skills Checklist, Tenn. Tech Univ. Center for Assessment and Improvement of Learning (2019), https://www.tntech.edu/cat/pdf/training/CAT_App_Presentation.pdf.   It is also influenced by Richard Paul & Linda Elder, Critical Thinking Competency Standards (2007), & the Critical Thinking White Page, U.S. Air Force Academy (2018), http://www.usafa.edu/app/uploads/Critical-Thinking-White-Paper-Update-approved-Spring-2018.pdf, citing Essential Learning Outcomes, the Am. Ass’n of C. and U., https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/ EssentialOutcomes_Chart.pdf.

[12] CAT Instrument Technical Information Sheet, Tenn. Tech Univ. (2016), https://www.tntech.edu/cat/about.php.

[13] “Small” refers to “simple, incremental steps” or techniques teachers may implement more easily than dramatic changes or overhauls in pedagogy. James M. Lang, Small Teaching 1, 3 (2016).

[14] Critical Thinking in the Online Classroom, Center for Teaching and Learning (Jun. 6, 2020), https://ctl.wiley.com/critical-thinking-online-classroom/.

[15] See , e.g. , Peter Facione, Critical Thinking:  What It Is and Why It Counts (2020), 11, available at https://www.insightassessment.com/wp-content/uploads/ia/pdf/whatwhy.pdf; and Richard Paul & Linda Elder, Critical Thinking Competency Standards, The Foundation for Critical Thinking (2007), 47-51.

[16] See , e.g., Skills Assessed by the CAT Instrument, Tenn. Tech Univ., https://www.tntech.edu/cat/about.php (Jan. 16, 2020); Critical Thinking White Page, U.S. Air Force Academy (2018), http://www.usafa.edu/app/uploads/Critical-Thinking-White-Paper-Update-approved-Spring-2018.pdf; and Peter Facione, Critical Thinking:  What It Is and Why It Counts (2020), 11, available at https://www.insightassessment.com/wp-content/uploads/ia/pdf/whatwhy.pdf.

[17] Critical Thinking VALUE Rubric, Ass’n of Am. C. & U., available at https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/VALUE/ CriticalThinking.pdf.

[18] CAT Instrument Technical Information (2014), Tennessee Technological University, available at https://www.tntech.edu/cat/pdf/CAT_Tech_Info_V8.pdf.

[19] Linda Elder & Richard Paul, The Thinker’s Guide to Analytic Thinking 6, The Foundation for Critical Thinking (2012); George D. Kuh, High Impact Educational Practices:  What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, & Why They Matter 18 (2008) (“repeated practice—at progressively higher levels of challenge and engagement—is the surest key to high levels of achievement”).

[20] The model may have slight variances like reversing the order of issue and fact, or including a rule explanation component.  The variances depend, for example, on the rules of court or simply a professor’s preferences.  See , e.g. , The IFRAC Structure of Court Opinions, Case Briefs, and Essay Writing, Nathenson (2016), https://nathenson.org/docs/civpro/IFRAC.pdf.

[21] The model, regardless of particular phrasing or terminology within the discipline, should help students to isolate the problem or question to be answered, identify the purpose of addressing the problem, describe the information needed to answer it, identify the important assumptions or concepts underlying the problem, develop potential solutions and implications of the solutions, and select the best solution.  Richard Paul & Linda Elder, Guide to Critical Thinking 34-35, The Foundation for Critical Thinking (2009).

[22] “Relevance” in this context are the facts on which the court’s opinion depends.  If a relevant fact is changed, it could change the outcome of the case.

[23] The process of adding supports to enhance learning by building upon skills and experiences and then gradually removing the supports as the students master tasks.  IRIS Center Module, Vanderbilt U. (2020), available at https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/sca/cresource/q1/p01/.

[24] Richard Paul & Linda Elder, Guide to Critical Thinking 22, The Foundation for Critical Thinking (2009).

[25] 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

[26] The argument is essentially that a rule is incorrect because while it makes sense in one context, it no longer makes sense in other context.

[27] Paul, Richard & Linda Elder, Critical & Creative Thinking, The Foundation for Critical Thinking (2012).

[28] See , e.g. , The Paper Chase.  Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.  New York, N.Y.:  CBS/Fox Video (1973).

[29] Richard Paul & Linda Elder, How to Improve Student Learning:  30 Practical Ideas 44, The Foundation for Critical Thinking (2014).

[30] The Foundation for Critical Thinking:  Workshop Descriptions (Jun. 6, 2020), available at https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/professional-development-workshop-descriptions/437#3130.

[31] Richard Paul & Linda Elder, The Art of Socratic Questioning 20-23, The Foundation for Critical Thinking (2007).

[33] Linda Elder, Diversity:  Making Sense of It Through Critical Thinking, The J. for Quality & Participation (Winter 2004), available at http://asq.org/pub/jqp/past/2004/winter/jqp0105inmyview.pdf.

[34] George D. Kuh.  High-Impact Educational Practices:  What They Are, Who has Access to Them, and Why They Matter . Ass’n of Am. C. & U. (2008), 9-10.  Available at https://www.aacu.org/leap/hips.

[36] “High impact” means widely tested and proven beneficial.  Id.

[37] Richard Paul & Linda Elder, Critical Thinking Competency Standards 29, The Foundation for Critical Thinking (2007).

[38] Linda Elder, Diversity:  Making Sense of It Through Critical Thinking, The J. for Quality & Participation (Winter 2004), available at http://asq.org/pub/jqp/past/2004/winter/jqp0105inmyview.pdf.

[39] Richard Paul & Linda Elder, Critical Thinking Competency Standards 28, The Foundation for Critical Thinking (2007).

[40] Linda Elder, Diversity:  Making Sense of It Through Critical Thinking, The J. for Quality & Participation (Winter 2004), available at http://asq.org/pub/jqp/past/2004/winter/jqp0105inmyview.pdf.

[41] Ken Bain.  What the Best College Teachers Do 25 (2004).

• Legal Education
• Travel & Lifestyle
• Legal Advice

What, Why, How? Is Critical Thinking Important in a Law Degree?

As a law student you may well have had feedback on assignments asking you to “explain your reasoning”, “add in more analysis and evaluation” or even “be more critical”. What this means is that your marker is looking for you to demonstrate more critical thinking skills. So, what is critical thinking and how does it relate to the law degree? Emma Jones, lecturer in law and member of the Open Justice team at the Open University explains for Lawyer Monthly.

What critical thinking is…

Put simply, critical thinking is about gathering evidence, ideas and/or arguments and then evaluating (weighing up) their strengths and weaknesses in an objective and methodical manner. For example, when writing an essay you could be presented with an article arguing that the Human Rights Act 1998 should be repealed. To assess its validity you need to spend some time identifying the key arguments contained it in. Depending on their content, you might then have to re-examine parts of the Act (or other relevant Acts and cases) used in the argument, search for counter-arguments in other articles and then decide which provide the most persuasive evidence.

When tackling a problem scenario, it may involve reading the facts with an open mind, identifying key information, comparing the information you have with the facts of relevant cases and considering any arguments the other party or parties may come up with.

… And what it isn’t

Sometimes students think that showing critical thinking involves including lots of quotations from cases or academic articles and putting in a lot of references. This might show you have found plenty of information, but it doesn’t demonstrate that you understand it or can apply it to whatever topic you’re discussing. Some students may go one step further and explain arguments they find in such cases or articles in their own words. However, while it is important to look at all the relevant arguments, critical thinking is more than that. You need to evaluate the arguments yourself and decide how strong you think they are. In other words, you need to put your own spin on them, rather than just describing them.

Using critical thinking in your studies

Here are some suggestions on how to incorporate critical thinking into your legal studies:

• Don’t make assumptions! Always question what you are told and what you are reading.
• Read around a topic. Don’t just focus on the set textbook or case, try to put it into a wider context so you appreciate its importance or relevance.
• Spend time discussing and debating topics with fellow law students. Whether this is in seminars, during coffee or using online forums, this will help you process your own ideas and absorb other points of view.
• Give yourself time to reflect. If you’ve read something, spend some time identifying its key arguments, but then make sure you pause and think about whether or not you agree and why.
• Try to interweave different arguments within your writing. If you write a couple of paragraphs of arguments “for” and a couple of paragraphs “against” it can be quite dull to read and doesn’t help you evaluate their comparative strengths. Taking one argument and exploring the “for” and “against” elements in one paragraph is much stronger.
• Use some key phrases in your writing which demonstrate your critical thinking. For example, “evaluating these points leads to the conclusion that…” or “an analysis of these sources indicates…”.
• Take on board feedback. If you are being told to use more critical thinking, the likelihood is your marker will have included some comments which indicate what that mean by that and how you could have approved. Spend time absorbing these and reflecting on what you can do differently next time.

About Lawyer Monthly

Follow Lawyer Monthly

Enter the URL below into your favorite RSS reader.

Logic Ab Initio: A Functional Approach to Improve Law Students’ Critical Thinking Skills

• Citation (BibTeX)

View more stats

While certainly not suggesting that formal logic training would remedy all that ails legal education or even that it could enhance critical thinking for all students, this article asserts that law schools should make the process of legal reasoning more transparent and explicit from the outset, and proposes techniques that can be adopted quickly with minimal institutional costs or upheaval. Part I examines possible reasons that law-school matriculants increasingly lack critical-thinking skills needed for success. Part II maps out three basic components of informal logic training: deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and fallacy. It then identifies related law-school competencies that could be enhanced through training in these areas. Part III proposes a relatively painless method of incorporating functional logic training across the law-school curriculum. Given the breadth and depth of the critical thinking deficit, this approach presents a pragmatic—though admittedly imperfect—solution to the problem.

“Logic!” said the Professor half to himself. “Why don’t they teach logic at these schools?” ― C.S. Lewis , The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

Law professors and legal employers alike lament a modern trend of diminishing critical-thinking skills among law students and new graduates. [1] These concerns are not imaginary: a recent study that followed thousands of undergraduates through college concluded that large proportions of college graduates lacked critical thinking, complex reasoning, and written communication skills once thought to be the foundation of university education. [2] This means that law schools are increasingly enrolling students who lack the skill set traditionally associated with law-school success. [3] To complicate matters, this critical-thinking crisis comes at a time when law schools face stricter and more detailed accreditation standards than ever before. [4]

The concept of “critical thinking” has many overlapping definitions. [5] It’s been described as an “intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, [] or evaluating information.” [6] In cognitive terms, critical thinking is “problem solving in situations where ‘solutions’ cannot be verified empirically.” [7] In the specific context of legal education, critical thinking can be broadly described as “questioning knowledge.” [8] It requires students to remember, understand, and apply both law and facts, and then analyze, evaluate, and integrate that knowledge to determine “what is important, what is missing, and what is vague.” [9] In this respect, critical thinking is the “foundation for the ‘key intellectual tasks’ associated with the sophisticated higher order thinking required in law school.” [10]

We are all born with the ability to think, but critical thinking generally requires considerable training and hard work. [11] The ancient philosophers excelled at critical thinking because most formal learning involved—to a greater or lesser extent—the mastery of logic. [12] Classical philosophers like Aristotle practiced “formal” logic, so named because of its emphasis on the “form,” or structure, of the argument. [13] To formal logicians, whether the substance of an argument was true or false was unimportant. Their focus was on the argument’s logical structure and whether the form itself was reliable. [14] Those ancient philosophers spent considerable time thinking about how they were thinking and, were, perhaps, the first true metacognitive [15] thinkers.

But formal logic was and remains a discipline requiring rigorous training—an impractical detour on the path to critical thinking in law school. Therefore, requiring a course in formal logic in law school is much like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut: the benefit is outweighed by the collateral damage. What’s needed is a practical method harnessing the metacognitive benefits of logic that fits unobtrusively into existing law-school curricula. By introducing informal or “functional” logic into the curriculum, law schools can not only enhance students’ comprehension of individual lessons, but make them better overall thinkers.

The late Judge Ruggero Aldisert was an outspoken proponent of teaching logic to law students. In 1989, he published Logic for Lawyers: A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking , [16] a text that cogently explained that the basics of legal reasoning, including the use of precedent, are merely variations of deductive and inductive reasoning—the building blocks of logic. Logic for Lawyers coincided with a late-20 th and early-21 st century burst of legal scholarship exploring the relationship between law and classical logic and rhetoric. [17] In 2007, Judge Aldisert published the article Logic for Law Students: How to Think Like a Lawyer , [18] a more streamlined version of his earlier work, “explain[ing], in broad strokes, the core principles of logic and how they apply in the law-school classroom.” [19]

This article builds on Judge Aldisert’s premise that “thinking like a lawyer”—critical thinking—means “employing logic to construct arguments.” [20] It goes a step further, however, proposing that training law students to use logic would not only provide professors and students a common language to identify specific deficiencies in analysis, it could actually increase students’ cognitive capacity for critical thinking.

While certainly not suggesting that such training would remedy all that ails legal education or even that it could enhance critical thinking for all students, this article asserts that law schools should make the process of legal reasoning more transparent and explicit from the outset, and proposes techniques that can be adopted quickly with minimal institutional costs or upheaval. Part I examines possible reasons that law-school matriculants increasingly lack critical-thinking skills needed for success. Part II maps out three basic components of informal logic training: deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and fallacy. It then identifies related law-school competencies that could be enhanced through training in these areas. Part III proposes a relatively painless method of incorporating functional logic training across the law-school curriculum. Given the breadth and depth of the critical thinking deficit (detailed below), this approach presents a pragmatic—though admittedly imperfect—solution to the problem.

Part I: A Lack Of Critical-Thinking Skills And (Some) Reasons For It

Success in law school (as opposed to success in most undergraduate disciplines) requires skills beyond mastery of facts, dates, formulas, and established theories and positions of academics. It requires independent reasoning. [21] And that reasoning cannot be theoretical or abstract: it must comport with societal norms of justice, fairness, and overall propriety. [22] Furthermore, that reasoning must be drawn from—and remain consistent with—numerous sources of law. Legal reasoning must be sound and valid; in other words, it must be logical. But increasingly, students come to law school ill-equipped for this type of rigor. [23] In recent years, law student credentials have decreased across the board: between 2010 and 2013, the median score of the Law School Admission Test (“LSAT”), which purports to measure critical-thinking skills, declined from 157 to 155. [24] In fact, nearly ninety percent of law schools had a lower median LSAT score in 2013 than in 2010. [25]

As to the cause, there is no shortage of finger pointing. Professor Jay Sterling Silver has opined that primary education—often undertaken in overcrowded public schools, where learning is geared toward mastery of standardized tests—teaches students not to think. [26] Professors Susan Stuart and Ruth Vance blame federal law, specifically noting that the current generation of law-school matriculants has been almost wholly educated under No Child Left Behind, which, since enactment in 2001, has shifted primary education focus towards mandatory achievement of minimum skill. [27] Others point to systematic grade inflation at the undergraduate level as contributing to students’ inflated opinion of their competency. [28] Still others suggest that institutional use of student evaluations as part of tenure decisions contributes to lower teaching standards. [29] Moreover, there appears to be no end in sight to the decline, given educational, social, and technological trends.

It’s likely impossible to identify the contributing factors exhaustively. But, as explained below, trends in undergraduate education and technology partly explain why students generally seem to have adopted a more shallow, heuristic method of thinking. This is particularly true of the Millennial generation, whose unique cultural characteristics make them all the more prone to such thinking shortcuts.

a. The Changing Nature of Undergraduate Education

Undergraduate education has changed over the last fifty years. [30] Some scholars theorize that modern law students lack adequate thinking skills partly because undergraduates no longer receive the benefit of a classical liberal-arts education. [31] A foundation in the liberal arts was long presumed to prepare students “to become civic and professional leaders, to prepare them for lifelong learning and inquiry.” [32] These students were well versed in the humanities, logic, and rhetoric, and developed “communication skills through a variety of oral and written exercises.” [33] This liberal education, focused on flexibility, creativity, critical thinking, analysis, and written communication, [34] would, unsurprisingly, prepare a college graduate to successfully participate in and benefit from the rigors of a law-school classroom. [35]

But while classic liberal-arts education did indeed mold creative and well-rounded learners for many decades, colleges and universities—along with students and their parents—have, over time, become increasingly dubious of its practical value. Knowledge of classical literature, arts, and natural sciences does not provide specific, marketable competencies for a defined entry-level job. [36] Some presume that a broad, liberal-arts education is unlikely to lead to the same level of monetary reward as, for example, a Master’s degree in Business Administration [37] or Engineering. [38] As a result, undergraduate institutions in the United States have, since the 1970s, shifted curricular emphasis from liberal arts to more professionally-oriented or vocational training. [39]

Colleges and universities now promise to prepare students for specific careers. But a classic liberal-arts program used classic literature, history, the arts, and natural sciences (as opposed to applied sciences) to shape thinkers who could, presumably, succeed in any number of careers. “The essential paradox, or one might even say the miracle of liberal education, is that by being evidently impractical, it equips a student for life far more richly and completely, and across a far wider expanse of time and space, than does education whose sole aim is to be useful.” [40]

Whether caused by an institutional shift away from liberal arts or some other phenomenon, the decrease in critical-thinking skills in undergraduates is well documented. In 2011, two researchers, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, collected empirical evidence of a downward trend in critical-thinking skills in undergraduates. Their book, Academically Adrift , proposed that undergraduates are overwhelmingly distracted by work, social lives, and an educational culture that puts learning low on the priority list. [41] Arum and Roksa collected data using the Collegiate Learning Assessment (“CLA”), a test comparing similarly situated students from a wide variety of colleges and universities. [42] The test measured critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem solving, and writing skills, all of which are essential during the first year of law school. [43] The study tracked the academic progress of 2,322 students, scoring them once in their first semester of college and again at the end of their fourth semester (half-way through college). The study found that forty-five percent of students gained virtually no critical thinking, complex reasoning, or writing skills over the assessment period:

While these students may have developed subject-specific skills . . . , in terms of general analytical competencies assessed, large numbers of U.S. college students can be accurately described as academically adrift. They might graduate, but they are failing to develop the higher-order cognitive skills that it is widely assumed college students should master. [44]

Other studies have painted an equally grim picture of college graduates’ critical-thinking skills. The Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education, [45] conducted in 2006-2007, concluded that thirty percent of undergraduates tested showed no growth—or even declined—in critical-thinking skills after completing four years of college. [46] These results confirmed those of earlier studies, which also suggested a long-term decline in skills acquisition among undergraduates. [47]

Arum & Roksa’s study revealed another disturbing problem: universities participating in the assessment were not closing the achievement gap experienced by socioeconomically disadvantaged students. [48] In the initial, freshman-year CLA assessments, minorities and students from less-educated families scored significantly lower in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing than white students from more-educated families. [49] According to the study, this “achievement gap” between privileged students and their less-advantaged peers only increased after the first year of college. In other words, “[t]he results of the CLA ‘suggest higher education . . . reproduces social inequality,’” [50] insofar as it correlates to lack of critical thinking skills. Accordingly, the critical thinking necessary for law school is likely foreign to students who lack that privilege. [51] Law schools that purport to promote diversity and equal opportunity in learning simply cannot ignore such data.

The effect of this achievement gap is brought into sharper focus by the recent, colossal downturn in law-school applications. Higher-tier schools made up for the deficit in applications by accepting students they previously would never have considered. [52] Those students were effectively pilfered from middle-tier schools, which made up for their own losses by accepting students who they, in turn, would previously have rejected. [53] But this left many lower-tier schools, particularly those created to provide opportunities for minorities or other at-risk students, with an existential crisis: disappear, or continue the valuable mission with less-qualified and, presumably, less-prepared students. At the end of the day, nearly every law school has been left with a student cohort less likely than previous ones to pass the bar exam. [54]

The ostensible decrease in critical thinking in college graduates across socioeconomic spectrums impacts more than just individual students. A first-year law student who has never had the opportunity to disagree with a professor or to independently form opinions about cultures based on their art, literature, or music will almost certainly struggle to synthesize seemingly inconsistent judicial opinions into a cogent legal principle. But a critical mass of students struggling on the same level will fundamentally change the dynamic of a law-school classroom and prevent the purposeful exchange of ideas.

b. The Effect of Technology on Students’ Ability to Think

The effect of the digital age and the ubiquity of technology in nearly every detail of daily life cannot be understated when considering the reasons for waning critical thinking. “The Internet has made so much information available to us, more than we could possibly retain in our brains, that we are more often ‘handing off the job of remembering’ things to technology.” [55] But technology causes problems more worrisome than just intellectual laziness: technology is changing the way students learn.

Learning can be described as any “relatively permanent change in a neuron.” [56] Neurons are simply the brain’s cells which, when activated, release chemicals called neurotransmitters. Neurotransmitters connect neurons to other neurons, creating electrochemical pathways in the brain that form our thoughts, memories, emotions, and sensations. [57] When confronted with challenges, the human brain adapts by modifying existing neural connections. [58] This is known as brain plasticity or neuroplasticity. The brain can “efficiently reorganize allocation of its resources to meet demands and compensate for deficits.” [59] “Evolution has given us a brain that can literally change its mind—over and over again.” [60] This means humans “can form bad neurological habits as well as good ones.” [61]

In The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains , author Nicholas Carr describes the subtle—yet ultimately profound—effects the Internet and other technological advances are having on human brains. Just as we can strengthen our mental capabilities through use of technology, Carr explains that human brains are subject to “intellectual decay.” [62] His collected research suggests that information and communication technologies are changing humans at a neurological level. [63]

For example, Carr posits that the Internet has supplanted reading as the primary source of information gathering (as did television, to some extent, before it). In terms of neurological development, the emergence of reading—particularly the “deep reading” necessary to consume literature and other book-length works—rewired and optimized the human brain for “deep thinking.” [64] The ability to read not only expanded one’s knowledge; it allowed previously unattainable levels of comparison to thoughts and experiences of others. [65] To fully appreciate the written word, one would have to discipline one’s mind to “follow a line of argument or narrative through a succession of printed pages.” [66]

The Internet, in contrast, features small chunks of information punctuated with distracting hyperlinks, multimedia, and ads. These features activate the prefrontal cortex, overtaxing the brain, making online reading a “cognitively strenuous act.” [67] In response to this stress, Carr suggests, our brains’ plasticity kicks in, rewiring and optimizing neural connections (and pruning unnecessary ones) for this new, rapid method of information gathering. [68] His research shows that as little as five hours of Internet use can significantly rewire the neural circuitry of the prefrontal cortex. [69]

The triumph of the Internet as a single medium for communication and information gathering may, therefore, also be its greatest danger. Just as computers have evolved to function simultaneously as typewriters, encyclopedias, phones, televisions, and social gathering spaces, their users have, unsurprisingly, become skillful multi-taskers. [70] And the same plasticity that, over millennia, had optimized our brains for deep thinking is now strengthening the neural circuitry customized for “rapid and incisive spurts of directed attention” that enable multitasking. [71] Unfortunately, quick shifts of attention and multitasking are quite useless in a typical 1L classroom. The reasoned analysis necessary in law school is not achievable without focused attention for a sustained time period. [72] Thus, critical thinking takes another hit thanks to technology.

One last insult to critical thinking occurs as a result of “The Google Effect.” [73] This phenomenon describes the automatic forgetting of information that can be found online. [74] Neuropsychologists know that, to maintain efficiency, our brains constantly—and subconsciously–prune memories. [75] Since there is less need to preserve information that can be readily retrieved, facts and ideas are more often pruned when the brain perceives that the information will be archived. [76] For law students faced with hundred-page reading assignments and looming deadlines, this phenomenon would appear rational and advantageous. Sometimes, “the effort needed to acquire knowledge outweighs the advantage of having it.” [77] The Google Effect could, therefore, be further eroding law students’ capacity for successful legal analysis. For example, a student accustomed to efficient and fruitful Internet searches will have little success using those techniques to brief a case before class. In the context of legal research, the wide-cast net of a Google search will yield poor results in comparison to a systematic, linear exploration of legal sources made possible by understanding jurisdictional structure. [78] Rule-based subjects, such as Civil Procedure and Evidence, which require memorization of rules as building-blocks of greater concepts, [79] could be challenging for a student whose brain is unaccustomed to storing large amounts of data. As technology rapidly pushes aside millennia of neurological refinements allowing for deep thinking and logical reasoning, legal education will likely have to adapt.

c. Millennial Zeitgeist and Beyond

Shifts in undergraduate education and technology may indeed be the two main ingredients for the collective deficits in critical-thinking skills of matriculating law students. But the culture and attitudes of the 21 st Century could be the seasoning that makes those deficits so unpalatable in the context of law-school learning. It’s all too easy to blast the Millennial generation [80] for its (real or imagined) lack of intellectualism, [81] perfunctory knowledge of history, [82] or narcissism. [83] But Millennials are also more socially conscious and idealistic than previous generations. [84] Their early exposure to computers and the Internet make them “the most technologically savvy and resourceful generation yet to hit the law school scene.” [85] They are “education-oriented, career-minded, motivated, connected, and self-confident.” [86] These same characteristics have led some scholars to brand Millennials as overconfident and entitled. [87]

In the context of legal education, overconfidence should be distinguished from confidence. Students who matriculate to law school have generally achieved much: They have completed a Bachelor’s degree—at least—with enough success to be accepted into a graduate-level program. [88] They have succeeded on the LSAT to the extent that their scores have earned them a place in an entering law-school class. Non-traditional students entering law school as a second or third career may have already achieved business success. As a result of this widely varied success, many students come to law school overestimating their intellectual abilities. [89] Often, students “express high academic expectations and professional ambitions but fail to realistically appreciate the necessary steps to achieve their goals.” [90]

This pattern is consistent with a fascinating psychological phenomenon known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The Dunning-Kruger Effect [91] was proposed in 1999 by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, cognitive psychologists at Cornell University. Their study concluded that unskilled people generally hold overly favorable views of their intellectual abilities. This overestimation of ability increases as actual ability decreases. In other words, incompetence “robs [the incompetent] of the metacognitive ability to realize” they are incompetent: [92]

[S]kills that engender competence in a particular domain are often the very same skills necessary to evaluate competence in that domain—one’s own or anyone else’s. Because of this, incompetent individuals lack what cognitive psychologists variously term metacognition, metamemory, metacomprehension , or self-monitoring skills. These terms refer to the ability to know how well one is performing, when one is likely to be accurate in judgment, and when one is likely to be in error. [93]

Dunning and Kruger’s study is particularly interesting considering that the researchers used logical reasoning skills—in the form of LSAT questions—as one of the metrics for measuring the effect. [94] Overall, subjects (forty-five Cornell undergraduates) overestimated their logical reasoning skills relative to their peers. [95] But bottom quartile subjects overestimated their performance by a staggering degree: although they scored at the 12th percentile on average, they nevertheless estimated that their general logical reasoning ability fell at the 68th percentile. [96] In other words, the poorest performers considered themselves significantly above average.

The point, of course, is not that law-school matriculants are incompetent. But the existence of the Dunning-Kruger effect may shed light on why those students most lacking in critical-thinking skills are either unaware of their deficits or are unable to rectify them. [97] More importantly, it suggests that students would benefit from learning specific metacognitive skills at an early stage in law school so that they can evaluate their own analytical competence before and after graduation.

Whatever the reasons for the (real or perceived) lack of critical thinking skills, a more appropriate discussion is what law schools can do to address any real deficits. There is no definite etiology for dwindling reasoning skills, nor is there any real need to articulate one. But if legal educators sense that “things are not as they were,” and that observation is coupled with increasing attrition rates or decreasing bar exam success, [98] then we must take corrective measures.

Part II: The Basics of Logic and Related Law-School Competencies

Law schools purport to teach students to “think like lawyers.” [99] But despite the need for clear and logical reasoning in the legal profession, law schools do not teach principles of logic. [100] Or do they?

The fact is that modern law curricula do use principles of logic—without denominating them as such. Law-school competencies—identifying issues, articulating rules and exceptions, comparing precedent to new facts, understanding public policy, addressing counterarguments—all require some form of logical reasoning. When law students apply a general legal rule to a specific legal issue on an exam, they engage in deductive reasoning. When students synthesize precedent into a general legal principle in legal writing class, they engage in inductive reasoning. When students argue in a brief or oral argument that a particular precedent should be followed, they engage in reasoning by analogy. [101]

But often, students see these law-school learning methods as nothing more than their professors’ personal methodological preferences. [102] They fail to appreciate that these techniques have been tested over thousands of years by history’s greatest thinkers. Hence the need for basic logic training: exposing neophyte law students to the basic principles of logic could provide them and their professors a common language to identify and correct deficits in reasoning and critical thinking. In addition, such training could—through the magic of brain plasticity—remediate deficiencies in cognitive analytical ability and foster better learning.

The principles of logic that could benefit a law-school curriculum in this way represent only a fraction of the discipline of formal logic. It would be impractical and counterproductive to teach a comprehensive additional discipline in the already-crowded list of required subjects. Sufficient metacognitive benefits can be achieved through exposure to three fundamental principles of logic: deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and fallacy. [103] While philosophers may cringe at such attenuation of the Art of Aristotle, Aquinas, and Wittgenstein, [104] the goal is not to teach logic for its own sake. It is to provide students with a practical—perhaps heuristic—method for evaluating the quality of their reasoning. In short, one “familiar with the basics of logical thinking is more likely to argue effectively than one who is not.” [105]

a. Deductive Reasoning and Rule Application

Perhaps the easiest logic principle to teach law students is deduction, a lawyer’s most fundamental skill. [106] This process of reflective thinking [107] moves from general truth to specific conclusion. [108] In its simplest form, deduction involves two propositions which, if true, taken together lead undeniably to a third proposition. The classic tool of deductive reasoning is the syllogism, [109] demonstrated by this ubiquitous example:

All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The reliability of a syllogism comes from the objective certainty that the conclusion follows from the truth of the first two propositions, or “premises.” [110] The first, the “major premise,” represents a universal truth. The second, the “minor premise,” represents a specific and more narrowly applicable fact. The third, the conclusion, is a new idea that follows inferentially from the truth of the first two premises. It is this progression of thought, based on the relationship between known truths, that instills confidence in the resulting conclusion. [111]

Logicians test the validity of a syllogism by analyzing the patterns of the terms within each premise. [112] Each of the three premises is made up of two terms: a subject term (e.g., “All humans”) and a predicate term (“are mortal”). The specific idea contained in each of these terms appears twice in the syllogism. The “major term” appears in the major premise and the conclusion. The “minor term” appears in the minor premise and the conclusion. The “middle term” appears in the major and minor premises but not the conclusion. [113] So, in the Socrates example, “mortal” is the major term, “human” is the middle term, and “Socrates” is the minor term. [114]

All humans are mortal. Middle Term , Major Term

Socrates is a human . Minor Term , Middle Term

Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Minor Term, Major Term

Each term can further be described as “distributed” or “undistributed.” A subject term is distributed if it represents all members of the class and is undistributed if it represents only part of a class. [115] A predicate term is distributed if it is a negative statement and undistributed if it is a positive statement. [116] Only certain patterns of distributed and undistributed terms can be valid syllogistic forms. [117]

In the legal context, the syllogism involves taking a legal premise (an enacted or judicially created “rule”) and applying it to a factual premise (the facts of a case) to reach an objectively sound result (the conclusion). Judge Aldisert used a generic template, which he called the “prosecutor’s model,” to illustrate this fundamental “categorical syllogism” of legal reasoning:

Major premise: [Doing something] [violates the law] Minor premise: [The defendant] [did something] Conclusion: [The defendant] [violated the law]. [118]

The benefits of presenting legal ideas in this structured way are manifest. The structure promotes clarity and consistency and prevents many analytical errors. [119] It allows one to test the accuracy of individual arguments by observing each step of the analytical process. For lawyers, who must routinely debunk opponents’ arguments, this reasoning skill is critical. [120] Another helpful structure is the conditional (or hypothetical) syllogism, which takes an “if-then” format. The “if” term is known as the “antecedent” and the “then” term is known as the “consequent.” To be valid, a conditional syllogism must take one of two forms. [121] One such form, known as modus ponens , [122] is structured,

If p , then q ; p , therefore q.

The syllogism is valid when the antecedent is “affirmed” as existing or being true. For example,

If a non-competition clause is not in writing, then it is unenforceable. The defendant’s agreement not to compete was oral. Therefore, it is unenforceable.

When the minor premise of a conditional syllogism negates the consequent of the major premise, the form is called modus tollens . [123]

If p , then q ; Not q , then therefore not p .

These conditional syllogism forms appeared in a recent Florida First District Court of Appeals case, Madison v. Florida. [124] In Madison , the majority reversed the defendant’s conviction on the grounds that the trial court had abused its discretion in failing to properly consider and grant the defendant’s motion for a continuance. [125] The deferential standard of review for abuse of discretion required “affirmance of the trial court order unless no reasonable judge could have reached the decision challenged on appeal.” [126] But, in his dissent, Judge T. Kent Wetherell pointed out that, when broken down into a modus tollens syllogism, the majority’s decision demonstrated flawed logic: If reasonable judges could disagree as to the propriety of the trial court’s ruling, then the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

The trial court abused its discretion. Therefore, reasonable judges could not disagree as to the propriety of the trial court’s ruling. [127]

If the majority’s conclusion that the trial court had abused its discretion were true, then the antecedent (reasonable judges could not disagree as to the propriety of the trial court’s ruling) would also have to be true. But Judge Wetherell—presumably a reasonable judge— did disagree. The syllogism, according to Judge Wetherell, revealed the majority’s illogic. [128] He then demonstrated that, because the antecedent was true, the consequent (the trial court did not abuse its discretion) must be true as well under modus ponens . [129] Alas, deductive logic did not carry the day in Madison . But the case cogently demonstrates the utility of breaking an argument into its fundamental parts: doing so reveals illogic and, simultaneously, suggests the better outcome.

This greatly attenuated description of deductive reasoning would be enough to start students on the path to recognizing syllogisms in judicial opinions and, more importantly, to “shoehorning” [130] their own arguments into the illuminating pattern of syllogistic thought. By thinking meaningfully about their thought processes in this way, students gain metacognitive skills that could improve overall learning.

b. Inductive Reasoning and Precedent

In areas where the law is unsettled, deductive logic is an insufficient reasoning tool. [131] If there is no universal “rule,” there can be no material for the major premise in syllogistic thinking. [132] In such cases, rules must be extracted from many specific outcomes. [133] This is the process of inductive reasoning. [134]

“Induction is the inference from the observed to the unobserved, occasionally, and rather loosely, termed inferring the general from the specific.” [135] Unlike deductive reasoning, where the conclusion follows absolutely from the premises, inductive reasoning does not produce conclusions guaranteed to be correct. [136] However, if one examines enough similar, specific outcomes, one can ascertain with some confidence the resulting new principle. [137]

Consider scientific research. A scientist conducts enough trials of an experiment to be able to observe a pattern in the results. Numerous similar results can then suggest a general hypothesis: if A, B, and C all have result X, then D (which is similar to A, B, and C) will probably also have result X. As long as the scientist conducts enough trials, he or she can have confidence in the accuracy of the hypothesis. [138] It is unlikely, however, that a scientist would suggest that simply repeating results consistently creates scientific proof or absolute certainty in the result. [139] The process of induction as applied to legal reasoning is no different.

Inductive reasoning generally takes one of two forms: inductive generalization (or enumeration) or reasoning by analogy. [140] The process of inductive generalization lies at the heart of common law: in the absence of codified law, the accumulation of many specific holdings in individual cases has led, over time, to common acceptance—and formal articulation—of generalized legal precepts or principles. [141] The common law, therefore, “is but the accumulated expressions of the various judicial tribunals in their efforts to ascertain what is right and just . . . .” [142] Again, this inductive process does not provide certainty. It yields probabilities and generalities—but often extremely reliable ones.

One instructive example of inductive generalization is found in Justice Cardozo’s opinion in the early products liability case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. [143] The case involved an injury from a collapsed wooden wheel of an automobile. [144] At the time, lack of privity of contract between the automobile’s owner and the manufacturer would have prevented the injured owner from collecting damages from the manufacturer. [145] Rather than decide the case on established contract principles (as the dissent suggested), [146] Justice Cardozo used inductive reasoning to fashion a rule that avoided the unjust result existing law seemed to require. Cardozo compared the results of sixteen factually diverse products liability cases. [147] He identified relevant similar or divergent features between the cases, such as whether the defendant was a manufacturer and whether there was a near certainty of injury, should the product be defective. [148] By analyzing a large enough number of specific circumstances of liability and comparing relevant resemblances between them, Cardozo was able to derive a new (and yet, not new) principle: A manufacturer who constructs an automobile using defective component parts may be liable to a remote purchaser of the automobile for injuries resulting from those parts. [149] Cardozo’s rule has withstood the test of time. [150] Its longevity can be attributed to the large number of cases Cardozo compared and the significance of the common features he analyzed. In other words, Cardozo used enough relevant particulars to generalize a reliable statement of the law.

Analogical reasoning is also a form of induction. It’s arguably one of the most crucial skills in the study and practice of law. [151] Analogy is simply the comparison of similarities between things with the attendant expectation that, if they resemble each other in several ways, then they will likely share some other property. [152] In the law, analogical reasoning involves comparing precedent—with established facts and outcome—to a new set of facts to determine the likely outcome of the new case. The more relevant similarities between the cases, the more likely their outcomes will be similar as well. Unlike inductive generalization, analogy’s reliability is not dependent on presenting a large number of particulars. [153] Rather, it is the quality of the comparison of the cases that makes the analogy reliable:

The success of the analogy depends on how significant the reader perceives the factual similarities between the two cases and whether any differences strike the reader as even more significant. An analogy can fail as much because an advocate ignores significant differences between two cases as because of a dearth of similarities. [154]

One could rightly state that our system of jurisprudence is built on a foundation of analogy. Stare decisis , the doctrine that underlies our case law system, requires that courts compare pending cases to existing precedent such that similar facts lead to similar legal consequences. Accordingly, students with a healthy working knowledge of induction (both inductive generalization and analogy) will not only better understand our legal system’s foundational principles but will be equipped to mold and manipulate legal ideas in useful ways.

c. Fallacy and the Quality of Arguments

If an argument can be defined as an attempt to establish the truth, a fallacy can be described as an argument that appears to do so–but doesn’t. [155] The ability to recognize fallacy allows law students to meaningfully evaluate judicial opinions and question outcomes in cases. As a result, it improves the quality of students’ argumentation and assessment of opponents’ counter-arguments.

Unfortunately, much like the public at large, students entering law school have been so inundated with arguments undermined by logical fallacies [156] that they are psychologically predisposed to accept logical fallacy as a substitute for sound reasoning. [157] People routinely “make logical mistakes, ignore logic altogether, or actually prefer certain illogical argument patterns.” [158] Essentially, audiences are conditioned to pick up on cues embedded in an argument that hint at the desired conclusions. These thinking shortcuts, known as “superficial heuristics,” often take the place of actual analysis. [159]

Of course, superficial heuristics and faulty reasoning should be avoided at all costs in law school. Exposing these thinking shortcuts and their attendant risk of error is the gateway to avoiding them. Therefore, learning a bit about common logical fallacies would help law students and law professors alike: When a student makes a faulty argument in class, the professor can describe the problem using the common language of functional logic.

A formal fallacy describes an error in the structure of an argument. [160] In a formal fallacy, a conclusion could be false even if all of the premises are true. [161] For example, using the classic “Socrates” syllogism:

All humans are mortal Socrates is mortal Therefore, Socrates is human.

This syllogism is fallacious because it is entirely possible that Socrates is the name of the neighbor’s cat. The formal error is the swapping of the minor term (in the minor premise) with the major term (in the conclusion). As with all formal logic, recognizing a formal fallacy requires familiarity with the patterns of distributed or undistributed terms. Again, this level of knowledge is beyond what’s needed for our limited goal of improving critical thinking. Nonetheless, it’s important to recognize that formal fallacy and formal deductive logic are two sides of the same coin.

Informal fallacies, also known as material fallacies, [162] are harder to spot. Informal fallacies could be described as mistakes in “the content (and possibly the intent) of the reasoning.” [163] Logicians have identified hundreds of distinct types of informal fallacies; [164] therefore, a comprehensive list of them is unworkable here. But some are so common—and so effective—that learning to recognize them should be considered a critical law-school skill. The following common fallacies demonstrate the potential deceptiveness of otherwise appealing arguments:

Ad Hominem : This fallacy is committed by abusing the proponent of an argument or by dismissing the proponent’s position on the grounds of the proponent’s appearance, circumstances, or background. [165] An advocate can cross the line from identifying weakness in an opponent’s argument into an improper attack on the opponent’s character. In Bauer v. Yellen , [166] the Second Circuit admonished counsel (and reduced its award of attorney fees) for the following ad hominem attack on its opponent, a pro se litigant: “Ms. Bauer has pursued this case blindly, recklessly, vindictively, maliciously and without a shred of evidence to support her wild and deluded claim of copyright infringement. . . . Ms. Bauer’s opposition papers mirror the nasty, mean-spirited approach she has taken in prosecuting this matter.” [167]

Bandwagon Fallacy : Also known as the ad populum fallacy, this type of fallacious argument suggests that, because a great number of people believe something, it must be objectively true. This fallacy occurs when a party argues that a court should adopt a rule because of “near universal agreement among . . . courts that have confronted [the] issue,” [168] rather than because of the merits of the rule.

Begging the Question : This fallacy assumes as true what is to be proved. [169] It can be as simple as a single step of faulty reasoning (e.g., “The hospital was negligent because it failed to use ordinary care”) or it can be buried in several steps of circular reasoning (e.g., An indigent prisoner claims a right to a free trial transcript because he wishes to argue ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. There is no requirement to furnish an indigent prisoner with a free transcript unless he is unable to show that he has a non-frivolous claim. Because the prisoner cannot show that he has a non-frivolous claim, he has no right to a free trial transcript).

Fallacy of Accident : This fallacy, also known as dicto simpliciter , occurs when one applies a general rule to exceptional circumstances or facts. [170] For example, an Internet pornographer arguing that his website’s content is “Free Speech” may be committing the fallacy of accident by not acknowledging that limitations on obscenity and commercial speech exceptions likely apply—and must be analyzed—in his case.

Hasty Generalization : Essentially “jumping to conclusions.” A Hasty Generalization fallacy occurs when a conclusion is induced from too few particulars. [171] The reliability of any inductive generalization depends on having considered enough specific instances with identical outcomes to eliminate doubt as to the likelihood of non-conforming outcomes. But drawing a conclusion from only a few particular instances lacks that reliability. For example, in O’Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co. , [172] an expert witness committed the fallacy when he testified that a plaintiff’s cataracts were caused by exposure to radiation at a nuclear plant where he worked. [173] His opinion was based on previously observing five patients with similar cataracts, all of which had been radiation-induced. [174]

Post Hoc : Any argument that suggests causation simply because one event preceded another is guilty of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. [175] It’s also known as the false cause fallacy, and it is tricky. The danger of presuming a causal connection between events when none exists is obvious. But in a legal context, it’s often rational to conclude that when a legally significant event is followed by a result, that result probably flowed from the event. [176] For example, a criminal defendant could claim her medication prevented her guilty plea from being knowingly and voluntarily made. [177] It sounds reasonable, but absent evidence that the medication affected the defendant’s cognitive function, it’s spurious. Despite the fallacy, post hoc arguments are an effective tool for litigators since they are so enticing to jurors. [178] Straw Man : This is a fallacious argument in which one “creates the illusion of having refuted a solid proposition by substituting a similar, weaker proposition for it and refuting the substitute instead.” [179] By exaggerating or misrepresenting an opposing argument, one can more easily present one’s own position as reasonable. Consider the statement by former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who, during a Democratic Presidential Candidates Forum, suggested that opponents of gun control “think they should have a missile launcher in their backyard as a Constitutional right . . . .” [180]

These—and the scores of other known fallacies—all have the common attribute of obscuring the truth. But fallacies are often highly persuasive and can be used to manipulate—intentionally or otherwise. [181] And to properly represent clients and fulfill one’s professional responsibilities, lawyers must, if not pursue the truth, at least be aware of when it is being obscured. Knowing how to recognize fallacies is, in itself, a tool for honing critical thinking, and should be considered a fundamental lawyering skill.

Part III: Integrating Functional Logic Training Across the Law-School Curriculum

Regardless of how theoretically beneficial logic training may be, students cannot be expected to distill the principles of logic on their own. [182] Integrating basic, informal logic training into the law-school curriculum could be relatively painless and cost-effective and, most importantly, could begin to bridge the ever-widening gap between how students think and how academics expect them to think.

a. Logic During Orientation

The obvious moment to begin exposing students to a paradigmatic system of thinking is during orientation. Orientation varies in length, depth, and purpose from school to school. Schools use orientation for everything from registering parking passes and assigning study carrels to presenting more substantive programs that introduce the cohort to systems of law and the Socratic Method. Schools with more in-depth programs could introduce basic principles of logic in a two-to-three hour session, incorporating outside reading and a formative (perhaps online) assessment.

Orientation programs introducing logic should be straightforward and unintimidating. The goal is to build a solid foundation upon which to build the thinking processes students will encounter in the first weeks of law school and beyond. The classic categorical syllogism is a perfect starting point. [183] After introducing the basic form of a syllogism, the professor should provide numerous real-world examples of valid syllogisms:

Lack of sleep makes one drowsy during the day . Joe Law Student stayed up all night . Joe Law Student will be drowsy during the day . [184]

When we finish this orientation session, it will be time for lunch. We have not yet finished this orientation session. Therefore, it is not time for lunch. [185]

Once the basic form is clear, students should see examples of legal syllogisms: the basic application of rules to facts, along with their consequent conclusions. A formative assessment at this point could test students’ ability to distinguish rules from facts.

Students with innately sound reasoning skills (or, perhaps, previous training in logical reasoning) would recognize the deductive pattern at once and organize their thinking about legal issues accordingly. But for students who lack critical-thinking skills, this breakdown of the basic syllogistic form would provide a step-by-step process upon which to structure analysis. Armed with an effective process of reflective thinking, these students could avoid analytical missteps, which often go unnoticed until mid-term or final exams—in other words, too late.

In addition to basic deduction, Orientation should present the basic principles of inductive reasoning. Simple but engaging exercises in a “what do all these cases tell you about the law” model—presented as “induction”—would not only prepare students for the progressive integration of law that will happen once classes begin, but would give a name to the process they will be expected to use and, eventually, master. Professors involved in Orientation can enhance this benefit by preparing exercises specifically engineered to call out invalid induction. For example, a set of cases that seem to induce an obvious answer, save one anomalous result, tempts students to commit the fallacy of hasty generalization. [186] The fruits of the endeavor would be enduring: students who take the time to consider why their answers are good or bad are thinking like lawyers.

Introducing deductive and inductive reasoning during Orientation would, therefore, likely bear fruit once classes begin. By repeating these processes in different contexts as classes progress, students will naturally strengthen their brains’ neural networks responsible for critical thinking. [187]

b. Logic in Doctrinal Classes

Merely knowing the principles that distinguish good and bad reasoning is not enough. To enhance critical thinking, law students should replicate the process of putting analytical components together in multiple contexts. In other words, students should be encouraged to use syllogistic logic across the curriculum.

But herein lies the greatest difficulty: changing the way law students think means a change in the way law professors think and teach. Law professors, however, are not generally known for their great desire to implement teaching innovations. [188] Fortunately, simple adjustments to existing instructional models might yield unexpected mutual benefits and ease frustration for both professors and students.

In nearly every American law-school class, students read appellate decisions in casebooks and answer professors’ questions about the holdings and principles of law contained in the cases. This “Case Law” or “Socratic” [189] method of instruction remains the standard teaching method in law schools, despite concerns about its effectiveness and recommendations against its widespread use. [190] But despite its prevalence, law schools generally fail at explaining the process and goals of the Socratic Method. [191] Many professors assume that students implicitly recognize these goals. [192] There is generally no explanation of the underlying thought process that gets the students to the “right” answer. [193] Many students eventually work out that professors are not simply “hiding the ball,” but are, rather, drawing out reasoned analysis. Others however, may stumble through law school never quite understanding the reason for the trauma and humiliation that the Socratic Method engenders. [194]

The frustration is mutual. First-year professors complain that students’ exam answers are missing analysis. [195] Students jump from identifying a rule to stating a conclusion with no significant application of the rule to facts in between. What is missing in those answers, logically speaking, is the syllogistic minor premise. [196] On an exam, many students struggle to even articulate the accurate legal issue.

Consider a scenario where a defendant is charged with aggravated battery for using a deadly weapon. The facts state that the defendant sloshed household bleach in the victim’s face. [197] The rule is that any object can be a deadly weapon if it is used in such a way as to make it likely to cause great bodily harm. [198] It may seem obvious to an experienced lawyer that the precise legal issue is “whether bleach, sloshed in a victim’s face, is likely to cause great bodily harm.” But a student with poor analytical skills might begin by stating the issue as “whether the defendant used a deadly weapon” or even more obtuse, “whether defendant committed aggravated battery.” With this as a starting point, it’s no wonder that students resort to incomplete, heuristic thinking in place of reasoned analysis.

Now, imagine if every professor began requiring students to express arguments in the form of a syllogism. Certainly, the process would be a struggle, if not downright ugly, in the first weeks or even months of law school. But with repetition, students would quickly become proficient at identifying the proper components of the syllogistic process—thereby clarifying their reasoning. A simple approach to achieve these benefits in nearly any law-school classroom is to require students to articulate rules as “if-then” statements. [199] By reframing rules in this way, students are forced to critically examine the constituent elements of the rule: its requirements and its consequences. [200] Consider the following basic rules in Torts, Constitutional Law, and Civil Procedure:

If the plaintiff proves elements X, Y, and Z, then tort liability is established. If the state deprives a citizen of notice and opportunity to be heard, then the right to Due Process is violated. If a party currently resides in the state and intends to remain there indefinitely, then he or she qualifies as a “citizen” for diversity jurisdiction purposes.

Note that these simple rules are structured so as to force the rule’s requirement (the “if”) and consequence (the “then”) into plain view. This skill alone is beneficial for students because it not only trains the brain to recognize the pattern of rules, it transfers to skills necessary for legal writing and drafting: coherence and clarity. More importantly, however, these if-then rules form the major premise of a conditional syllogism. In such a major premise, the “if” clause is the middle term and the “then” clause is the major term.

Once students are comfortable articulating rules as the major premise of a syllogism, the next step is to present the facts of a case—whether a hypothetical presented by the professor or an assigned case reading—as the minor premise. Here are the minor premises that correlate to the major premises above:

Defendant did facts A B C. The state imposed a fine without affording the party an opportunity for a hearing. Plaintiff owns a houseboat that is moored in the state.

The subject of each minor premise is the minor term. The predicate of each minor premise is the middle term—or at least it would be, if the syllogism were complete. In a complete syllogism, of course, the middle terms would match exactly. Here, the middle terms do not match—yet. This is the advantage of this syllogistic exercise: students can immediately spot the precise legal issue in a case by joining the two middle term positions (in bold):

The issues revealed in this way are:

Do facts A B C —> satisfy elements X Y Z? Did the state’s imposing a fine without affording the party an opportunity for a hearing —> deprive the citizen of notice and opportunity to be heard? (YES) Does merely owning a houseboat currently moored in the state —> mean that a party currently resides in the state and intends to remain there indefinitely? (NO)

In this way, the analysis can be tested for accuracy. And in the first weeks and months of law school, the reliability of students’ analyses is of paramount importance.

These functional logic exercises, repeated in various contexts across the curriculum, would undoubtedly have at least some metacognitive benefits. And professors might find that the process improves not only students’ preparation, but also the quality of dialogue between them and their students.

c. Logic in Legal Writing and Analysis Courses

There is no question that legal writing professors are on the front lines of recognizing—and attempting to mitigate—shortcomings in law students’ reasoning. Legal writing assignments force students to reveal their thought processes on paper. [201] In grading their memos and briefs, we see that students’ “confusing prose reflects their confused thinking.” [202] Moreover, legal writing courses bridge a curricular gap between doctrine and skills. Students learn theory in their doctrinal courses and learn to apply it in a meaningful way toward the resolution of a client’s legal issue in legal writing classes. These courses help students integrate material across curriculum “because they do not separate the learning of theory from its application.” [203] Naturally, this setting is ideal for reinforcing functional logic skills.

Most law students are exposed to fundamental logical reasoning in their first-year research and writing course. They just don’t know it. Basic IRAC structure (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion)—the hallmark of legal writing organization—represents a deductive syllogistic process. [204] But written legal analysis involves induction as well. [205] Virtually no analysis is complete without incorporating analogical reasoning by comparing the facts of one’s case to precedent. And when a factual scenario presents novel or troublesome facts that seem not to fit established law, students are taught to engage in rule synthesis. [206] In other words, the legal writing classroom is rich with opportunities to practice deduction and induction in ways that incorporate both theory and practical application. What’s critical, however, is for legal writing professors to use logic terminology (i.e., deduction, induction, analogy, fallacy) when teaching these skills. It’s not that IRAC , synthesis , case illustration , or application are bad terms: legal writing professors have had great success using these and other labels for parts of analysis and should continue to do so. [207] Rather, it’s the additional benefit of reinforcing the concepts of logical thought in various contexts that will strengthen those skills across the board. [208] Accordingly, during the writing-instruction phase of a typical first-year legal-writing course, professors should take every opportunity to point out deductive and inductive analysis wherever it can be found. The professor should demonstrate that the Rule Synthesis section (the “R” of IRAC) has, overall, the same function as the major premise of a syllogism: as a unit, it represents a universal truth against which the facts of the case must be tested. Ideally, students should be exposed to several such deductive (or “rule-based” [209] ) analyses during their first legal-writing class session. Doing so connects legal writing not only to the deduction they learned about in Orientation, but also to the deductive processes used in their doctrinal courses. It also serves as a jumping-off point for the next step: the inductive process of applying precedent to new facts.

New law students learning predictive writing [210] are often confounded by the concept of analogizing facts of a case to established precedent. [211] It’s not that students don’t understand analogy: they’ve likely mastered the “head is to hat as foot is to shoe” analogy prevalent on the LSAT. [212] Rather, it’s the fact that using multiple (and often seemingly contradictory) analogies to reach a conclusion is a foreign concept to most non-lawyers. Moreover, even the conclusions reached by such a process can be less than satisfying, since they lack certainty. [213]

In drafting their first memos, rookie law students often make the mistake of analogizing a single precedent case to the facts of the memo problem. Despite having described several precedent cases, they default to choosing “the closest” single case to apply to the untested facts without endeavoring to reconcile other precedent or, much less, the law as a whole. The result is a superficial conclusion and inadequate prediction. To combat this tendency, legal-writing professors should reinforce that the two inductive forms, (1) inductive generalization and (2) analogy, should feature in the application (the “A” of IRAC) section of a memo.

In inductive generalization, a legal writer extracts multiple, often intersecting, points of similarity among a representative group of precedent cases to reach a working standard. [214] Say a legal writing professor includes four precedent cases in a closed-universe memo assignment. The professor undoubtedly chose those cases because they represent basic concepts relevant to the expected analysis. Case 1 has characteristics A and B ; Case 2 has characteristics A and C ; Case 3 has characteristics similar to A , B , and C , but mostly hinges on D ; and Case 4 falls short on A , B , C , and D (and, accordingly, fails to meet the legal standard at issue). Again, a student may be tempted to base his or her application simply on which of these cases most closely resembles the untested set of facts. But a professor can avoid this dangerous shortcut by taking time in class to break down each case conceptually, identifying and describing characteristics A , B , C , and D , and, where possible, articulating a formula describing characteristics necessary for the standard to be met.

Disorderly conduct provides a good example. In Florida, disorderly conduct is rather abstractly defined by Florida Statute section 877.03 as conduct that “corrupt[s] the public morals,” “outrage[s] the sense of public decency,” or “affect[s] the peace and quiet of persons who may witness [it].” [215] This mushy definition makes pure deduction difficult. Precedent, however, provides more helpful concepts. In one case, a defendant’s loud verbal conduct attracted a crowd of curious onlookers, but it was his physical act of interfering with the police officer’s lawful duties that made his conduct disorderly. [216] In another case, the defendant’s verbal conduct attracted a crowd, and he was physically aggressive toward an officer; this was also sufficient to constitute disorderly conduct. [217] In a third case, the defendant’s verbal conduct attracted a crowd that became hostile toward the officer, and this too was considered disorderly conduct. [218] But in a case where a defendant’s loud verbal conduct merely attracted a crowd of annoyed onlookers, the conduct was not considered disorderly. [219]

From these cases, at least three conceptual points of comparison arise: (A) conduct that draws a crowd; (B) conduct that interferes with an officer’s lawful duties; and (C) conduct that puts the officer in danger. In the cases where the disorderly conduct standard was met, there was some combination of (A) attracting a crowd and either (B) interfering with the officer’s duties or (C) putting the officer in danger. In the one case where the standard was not met, only (A) was present. Therefore, even from this limited selection of precedent, an implicit working standard can be extracted: Where (A)+(B) or (A)+(C) are present, conduct will be considered disorderly. If the formula is reliable, it should explain the results in all cases.

What’s happened here is induction: a general principle has been extracted from a number of particulars based on relevant similarities. [220] That general principle would then be applied to the untested facts of a new case. Admittedly, four cases may be a small sample from which to extract a general standard. But if the chosen cases are highly representative of all the cases on point, then the standard is likely to be highly reliable. [221] Nonetheless, because the conclusion reached by this process is uncertain, further substantiation is needed. That’s where analogy comes in.

Using analogical reasoning, the legal writer justifies his or her conclusion in terms of the chosen precedent. [222] Our typical “rookie” law student tried analogy, but failed to connect it to the law as a whole; therefore, it was superficial and analytically flimsy. But analogy coupled with the application of the inductive working standard demonstrates that a predicted outcome is consistent not only with an individual case, but also with the entire body of law on that issue. Thus, instead of describing random or disconnected similarities and distinctions between precedent cases and a set of untested facts, students can think of analogical reasoning as “proof” that the inductive formula was reliable.

Back to the disorderly conduct example. Suppose a memo fact pattern described a suspect—a witness to a shooting—who was loudly insisting that an officer take his statement, despite the fact that the officer was busy arresting the shooter. The suspect’s antics of yelling at the officer attracted a crowd of onlookers. The suspect, perhaps fueled by having an audience, put his face within two inches of the officer’s face, causing the officer to push him away with a free hand. The issue, of course, is whether the suspect can be charged with disorderly conduct.

In applying the law to these facts (the “A” of IRAC), a writer may initially want to point out that the statute does not provide concrete enough concepts upon which to base a purely deductive analysis. [223] Therefore, the analysis would be inductive. First, the writer should articulate the inductive generalization that the charge is generally supported by evidence that the defendant’s conduct (A) caused a crowd to form and either (B) interfered with an officer’s lawful duties or (C) put the officer in danger. Based on that working standard, the writer can state that the facts satisfy the inductive standard: the suspect both attracted a crowd and interfered with the officer making the arrest.

Next, it’s time to analogize the precedent cases. Because analogy compares cases with the expectation that, if they resemble each other in several relevant ways, then they will likely share the same outcome, [224] the writer must demonstrate that the specific relevant similarities between the chosen precedent and the untested facts support the stated conclusion. Because the relevant characteristics ( A , B , C , or D ) have already been described in the inductive generalization, it’s sufficient to briefly connect them to the specific facts of the memo problem. Analogy, in this sense, further substantiates the reliability of the inductive process.

What I’ve described above does not differ significantly from analytical processes taught by the average legal writing professor. But I believe there’s a significant additional benefit gained from reinforcing basic logic processes and terminology along the way.

d. Logic in Oral Advocacy

One final golden opportunity to reinforce basic logic is during the oral argument component of a first-year persuasive-writing class. Besides being a blood-curdlingly terrifying event forever etched in students’ memories and an important rite of passage, the appellate oral argument is fertile ground for using and recognizing informal fallacy. Generally, the lead-up to the oral argument is preceded by several weeks of instruction on oral persuasion and, ideally, in-class practice. Students already exposed to the concept of informal fallacy would be more adept at responding to their opponents’ positions, perhaps even identifying faulty logic by name. A student’s argument that “opposing counsel asserts X, but that is without merit because (restate original premise for the ninth time)” can become “opposing counsel asserts X, which falls into the logical fallacy of hasty generalization and is, therefore, not a reliable result.”

One way to achieve this benefit is to use class time to brainstorm every possible fallacious (but compelling) argument that could be made in the context of an appellate-brief fact pattern. Do the facts of the case allow for an improper appeal to authority? Can an ad hominem argument be made against an unsympathetic witness? This exercise not only reinforces the meaning of individual fallacies in a practical way; it challenges students to test how far advocacy can stretch before it becomes no longer persuasive.

Introducing basic logic into the legal writing classroom, therefore, requires little substantive change to existing pedagogy. But if students learn that the familiar paradigms of legal writing are exactly the same logic principles introduced in orientation and reinforced in doctrinal classes, their ability to critically think about legal issues—and their overall comprehension—could significantly increase.

Legal education in the United States has evolved over time in response to economic and social change. But the social, educational, and technological changes of recent decades, which have noticeably altered students’ ability to think critically, merit at least an adjustment in the way law schools teach. The time-tested methods of logic—even when pared down to their most practical and functional components—could begin to remediate some of the problems students face in the modern law-school classroom.

See generally Paul Douglas Callister, Beyond Training: Law Librarianship’s Quest for the Pedagogy of Legal Research Education , 95 L. Lib. J. 7, 9 (2003) (discussing legal employers’ frustration with new graduates’ poor legal research skills); Rebecca C. Flanagan, The Kids Aren’t Alright: Rethinking the Law Student Skills Deficit , 2015 BYU Educ. & L.J. 135, 138 (2015) (discussing possible reasons for law students’ decreasing critical-thinking skills); Courtney G. Lee, Changing Gears to Meet the “New Normal” in Legal Education , 53 Duq. L. Rev. 39 , 67 (2015) (decreased critical-thinking skills of many law schools’ entering classes is likely to continue for years to come); Karen Sloan, Practice Ready? Law Students and Practitioners Disagree , Nat’l L.J . (March 6, 2015), https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/almID/1202719928678/?slreturn=20171030205801 (last visited Nov. 30, 2017) (discussing a survey by BarBri finding that only 23% of practitioners felt that graduating law students were ready to practice law); James Etienne Viator, Legal Education’s Perfect Storm: Law Students’ Poor Writing and Legal Analysis Skills Collide with Dismal Employment Prospects, Creating the Urgent Need to Reconfigure the First-Year Curriculum , 61 Cath. U. L. Rev. 735, 740—41 (2012) (discussing law-school “education-to-profession” disjunction).

Richard Arum & Josipa Roksa, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses 35—36 (2011).

Flanagan, supra note 1, at 144—45.

Changes needed to implement innovative curriculum changes have been “hampered,” in part, by American Bar Association regulations. Kristen K. Tiscione, How the Disappearance of Classical Rhetoric and the Decision to Teach Law as a “Science” Severed Theory from Practice in Legal Education , 51 Wake Forest L. Rev. 385 (2016); see also ABA Sec. Leg. Educ. & Admissions to the Bar , Managing Director’s Guidance Memo: Standard 316, Bar Passage (Aug. 2016), http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/governancedocuments/2016_august_guidance_memo_S316.authcheckdam.pdf (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Michael Scriver & Richard Paul , Defining Critical Thinking, The Critical Thinking Community , http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Joanne G. Kurfiss, Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, Practice, and Possibilities , ASHE-ERIC Higher Educ. Rep. 1, 5 (1988).

Flanagan, supra note 1, at 144.

Id. (quoting Judith Welch Wegner, Reframing Legal Education’s "Wicked Problems ," 61 Rutgers L. Rev. 867, 871 (2009)).

Henry Ford is reported to have said, “Thinking is hard work, and that’s why so few people do it.”

See Kurfiss, supra note 7, at 14.

Stephen M. Rice, Indiscernible Logic: Using the Logical Fallacies of the Illicit Major Term and the Illicit Minor Term as Litigation Tools , 47 Willamette L. Rev. 101, 108 (2010).

Cheryl B. Preston et al., Teaching “Thinking Like a Lawyer”: Metacognition and Law Students , 2014 BYU L. Rev. 1053, 1057 (2014) (defining metacognition as “thinking about thinking”).

Ruggero J. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers: A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking , 28—29 (Nat’l Inst. for Trial Advo. 3d Ed. 1997); Edwin W. Patterson, Logic in the Law , 90 U. Pa. L. Rev. 875 (1942).

See, e.g. , Michael R. Smith, Rhetoric Theory and Legal Writing: An Annotated Bibliography , 3 J. ALWD 129 (2006) (listing dozens of scholarly works discussing logic and rhetoric in the discipline of legal writing); Richard D. Friedman, Logic and Elements (Symposium: Premises and Conclusions: Symbolic Logic for Legal Analysis), 73 Notre Dame L. Rev. 575 (1998).

Ruggero J. Aldisert et al., Logic for Law Students: How to Think Like a Lawyer , 69 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1, 2 (2007).

Paula Lustbader, Construction Sites, Building Types, and Bridging Gaps: A Cognitive Theory of the Learning Progression of Law Students , 33 Willamette L. Rev. 315, 338 (1997) (“What is expected of students at the undergraduate level is vastly different from what is expected in law school. Prior to law school, learning mainly involved memorizing and regurgitating predigested, prepackaged, and organized information obtained from textbooks, lectures, and the media. Consequently, they are ill-prepared to read critically, synthesize rules, or analyze material to the extent required in law school.”).

Jesse Franklin Brumbaugh, Legal Reasoning and Briefing: Logic Applied to the Preparation, Trial and Appeal of Cases, with Illustrative Briefs and Forms 59 (1917) (“Ordinary logical theory requires but truthfulness only in the materials of the syllogism and form, but legal logic adds the social elements of justice and equity . . . .”); James R. Maxeiner, Thinking Like A Lawyer Abroad: Putting Justice into Legal Reasoning , 11 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev . 55, 60 (2012) (“It is elementary learning that law seeks justice.”).

Ruth Vance & Susan Stuart, Of Moby Dick and Tartar Sauce: The Academically Underprepared Law Student and the Curse of Overconfidence , 53 Duq. L. Rev. 133, 134 (2015) (“[M]any matriculating law students arrive at law school woefully underprepared at the same time legal educators are challenged with the task of producing practice-ready graduates.”).

Aaron N. Taylor, Diversity as a Law School Survival Strategy , 59 St. Louis U.L.J 321, 329 (2015).

Id . While not the only predictor of law-school success, the LSAT measures “natural skill or reasoning,” skills that law schools and state bars consider essential to lawyering. Robert Steinbuch & Kim Love, Color-Blind-Spot: The Intersection of Freedom of Information Law and Affirmative Action in Law School Admissions , 20 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 181, 201 (2016) (citing Nicholas Georgakopoulos, Bar Passage: GPA and LSAT, Not Bar Reviews (Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Research Paper No. 2013-30 Sept. 19, 2013), http://bit.ly/20Ar8aB [ perma.cc/62MU-JRR7 ]).

Jay Sterling Silver, Responsible Solutions: Reply to Tamanaha and Campos , 2 Tex. A&M L. Rev . 215, 229—30 (2014).

Vance & Stuart, supra note 23, at 137. A full discussion of the deficiencies of K-12 and undergraduate educations is beyond the scope of the article.

“Despite a dramatic decrease in hours spent studying, college students are receiving higher grades.” Flanagan, supra note 1, at 139 (citing Kevin Carey, ‘Trust Us’ Won’t Cut It Anymore , Chron. Higher Educ. , Jan. 18, 2011, http://chronicle.com/article/Trust-Us-Wont-Cut-It/125978/ (last visited Dec. 12, 2017). (“Yes, there’s been grade inflation. A-minus is the new C.”); Lee, supra note 1, at 66; see also Rebecca C. Flanagan, Do Med Schools Do It Better? Improving Law School Admissions by Adopting a Medical School Admissions Model , 53 Duq. L. Rev . 75, 81 (2015) (“Many students can earn above-average grades throughout their undergraduate years by artfully selecting courses and majors.”).

Lee, supra note 1, at 66.

Flanagan, supra note 1, at 135—36.

Viator, supra note 1, at 753 (“From the late seventeenth century through the end of the nineteenth century, all levels of American schooling were dedicated to the study of classical literature and history.”).

Flanagan, supra note 1, at 148; see also Marilyn R. Walter, Erasing the Lines Between the Law School and the Liberal Arts Curricula: A Comment on “A Liberal Education in Law,” 1 J. Alwd. 153, 154 (2002) (discussing that familiarity with the classical authors and with principles of oratory was viewed, pre-Civil War, as essential to a lawyer’s excellence).

Tiscione, supra note 4, at 400.

Carol T. Christ, Myth: A Liberal Arts Education Is Becoming Irrelevant , Am. Council on Educ. (Spring 2012), http://www.acenet.edu/the-presidency/columns-and-features/Pages/Myth-A-Liberal-Arts-Education-Is-Becoming-Irrelevant.aspx (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

“[T]he best preparation for the intense phase of the apprenticeship we call ‘going to law school’ is a broad-based liberal arts education.” Patricia Sayre, “Socrates is Mortal”: Formal Logic and the Pre-Law Undergraduate , 73 Notre Dame L. Rev . 689, 703 (1998).

Flanagan, supra note 1, at 148.

Doug Mataconis, College Students Lack Critical Thinking Skills, But Who’s To Blame? , Outside The Beltway (Jan. 18, 2011), http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/college-students-lack-critical-thinking-skills-but-whos-to-blame/ (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

“Most of the top earners in the liberal arts end up matching only the bottom earners in science, technology, engineering and mathematics — known as the STEM fields — and some will earn less than high school graduates who have vocational skills, like welders and mechanics.” Patricia Cohen, A Rising Call to Promote STEM Education and Cut Liberal Arts Funding , N.Y. Times (Feb. 21, 2016), https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/business/a-rising-call-to-promote-stem-education-and-cut-liberal-arts-funding.html (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Id. ; Michael Delucchi, “Liberal Arts” Colleges and the Myth of Uniqueness , 68(4) J. of Higher Educ. 414, 414 (1997) (“[T]he curricular trend in higher education since about 1970 has been toward studies related to work . . . . Enrollment concerns in recent years have compelled many liberal arts colleges to abandon or sharply scale back their arts and sciences curriculum in order to accommodate student preoccupation with the immediate job market.”); see also Mark Yates, The Carnegie Effect: Elevating Practical Training over Liberal Education in Curricular Reform , 17 Legal Writing 233, 243 (2011) (“Since the 1970s, undergraduate institutions in the United States have been shifting their curricular emphasis from liberal arts to more professionally oriented education. This shift is due largely to enrollment concerns caused by changes in the labor market and corresponding changes in the expectations of entering students.”); Judith T. Younger, Legal Education: An Illusion , 75 Minn. L. Rev. 1037, 1043 (1991) (arguing that, in attempting to democratize higher education, colleges and universities abandoned the liberal arts in favor of specialization and vocationalism).

Nicholas Lemann, Liberal Education and Professionals , 90 Liberal Educ. 14 (Spring 2004), http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sp04/le-sp04feature1.cfm (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Arum & Roksa , supra note 2, at 96—98.

See Flanagan, supra note 1, at 140 (describing Collegiate Learning Assessment test subjects as similarly situated students from wide variety of colleges and universities).

Id . (characterizing critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem solving, and writing skills as essential skills during the first year of law school).

Arum & Roksa, supra note 2, at 121.

Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts at Wabash College, Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education , http://www.liberalarts.wabash.edu/study-research/ (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts at Wabash College, Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education, Fourth Year Change Summary , http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/333946/10418206/1296073333850/4-year-change-summary-website.pdf?token=ZVEVCl3%2ButHXke%2Fk0YqlLCJCYMo%3D (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

“[S]tudies have not found positive evidence of broad-based skills acquisition by college students since the 1990s.” Flanagan, supra note 1, at 142.

Id. at 143.

Id. (quoting Arum & Roksa, supra note 2, at 40).

Elizabeth Olsen, Study Cites Lower Standards in Law School Admissions , N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 27, 2015, at B1; Jennifer M. Cooper, Smarter Law Learning: Using Cognitive Science to Maximize Law Learning , 44 Cap. U.L. Rev. 551, 552 (2016).

See generally Taylor, supra note 24.

Jeremy Berke, Law-School Grads are Bombing the Bar and It’s a Sign of Trouble for Legal Education , Business Insider , http://www.businessinsider.com/bar-passage-exam-rates-have-dropped-in-several-key-states-2015-11 (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Shailini Jandial George, Teaching the Smartphone Generation: How Cognitive Science Can Improve Learning in Law School , 66 Me. L. Rev. 163, 169 (2013).

Id. at 172.

Id. at 172–73.

Sara Bernard, Neuroplasticity: Learning Physically Changes the Brain , EDUTOPIA (Dec. 1, 2010), http://www.edutopia.org/neuroscience-brain-based-learning-neuroplasticity (Dec. 12, 2017).

Nicholas Carr, The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains 31, 34 (2011).

Id. at 120.

Jennie Bricker, Where No One Has Gone Before: Practicing Law in the Digital Age , 72 J. Mo. B. 18 (2016).

Carr, supra note 60, at 65.

See id. at 72.

Id . at 75.

Id. at 122.

Id. at 141—42.

Id . at 121.

A slightly exaggerated, but not-all-too-unrealistic multi-tasking scenario is described at the outset of George, supra note 55, at 164.

Carr , supra note 60, at 140.

Vance & Stuart, supra note 22, at 141.

Daniel M. Wegner & Adrian F. Ward, The Internet Has Become the External Hard Drive for our Memories , Sci. Am. (Dec. 1, 2013), http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-internet-has-become-the-external-hard-drive-for-our-memories/ (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Patrick Meyer, The Google Effect, Multitasking, and Lost Linearity: What We Should Do , 42 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 705, 716 (2016).

William Poundstone, The Internet Isn’t Making Us Dumber — It’s Making Us More “Meta-Ignorant,” N.Y. Mag. (July 27, 2016) , http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/07/the-internet-isnt-making-us-dumber-its-making-us-more-meta-ignorant.html (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Meyer, supra note 74, at 712—13.

Gabriel H. Teninbaum, Spaced Repetition: A Method for Learning More Law in Less Time , 17 J. High Tech. L. 273, 302 (2017).

Neil Howe & William Strauss , Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation 4 (2000) (defining a Millennial as anyone born during or after 1982).

Data suggests that Millennials do not read print newspapers, watch television news, or purposely visit news websites, instead receiving information on selected stories through social media. The Media Insight Project, How Millenials Get News: Inside the Habits of American’s First Digital Generation , http://www.mediainsight.org/Pages/how-millennials-get-news-inside-the-habits-of-americas-first-digital-generation.aspx (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Poundstone, supra note 77 (“Most — more than 50 percent — of millennials can’t name anyone who shot a U.S. president or discovered a planet; they don’t know the ancient city celebrated for its hanging gardens, the one destroyed by Mount Vesuvius, or the emperor said to have fiddled while Rome burned; and most millennials can’t name the single word uttered by the raven in Edgar Allan Poe’s poem.”).

“The incidence of narcissistic personality disorder is nearly three times as high for people in their 20s as for the generation that’s now 65 or older, according to the National Institutes of Health; 58% more college students scored higher on a narcissism scale in 2009 than in 1982.” Joel Stein, Millennials: The Me Me Me Generation , Time Magazine (May 20, 2013) http://time.com/247/millennials-the-me-me-me-generation/ ; see also Vance & Stuart, supra note 22, at 134—35.

Kari Mercer Dalton, Bridging the Digital Divide and Guiding the Millennial Generation’s Research and Analysis , 18 Barry L. Rev . 167, 173—74 (2012).

Eric A. DeGroff, Training Tomorrow’s Lawyers: What Empirical Research Can Tell Us About the Effect of Law School Pedagogy on Law Student Learning Styles , 36 S. Ill. U.L.J. 251 (2012).

Vance & Stuart, supra note 22, at 134—35.

Anthony Niedwiecki, Teaching for Lifelong Learning: Improving the Metacognitive Skills of Law Students Through More Effective Formative Assessment Techniques , 40 Cap. U. L. Rev. 149, 160 (2012); Cooper, supra note 53, at 556.

Cooper, supra note 52, at 556.

See generally Justin Kruger & David Dunning, Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments , 77 J. Personality & Soc. Psychology 1121 (1999).

Id . at 1121.

Id . (citations omitted).

Id. at 1124.

Participants placed themselves in the 66th percentile relative to others, significantly higher than the actual mean of 50. Id . at 1123.

Id . at 1125.

Legal Writing guru Bryan Garner linked the Dunning-Kruger effect to the legal profession. He suggested that attorneys overestimate their writing skills and, therefore, fail to take steps to improve it, even when doing so would be beneficial. Bryan A. Garner, Why Lawyers Can’t Write: Science Has Something to Do with It, and Law Schools Are Partly to Blame , 99- Mar. A.B.A. J. 24 (2013).

See 2016 MBE Statistics, Nat’l Conf. Bar Examiners, http://www.ncbex.org/publications/statistics/mbe-statistics/ (last visited Sept. 29, 2017) (showing a decline in MBE National Mean Scaled Scores from 2007 to 2016).

“Thinking like a lawyer” has been described as “employing logic to construct arguments.” Aldisert et al., supra note 18, at 1.

Jack L. Landau, Logic for Lawyers , 13 Pac. L.J. 59, 60 (1981); Aldisert et al., supra note 18, at 2; Stephen M. Rice, False Persuasion, Superficial Heuristics, and the Power of Logical Form to Test the Integrity of Legal Argument , 34 Pace L. Rev. 76, 76 (2014).

Aldisert, supra note 16, at 28—29; see Patterson, supra note 16, at 903 — 04 (describing types of analogies).

Professors often hear, “I know the material; I just didn’t present it the way you wanted it.”

The Honorable Jack L. Landau, Justice of the Supreme Court of Oregon, proposed essentially the same in 1981, when he was an Instructor of Law at Northwestern School of Law of Lewis and Clark College:

Much of what is currently taught in logic classes is entirely too cumbersome for analysis. However, there are certain techniques, namely deduction, induction and analogy, and the avoidance of informal fallacies, that can easily be taught to first-year students, that do have a direct bearing on the legal reasoning process, and that can definitely improve the quality of reasoning and critical thinking skills exhibited by students and lawyers alike.

Landau, supra note 100, at 60.

Judge Aldisert expressed similar unease at possibly offending logicians and mathematicians. Aldisert et al., supra note 18, at 2. But it is, perhaps, the greatest approbation to demonstrate Logic’s utility even in such a highly diluted form.

“Deductive reasoning is a mental operation that a student, lawyer or judge must employ every working day.” Aldisert, supra note 16, at 45.

See, e.g. , id. at 48—49.

There are three basic types of syllogisms:

Conditional Syllogism: If A is true then B is true (If A then B). Categorical Syllogism: If A is in C (and B is in A) then B is in C. Disjunctive Syllogism: If A is true, then B must be false (A or B).

See id . at 145.

This is true, of course, only if the syllogism is valid.

Aldisert et al., supra note 18, at 4.

See generally Aldisert, supra note 16.

Aldisert et al., supra note 18, at 6.

For beginners, it may be easier to remember that the major term represents the broad or universal class, the middle term represents a portion of that class, and the minor term represents the narrowest or most specific component.

Aldisert, supra note 16, at 57—58.

The informal or practical logic envisioned in this article does not necessarily require students to understand these patterns or, for that matter, to create exclusively valid syllogisms. Rather, it is the process of forcing ideas into a syllogism—whether revealing an objective “truth” or not—that is likely to improve students’ critical-thinking skills. A secondary effect of this approach may be that some students become interested in more formal logic and pursue it further.

Aldisert, supra note 16, at 237.

“[Formal logic] structure allows legal thinkers to comparatively analyze legal argument, by comparing and contrasting it to necessarily valid or invalid logical structures, and reach conclusive logical decisions about the validity or invalidity of the form of the argument.” Stephen M. Rice, Conspicuous Logic: Using the Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent as a Litigation Tool , 14 Barry L. Rev . 1, 13 (2010).

Andrew Jay McClurg, Logical Fallacies and the Supreme Court: A Critical Examination of Justice Rehnquist’s Decisions in Criminal Procedure Cases , 59 U . Colo. L. Rev . 741, 774 (1988).

Rice, supra note 120, at 9.

132 So. 3d 237 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013).

Id. at 245.

Id. at 247 (quoting Clark v. State, 95 So. 3d 986, 987 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)).

Id. at 247 n. 16.

Naturally, it is possible that, in this particular judgment on this particular issue, Judge Wetherell was not reasonable. Nonetheless, his use of conditional syllogism to compare the facts (judges disagreed about the ruling) to the legal standard (no abuse of discretion if reasonable judges could disagree) was effective, in theory.

Id . at 12.

See Aldisert , supra note 16, at 48.

Kent Sinclair Jr., Comment, Legal Reasoning: In Search of an Adequate Theory of Argument , 59 Calif. L. Rev. 821, 827 (1971), http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol59/iss3/13 (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Aldisert et al., supra note 18, at 13.

Anita Schnee, Legal Reasoning "Obviously ," 3 Legal Writing 105, 112 (1997), http://www.legalwritingjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/volume3.pdf (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Aldisert, supra note 16, at 92—93.

Carlo Rovelli, Science is not Certainty , NEW REPUBLIC (July 11, 2014), https://newrepublic.com/article/118655/theoretical-phyisicist-explains-why-science-not-about-certainty (“Science is extremely reliable; it’s not certain.”) (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

Mary Massaron Ross, A Basis for Legal Reasoning: Logic on Appeal , 3 J. Ass’n Legal Writing Directors 179, 182 (2006).

Aldisert, supra note 16, at 50, 92.

Kansas v. Colorado , 206 U.S. 46, 97 (1907).

111 N.E. 1050 (N.Y. 1916); see Schnee, supra note 137, at 113.

MacPherson , 111 N.E. at 1051.

Id . at 1055 (commenting that “defendant was not absolved from a duty of inspection” because it bought the wheels from a third party manufacturer); Schnee, supra note 137, at 113.

Id. at 1055 (Bartlett, J., dissenting) (opining that the majority’s opinion extended vendor liability further than any case the court previously approved).

Id. at 1051—53 (majority opinion); Schnee, supra note 137, at 113.

Aldisert, supra note 16, at 100—01.

MacPherson , 111 N.E. at 1055.

Schnee, supra note 137, at 113.

See Aldisert , supra note 16, at 91 (“Inductive generalization is used in all aspects of the legal profession – in studying law, in practicing law and in judging cases. Thus, it looms large in the common-law tradition in the development of legal precepts in the case by case experience.”).

Ross, supra note 140, at 185 (“Typically, deductive reasoning proceeds from a general proposition to a conclusion that is either a particular proposition or another general proposition.”).

Kristen K. Robbins, Paradigm Lost: Recapturing Classical Rhetoric to Validate Legal Reasoning , 27 Vt. L. Rev . 483, 532 (2003).

Bruce Weinstein, How Trump and Friends Could Learn a Few Things From Mr. Spock , Fortune Magazine Online (March 8, 2016), http://fortune.com/2016/03/08/fallacious-arguments-logic-trump/ (discussing fallacies in recent presidential campaign speeches).

Consider some pop-culture examples of blatant fallacy: Advertisements in the “Four out of five dentists approve” variety (demonstrating appeal to authority fallacy); talking head debates over whether ISIS militants are or are not “genuine Muslims” (no true Scotsman fallacy); political candidates stating their opponents are in the pocket of special interests, hate the middle class, are socialist, are racist, etc. (ad hominem argument); arguments against the theory of evolution using a picture of a chimpanzee and asking, “Is this really your ancestor?” (straw-man fallacy).

Indeed, use of fallacy is so prevalent that television and commercial writers have found it a ripe target for satire: A Simpsons episode where Homer concludes that a rock is capable of repelling tigers because, while the rock was present, no tigers were about ( post hoc fallacy), Simpson- I want to buy your rock , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3U6IUMTDHY (last visited Sept. 28, 2017); a Direct TV commercial suggesting, “Don’t wake up in a roadside ditch: Get rid of cable” (slippery slope fallacy).

Rice, supra note 100, at 79—80.

Id . at 82.

Id. at 82—83.

Ross, supra note 140, at 189 (“Formal fallacies are based on a mistake in the form or logic of the argument.”).

Aldisert, supra note 16, at 141.

Aldisert , supra note 16, at 143.

Cory S. Clements, Perception and Persuasion in Legal Argumentation: Using Informal Fallacies and Cognitive Biases to Win the War of Words , 2013 BYU L. Rev . 319, 332 (2013).

LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS: THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION OF OVER 300 LOGICAL FALLACIES , https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies (last visited Sept. 28, 2017).

Michael Sean Quinn, “Scholarly Ethics”: A Response , 46 J. Legal Educ. 110, 112 (1996).

375 Fed. App’x 154, 157 (2d Cir. 2010) (unpublished).

375 F. App’x at 156 n.2.

Scheck v. Burger King Corp ., 798 F. Supp. 692, 698 n10 (S.D. Fla. 1992).

Aldisert , supra note 16, at 208.

Id. at 193.

Id . at 195.

807 F. Supp. 1376 (C.D. Ill. 1992).

Id . at 1391.

Aldisert , supra note 16, at 199.

Eugene Volokh, The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope , 116 Harv. L. Rev . 1026, 1102 (2003)

See State v. Brown , 305 P.3d 48 (Kan. App. 2013).

See generally Neal R. Feigenson, The Rhetoric of Torts: How Advocates Help Jurors Think About Causation, Reasonableness, and Responsibility , 47 Hastings L.J. 61, 165 n 154 (1995).

Gabriel H. Teninbaum, Reductio Ad Hitlerum: Trumping the Judicial Nazi Card , 2009 Mich. St. L. Rev. 541, 554 (2009)

Weinstein, supra note 155.

Doing so would be “like asking them to design a rocket without teaching them the rules of physics.” Aldisert et al., supra note 18, at 2.

Id . at 6. Judge Aldisert describes the prosecutor’s syllogism as a useful template for most legal problems:

Major premise: [Doing something] [violates the law] Minor premise: [The defendant] [did something] Conclusion: [The defendant] [violated the law].

A basic categorical syllogism.

A modus tollens conditional syllogism.

Aldisert , supra note 16, at 195.

“The more times a network is stimulated, the stronger and more efficient it becomes.” Bernard J. Luskin, “If I Had a Better Brain!” Brain Health, Plasticity, Media, and Learning Can be a Perfect Storm , Psychology Today (Aug. 20, 2013), https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-media-psychology-effect/201308/if-i-had-better-brain (last visited Dec. 12, 2017).

See Michael Hunter Schwartz, Teaching Law by Design: How Learning Theory and Instructional Design Can Inform and Reform Law Teaching , 38 San Diego L. Rev . 347, 360 (2001) (law schools’ emphasis on scholarship and publication, the criteria by which law schools measure professors’ performance for tenure purposes, discourages teaching innovation); Samantha A. Moppett, Control-Alt-Incomplete? Using Technology to Assess “Digital Natives” , 12 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop . 77, 86 (2013) (law professors fear change because of concern about academic freedom, resistance to changing status quo, and hesitation over increasing workload).

The Case Law method, introduced by Christopher Columbus Langdell at Harvard Law School in 1870, has been commonly labeled the “Socratic Method.” This is, somewhat, a misnomer. Ruta K. Stropus, Mend It, Bend It, and Extend It: The Fate of Traditional Law School Methodology in the 21st Century , 27 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 449, 453 (1996) (“Unlike Socrates, who focused purely on the questioning process, Langdell sought to combine both the substance of the law and the process of the law into the legal classroom.”) Despite this technical difference, I refer to the typical law-school instructional method as “Socratic.”

See, e.g., William M. Sullivan et al., educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law 56—60, 75—78 (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Preparation for the Professions Program, 2007); A.B.A. Section of Legal Educ. & Admissions to the Bar , Legal Education and Professional Development–an Educational Continuum, Report of The Task Force on Law Schools and the Profession: Narrowing the Gap 233—36 (1992) [MacCrate Report].

Tiscione, supra note 4, at 399—400

Niedwiecki, supra note 89, at 168.

Id. at 169.

See generally Jennifer L. Rosato, The Socratic Method and Women Law Students: Humanize, Don’t Feminize , 7 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women’s Stud. 37 (1997) (discussing students’ humiliation as an integral part of the Socratic Method).

Timothy R. Zinnecker, Syllogisms, Enthymemes and Fallacies: Mastering Secured Transactions Through Deductive Reasoning , 56 Wayne L. Rev. 1581, 1589 (2010) (quoting James M. Boland, Legal Writing Programs and Professionalism: Legal Writing Professors Can Join the Academic Club , 18 St. Thomas L. Rev. 711, 726 (2006)).

State v. Smith , 969 So. 2d 452, 453 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007).

Id. at 454.

I am indebted to my colleague, Professor Brendan Beery, for this pragmatic and tested approach for using conditional syllogisms to promote what he terms “right thinking.” Professor Beery conducts voluntary logic workshops that not only teach the syllogistic process using functional terminology, but which enhance students’ ability to express their reasoning on exams.

See generally Kevin H. Smith, Practical Jurisprudence: Deconstructing and Synthesizing the Art and Science of Thinking Like a Lawyer , 29 U. Mem. L. Rev . 1, 49 (1998).

Carol McCrehan Parker, Writing Throughout the Curriculum: Why Law Schools Need It and How to Achieve It , 76 Neb. L. Rev . 561, 571 (1997).

Viator, supra note 1, at 742.

David S. Romantz, The Truth About Cats and Dogs: Legal Writing Courses and the Law School Curriculum , 52 U. Kan. L. Rev. 105, 139 (2003).

Schnee, supra note 137, at 106.

Laura P. Graham, Why-Rac? Revisiting the Traditional Paradigm for Writing About Legal Analysis , 63 U. Kan. L. Rev. 681, 688 (2015) (citing Kristin Konrad Robbins-Tiscione, Rhetoric for Legal Writers: The Theory and Practice of Analysis and Persuasion 111—13 (2009)).

See generally Jane Kent Gionfriddo, Thinking Like A Lawyer: The Heuristics of Case Synthesis , 40 Tex. Tech L. Rev . 1 (2007).

But see Terrill Pollman, Building A Tower of Babel or Building A Discipline? Talking About Legal Writing , 85 Marq. L. Rev. 887, 924–25 (2002) (discussing the need for consistent legal-writing terminology, or “jargon,” to effectively communicate about writing and about the substance of the academic discipline of legal writing).

Some writing texts already approach legal analysis using logic terminology. See generally Deborah A. Schmedemann & Christina L. Kunz , Synthesis: Legal Reading, Reasoning, and Writing (3d ed. 2007); Teresa J. Reid Rambo & Leanne J. Pflaum, Legal Writing by Design (2d ed. 2013).

See Laurel Currie Oates & Anne Enquist , Just Memos (3d ed. 2011).

Predictive writing is nearly always taught before persuasive writing. Kathy Stanchi, Teaching Students to Present Law Persuasively Using Techniques From Psychology , 19 Perspectives: Teaching Legal Res. & Writing 142, 142 (2011).

See, e.g ., Dan Hunter, Teaching and Using Analogy in Law , 2 J. Ass’n. Legal Writing Directors 151, 151 (2004).

Cass R. Sunstein, On Analogical Reasoning , 106 Harv. L. Rev. 741, 745 (1993).

Ross, supra note 140, at 180.

Fla. Stat. § 877.03 (2016).

C.L.B. v. State , 689 So. 2d 1171, 1172 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Wiltzer v. State, 756 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000).

W.M. v. State, 491 So. 2d 335, 336 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986).

Fields v. State, 24 So. 3d 646, 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009).

See Aldisert et al., supra note 18, at 12.

“If the analysis is based on a complete set, then the conclusion will be strong. But if a complete set is not used for the analysis, the conclusion may be weak. The advocate must test the strength of the conclusion by examining the sample’s size and its representativeness.” Ross, supra note 140, at 181.

Dan Hunter, Reason Is Too Large: Analogy and Precedent in Law , 50 Emory L.J. 1197, 1246 (2001).

In reality, Fla. Stat. § 877.03 provides one concrete example of disorderly conduct: “brawling or fighting.” However, in a “closed universe” memo, that part of the statute can be left out for pedagogical purposes.

Aldisert , supra note 16, at 93.

Critical Thinking and Legal Culture

• January 2009
• CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Ángela Rocío Bejarano Chaves

• Alan R. White
• Jonathan E. Adler
• W. H. Newton-Smith
• M. H. Salmon
• Edward H. Levi
• AM J ECON SOCIOL
• Herbert Johnston
• Alvin I. Goldman
• Midwest J Polit Sci
• Anthony J. Downs
• Juan Bautista Alberdi
• Guido Pincione

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Law Students: Why You Must Master Both Critical & Creative Thinking

As an attorney, many of your clients in the future will hold you in the highest regard—intellectual superhero status even—after all, you have extensive education and the knowledge to win against ‘the bad guys’ in court. Whether you decide to litigate in civil court or perhaps become a criminal attorney and even act as the defense in some high-profile cases, the tools you use over the years stemming from law school will be the same.

Mastering critical thinking is key because it allows you to follow through on an idea successfully—and this can cross many different realms and applications, aside from the law. As a law student, however, mastering critical thinking means that you must know how to look at a problem from an analytical viewpoint and then solve it. There must be a strategy toward achieving your goal, and at times extensive thought must go into this process—along with effort in achieving the execution of your plan.

Creative thinking is helpful in so many ways in law school, as well as a career. It will complement your critical thinking skills in also helping you to be very good at thinking on your feet, along with bolstering your legal writing—even if you are just working on negotiations or drawing up a contract. This will also sharpen your mind, allow the juices to flow, and in many cases allow you to generate great ideas—whether you are going to trial or just trying to think up a charismatic ad campaign for your own firm.

Law students will benefit from practicing these skills during their four years of studies as there will be many lively discussions to be participated in during class—and there you will have to learn to think outside the box, and quickly so, as will your classmates—or you may run the risk of being more than a little embarrassed. You will be expected to complete copious amounts of reading and writing, and demonstrative your critical skills as well as creativity often. These are areas, although considered ‘soft skills’ that should be finely honed—and especially for the writing arena. While you may have always been a natural as a writer, it takes extensive practice to turn out good copy—and it can take some talent to avoid the temptation to write in legalese too.

Our mission at CDTA College of Law is to educate, train, and develop extraordinary legal advocates. Your legal education will be comprised of bar-tested academic subjects, skills training, and values reinforcement. Upon completion of your four-year course of study you will be fully qualified to take and pass the California Bar examination. Call us today at (760) 342-0900 or find out more online here .

Privacy Overview

AllAboutLaw

What are you looking for? Submit

• FREE Watson Glaser Test Practise now. Be prepared! TRY NOW
• Should I do the LPC or SQE? Free Decision Maker Tool Decide now!
• Training Contract Deadlines Fast approaching for most firms! Apply Now

• Sponsored by

Sep 15, 2023

Written By Dana Drozina

How can I improve my critical thinking skills?

You’ve probably heard the term “critical thinking” before – in school, at university or from recruitment officers – but many people still struggle to define it, let alone improve it. Understanding and building your critical thinking skills takes time but is possible with easy exercises; check them out here.   

What is critical thinking? 

Critical thinking is defined by academic Robert Ennis as: “Reasonable reflective thinking, focused on deciding what to believe or do.” In other words, critical thinking is clear, rational, logical, and independent thinking. It also means thinking in a self-regulated and self-corrective manner. 

The process of thinking critically involves precise problem identification and analysis, clarification of meaning, gathering the relevant evidence, assessment of the evidence, inferring conclusions, consideration of other relevant information, and making an overall judgement.

Training Contract Application Season | Virtual Event Series on AllAboutLaw

Looking to secure a training contract? Attend a range of informative presentations with training contract application experts.

Reserve Spot

Why is critical thinking important for lawyers?

 Lawyers must often analyse, evaluate and synthesise information from a variety of sources and present their own justified interpretation of this information.  Their work frequently  demands interpretation and synthesis skills, used to analyse and manipulate information (rather than just memorise it), hence critical thinking is very important

How to improve critical thinking skills? 

The following exercises can help you develop and improve your critical thinking skills. 

Read, read, read 

Reading will expose you to knowledge and help trigger your critical thinking instincts. Read  an interesting newspaper article, then write down the main ideas you identify in it – this will help you analyse it more deeply. It is not really important what you read, as long as the material introduces you to innovative ideas and new strategies that help you think differently. 

Ask questions

The next time you attend an event or workshop, participate in discussions and ask questions. Always aim to ask interesting open-ended questions, which require an elaborated answer, rather than a basic yes or no. 

Consider your question properly beforehand, as well as listening carefully to the answer you receive. This whole process of forming a question, asking it in a coherent manner, listening to the answer, and perhaps also thinking about and asking a follow-up question will exercise your critical thinking when participating in discussions.

Discuss with others

Get together with a friend or two and agree on a topic you wish to discuss. Each of you will defend one side. Get involved in a discussion, in which both sides voice their opinions. Think about the arguments you can make to defend your side, and listen to the arguments of the other.

Aim to reach a conclusion and, if you do, try to understand how that conclusion was made. 

Critical thinking means mindful communication, problem-solving, and a freedom from bias or ego. The importance of a lawyer's ability to think critically cannot be overstated. Remember that no one is born as a critical  thinker, and that improving critical thinking is all about practice.

By actively seeking out chances to hone your critical thinking skills in everyday life, they will improve sooner than you would expect.

Advertisement

Selection & Assessment

• 5 Mind-Blowing Hacks for Nailing Law Firms' Written Assessments Every Time
• 8 Secrets to Mastering the Watson Glaser Test Revealed
• A Guide to Understanding and Acing Situational Judgement Tests in Legal Graduate Recruitment
• Ace the group exercise: tips for success in law firm assessment centres
• Ace the Interview: Tips for Success in Criminal Law Applications

Critical Thinking: What it is, Why it Matters, and How to Improve it

• July 15, 2022

Brett Surbey

If you were to do a quick Google search on what the key skills for a paralegal are, what do you think you would find? If you think about the tasks you perform on a day-to-day basis, what are the skills and tools that you have which enable you to perform those projects well? In an admittedly dated article from Forbes.com, the number one skill listed for those seeking to get hired in 2013 was critical thinking (Casserly). Likewise, in a more recent publication from the same site, that same skill was at the top of the list for people looking to succeed in 2020 (Beckford).

Given the above data, we should be asking ourselves what exactly critical thinking is – and how we can improve at it – as it seems to be such an important skill. In this article, I will seek to provide a commonsense definition of critical thinking, examine sources of motivation for developing such a skill, and provide ways to actively improve it.

Critical Thinking Defined

While there is no shortage of possible definitions for critical thinking, I agree with David Hitchcock that in essence, critical thinking is, “careful thinking directed to a goal (Hitchcock).” While some may object and say that this definition doesn’t solve anything because we still need to define what is meant by “careful thinking”, I think that this slightly misses the mark due to how intuitive such a concept is. We do not need to spell out the exact definition of such a term due to how easily we can grasp it.

Think of someone you view as reasonable, prudent, or intellectually sharp. Maybe it is the lawyer you work with. Maybe it’s you! What kind of qualities do they have? More often than not, the person we imagine will have some of the following dispositions:

• Knowledgeable

With these qualities in mind, we can then imagine how a person would act if they were given a problem to solve. They would likely take time to examine all the relevant facts of the matter, consult with others, research, and then come to a solution. Notice the pattern emerging? Critical thinking has to do with how we engage with the information we have, or more specifically, the reasons we hold for believing something.

Maybe the above points on critical thinking as an important endeavor do not persuade you. You already have a great job that you do well at, so why is it important to cultivate such a skill? In this section, I will present some key motivators as to why we should work on such a skill in the context of our career.

1. Become a Better Problem Solver

Problems are a standard part of life, and by extension, a normal part of your career. Whether you missed a deadline or made a mistake on a draft, running into some sort of issue in a profession focused on so many technicalities can have major drawbacks. However, if you develop your ability to think critically, these drawbacks can be mitigated.

For example, say you missed some information on an agreement you were drafting which the client noticed, which in turn made the attorney on file look bad. Now you have a meeting with them to explain what happened. If you have not thought carefully about how you will present your reasons for making such a mistake and how those kinds of mistakes can be lessened in the future, you are going to only make matters worse. However, if you have weighed the evidence and examined where things went wrong in the drafting process, you will have insights into how to present strategies for reducing those kinds of errors, and have greater insight into yourself as well . Given that, “attorneys want facts and evidence in everything they do (Pearson)”, you will be in a much better position to convey such facts if you are a critical thinker.

Read How to Be A Problem-Solving Paralegal .

Litigation Paralegal Boot Camp

Are you tired of being the Panic Mode Paralegal who spends your days playing whack-a-mole with last-minute rush projects because you’re waiting for someone to show you what it takes to be great litigation paralegal?

This is the only program of its kind that provides litigation paralegals with all of the tools to master litigation cases from the complaint through the trial, and everything in between.

You will be the Confident Case Strategist faster than you ever imagined possible.

2. Become a Better Person

While this is more of an internal motivator than an external one, it is probably one of the most important. Critical thinking helps make you a better individual inside and outside of your work. If you consistently have a view of trying to weigh the evidence and examine your reasons for believing that evidence, you will be less focused on being right , and more on being correct .

On a more personal level, being someone who thinks carefully has many benefits for your relationships as well. If you are a careful thinker, you will not be as likely to dismiss ideas contrary to your own simply because they are different. Instead of making someone you care about feel insecure or invalidated, you have a greater chance of making them feel heard. Why? Because you care about weighing the pros and cons of a dispute or argument, which entails listening to the other person presenting their side.

3. Become More Efficient

Maybe you are at a position in your career that does not involve as much problem-solving as it does administration or simpler duties. Is that reason to not be a critical thinker? On the contrary, learning to examine why you believe something means that you will learn to examine why you do something a certain way. Sure, your tasks at work may seem trite to you or repetitive sometimes, but if one learns critical thinking and begins to carefully examine the “So what?” and the ‘Why?” questions involved, you are sure to stumble on a new (and better) way.

With this lens in view, you can begin to ask yourself how you can make your current system better and more efficient. As an additional plus, bringing this kind of task improvement mindset to your performance review will work wonders in your favor.

Improving Our Intellect

Now that we have surveyed some common and important motivators as to why we should become critical thinkers, let us now turn to practical steps we can take to improve such a skill.

Think About Your Thinking

One of the first steps (and arguably the most important) to becoming a better thinker is simply being cognizant of your beliefs/decisions and why you believe those things. In a world filled with 30-second clips, Twitter quips, soundbytes, and likes, it is easy to get caught in a vicious circle of accepting things that sound good to us at first glance without actually taking stock of the evidence.

We can become more aware of our thoughts simply by asking ourselves incisive questions:

• Why do I find this view/belief/idea plausible? Are those reasons (if there are any) good?
• What would someone who is on the opposite side (or at least on a different side) of the issue say?

Critical thinking involves putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. Stephen Covey, someone who sought to thoroughly apply the principles of critical thinking to both business and personal relationships, relates; that we must always “Seek First to Understand . . . Then Be Understood.”

Learn How Not to Think

Another very helpful point in becoming more intellectually responsible is to take stock of ways you should not think or what kinds of logical steps/inferences are actually improper. For the purpose of this article, It would be imprudent to try and cover all kinds of formal fallacies, but I think a great way to step up your mental game is by looking over a list of informal fallacies . To quickly sum up, informal fallacies are improper steps in reasoning for various grounds, mostly due to the premises of an argument (the reasons we have for concluding something) not actually supporting what they aim to be. A good example of a common informal fallacy is an ad hominem fallacy, or attacking the person.

When we commit this fallacy, we attack a person in some fashion in order to make our point. But this does not always mean that we are correct. For example:

• My boss was rude to me this morning
• If my boss is rude to me in the morning, my boss is not a good lawyer
• Therefore, my boss is not a good lawyer.

Can you see the flaw? Just because the attorney you work with is unfair or unkind does not mean (or necessitate) that she is a bad lawyer. There are a host of other factors that make someone a good or bad lawyer, not just their personality and manners.

This second tip goes hand in hand with being cognizant of our thinking patterns and idiosyncrasies, as does our third point: becoming more informed.

Read, Read, Read, and Read

When it comes to our reasons for holding onto an idea or believing it in the first place, we usually look to assimilate these beliefs or retain them through a lens called our background knowledge. Simply put, background knowledge is the culmination of knowledge that we have gained from experience and evidence which forms a rubric to judge new ideas coming to us.

It is vitally important that as people that do not know everything, much less a lot of things, we make sure we have the right amount of knowledge–and the right kind–in our background before we make a decision to retain or reject an idea. Here’s an example.

Let’s say you are having a meeting with your department and for some odd reason a colleague brings up the idea that limitation periods should be ignored. Now, if you are not sure what a limitation period is or what the consequences are for missing one, you would likely have to do some quick research to decide whether or not that is a good idea. However, if you already have the background knowledge that missing limitation periods have massively negative consequences, you will not need to do that research at all.

One quick note. Notice how having background knowledge can remove some of the heavy-lifting of needing to check, double-check, and then check (again!) all the facts. That’s a good thing. But, notice too that this can go haywire quite quickly. If we do not have the critical thinking, i.e., good reasons, for holding our background knowledge we can make poor, snap judgments.

Pursuant to our example above, let’s further note that you thought limitation dates were actually referring to getting rid of “Get off Early Fridays” so of course you naturally thought that removing such a thing would have disastrous consequences. However, when the time comes for you to make a decision with that current definition of limitation dates that actually involves the courts, you are in for a rude awakening.

This is why being informed and reading as much as you can to stay current in your role is so important. If we do not constantly build our knowledge and check that knowledge through multiple sources, we can make decisions that are very ill-informed.

To wrap up, I quickly reviewed possible definitions of critical thinking and settled on the idea of thinking carefully about something. We further fleshed this definition out by looking at the kinds of dispositions one would have if one were a critical thinker. They would likely be objective, patient, knowledgeable, and so on.

Further, we also looked at some major motivators for becoming a better critical thinker, such as becoming a better person, a better problem solver, and a more efficient member of your team.

Finally, we surveyed three possible ways to improve your thinking skills. One, learn to think about how you think. Two, learn how to not think, or how to recognize mistakes in reasoning. Three, becoming as informed as possible in order to make better judgments.

If we take this approach of becoming people that think well and think hard, we will be duly rewarded in our workplaces that are teeming with new decisions to make and new things to learn. Becoming more critically minded helps us swim and tread through the vast waters of information, rather than being tossed to and fro at their mercy.

Beckford, Avil. “The Skills You Need to Succeed in 2020.” Forbes , 6 August 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellevate/2018/08/06/the-skills-you-need-to-succeed-in-2020/?sh=3d2da3f3288a. Accessed 10 June 2022.

Casserly, Meghan. “The 10 Skills That Will Get You Hired in 2013.” Forbes , 10 December 2012, https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/12/10/the-10-skills-that-will-get-you-a-job-in-2013/?sh=49e49513633d. Accessed 10 June 2022.

Hitchcock, David. “Critical Thinking (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 21 July 2018, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/. Accessed 10 June 2022.

Pearson, Ann. “How To Be A Problem-Solving Paralegal.” Paralegal Bootcamp , 20 January 2022, https://paralegal-bootcamp.com/how-to-be-a-problem-solving-paralegal/. Accessed 9 June 2022.

Meet the Author

Brett Surbey is a Corporate Paralegal at KMSC Law LLP in Alberta, Canada. Brett occupies his time reading, writing, being a nerd, and spending time with his wife and two children.

A Paralegal Resource For You

Featured courses:, personal injury.

As a personal injury paralegal, you have an important role in the pre-litigation phase of your claim files. 

But where do you start when you’re managing 80+ active files?  

The Personal Injury Paralegal Boot camp will give you all the tools to manage that heavy case load.

➝ See Course Details

Are you still waiting for on-the-job training that takes you through the lifecycle of a litigation case and shows you what it is you can be doing?

This course and coaching program is what you’ve been looking for! 

This is the only program of its kind that provides you with all of the tools to master your litigation cases , from the complaint through the trial, and everything in between.

Paralegal Licensing by the Numbers

Paralegals – Be the “Go-To” Person for AI

A Place to Start as a Litigation Paralegal With No Experience

How to Make More Money as a Paralegal

Paralegal Billable Hours – The Important Numbers

Civil Litigation Defense: Preparing for Trial

Key Strategies to Change Your Mindset About Your Billable Time

The Litigation Paralegal Boot Camp is Open

Is Everything a Rush Project for Paralegals?

How to Get Promoted to a Paralegal Position

Paralegal Resume Tips

Can You Make Any Money as a Freelance Paralegal?

Accelerate Your Career With This 5-Day Challenge for New Litigation Paralegals

I Was Interviewed by a Paralegal Student

You Are Worth More Than $15 Per Hour!

50 Tips for New Paralegals

The “Underpaid” Paralegal

Alternative Paralegal Career Options

5 Paralegal Mistakes to Avoid

What is the Litigation Paralegal Career Accelerator?

Top 7 Tips for Litigation Paralegals in 2024

Use This 3-Step Plan for Litigation Paralegals to Accelerate Your Career in 2024

What is a Litigation Paralegal?

Top 10 Paralegal Career Takeaways from 2023

5 Tips for Paralegals Working with Multiple Attorneys

See more posts:, get our free strategy guidebook, for new litigation paralegals.

Are you ready to fast-track your litigation paralegal career?! Our free guidebook reveals three powerful strategies that will set you up for success in your journey. If you’re ready to seize this opportunity and thrive as a litigation paralegal, sign up below, and get started now!

Get the updates

©2023 All Rights Reserved. The Paralegal Boot Camp is a Registered Trademark. 

Terms of Use Privacy Policy

©2023 All Rights Reserved. The Paralegal Boot Camp is a Registered Trademark.           Terms of Use           Privacy Policy

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Thinking Critically About Law

DOI link for Thinking Critically About Law

Get Citation

So you’ve arrived at university, you’ve read the course handbook and you’re ready to learn the law. But is knowing the law enough to get you the very best marks? And what do your lecturers mean when they say you need to develop critical and analytical skills? When is it right to put your own views forward? What are examiners looking for when they give feedback to say that your work is too descriptive?

This book explores what it means to think critically and offers practical tips and advice for students to develop the process, skill and ability of thinking critically while studying law. The book investigates the big questions such as: What is law? and What is ‘thinking critically’? How can I use critical thinking to get better grades in assessments? What is the role of critical thinking in the work place? These questions and more are explored in Thinking Critically About Law.

Whether you have limited prior experience of critical thinking or are looking to improve your performance in assessments, this book is the ideal tool to help you enhance your capacity to question, challenge, reflect and problematize what you learn about the law throughout your studies and beyond.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 | 19  pages, introduction, part i | 77  pages, thinking critically about law in theory, chapter 2 | 23  pages, what is ‘critical thinking’, chapter 3 | 52  pages, what is ‘law’, part ii | 104  pages, thinking critically about law in practice, chapter 4 | 35  pages, putting critical thinking into legal practice, chapter 5 | 33  pages, thinking critically about assessments, chapter 6 | 27  pages, thinking critically in the workplace and beyond, chapter 7 | 7  pages.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

Law and Criminology

• Finding recommended reading
• Databases and journals
• Legal databases
• Government information
• Further resources for Law and Criminology
• News and current awareness
• Films, documentaries and images
• Reading and understanding

Thinking critically

• Referencing and plagiarism
• Creating and sharing
• Further support

Library Help

Get in touch.

To contact the Library Liaison Team or request an appointment with a Liaison Librarian, please email [email protected]

It's important to think critically about the places you search for information and the information you find. The following tutorials and workshops will support you to develop a questioning approach to information and learn more about critical evaluation.

Thinking critically resources

 [email protected]                  0114 222 7200                      libraryhelp.shef.ac.uk

• << Previous: Reading and understanding
• Next: Referencing and plagiarism >>
• Last Reviewed: Sep 2, 2024 9:50 AM
• URL: https://libraryguides.sheffield.ac.uk/guidelaw

About this Blog

Events & Presentations

• Rubrics Discussion

Best Practices for Legal Education

2016 Blawg Award

Best Practice Categories

• Andi Curcio
• Antoinette Sedillo Lopez
• Barbara Glesner Fines
• Ben Bratman
• Ben Madison
• Brian Sites
• Carolyn Grose
• Carrie Sperling
• Christian Sundquist
• Christine Cerniglia Brown
• Cynthia Batt
• Debbie Maranville
• Geneva Brown
• Helane Davis
• Irene Scharf
• Jennifer Bard
• Lianne Pinchuk
• Margaret Moore Jackson
• Marjorie Silver
• Melissa Breger
• Michele Pistone
• Pam Armstrong
• Patricia Baia
• Patricia Salkin
• Paula Schaefer
• Ray Brescia
• Robert Kuehn
• Roy Stuckey
• Ruth Anne Robbins
• Sara Berman
• Shailini Jandial George
• Stephen Rosenbaum
• Steven Friedland
• Vanessa Merton
• AALS Committee on Curriculum
• ABA CLEA 305
• Center for Excellence in Law Teaching (CELT)
• CLEA – Facebook
• CLEA – Twitter
• Confidence Gap
• Connie Mayer
• Inst. for Law Teaching & Learning
• Legal Education, ADR, and Practical Problem-Solving (LEAPS) Project
• Schools Requiring Experiential Courses
• SSRN SILVERSTEIN
• Technology at Albany Law School
• The Renaissance Report
• Touro Law Center's Journal of Experiential Learning

Related Blogs

• BLT (Blog on Learning and Teaching)
• Feminist Law Prof Blog
• Law School 2.0
• Law School Innovation
• LawSchooled
• Out of the Jungle
• TaxProf Blog
• Teaching and Learning in Higher Ed.
• The Legal Scholarship Blog

Why Law Schools Need to Teach Critical Thinking

by Scott Fruehwald

Law schools have never systematically taught critical thinking.  I do not mean that law schools do not help develop critical thinking.  However, this is not done on a systematic basis.  There is no method or approach for teaching critical thinking in law schools.

For example, taking a class in negotiation will help students develop critical thinking, but not systematically.  This is like learning grammar just by speaking a language.  While this gets the student some of the way, to be systematically trained in a language, a student must explicitly study grammar.  Similarly, the Socratic method does help develop some critical thinking processes, but it mainly teaches students how to extract and understand doctrine.

I have just completed a book that shows law professors how to understand and teach critical thinking: How to Teach Lawyers, Judges, and Law Students Critical Thinking: Millions Saw the Apple Fall, but Newton asked Why .

Critical thinking is “[t]he intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.”  ( here )  “It is . . . automatically questioning if the information presented is factual, reliable, evidence‑based, and unbiased.” ( here )  Critical thinking is a set of processes, including metacognition, conceptualizing, synthesizing (constructing), asking questions, organizing, developing and evaluating alternatives, considering unintended results, planning, self-monitoring, reflection, spotting assumptions, evaluating inferences, exercising epistemic vigilance, supporting arguments with evidence, evaluation, skepticism, and self-direction.

Here are several things that critical thinking can do:

1.  Critical thinking helps overcome superficial thinking.  It helps you see when you are relying on unsupported assumptions or opinions.

2.  Critical thinking helps overcome thinking based solely on intuition.

3.  Critical thinking produces rigorous and disciplined thinking.

4.  Critical thinking helps individuals create questions.

5.  Critical thinking helps individuals know when they need more information.

6.  Critical thinking helps avoid unintended consequences.

7.  Critical thinking supports problem-solving.  It helps make sure you don’t skip a step in the problem-solving process.

8.  Critical thinking helps overcome biased thinking.

9.  Critical thinking helps avoid mistakes by providing a method to evaluate (double-check) one’s work.

10.  Critical thinking helps an individual critique the work of others.

11.  Critical thinking promotes deep thinking.

12.  Critical thinking helps an individual see all sides of an argument.

13.  Critical thinking helps individuals solve difficult problems.

14.  Critical thinking helps individuals support their arguments.

15.  Critical thinking helps individuals recognize how a problem is framed and overcome the framing effect.

16.  Critical thinking helps thinkers recognize when selfish motives lie behind an argument.  It helps thinkers recognize manipulation.

17.  Critical thinking teaches students how to construct the law.

My book introduces critical thinking, shows how to teach it to lawyers, judges, and law students, and demonstrates how to use critical thinking to improve the Socratic method.  It also shows law professors how to improve their teaching through critical thinking.  Finally, it includes chapters on teaching legal writing and judges.  Since critical thinking development requires practice, it includes many examples and exercises.

Print & Share:

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: 1L , 2L , 3L , best practices , best practices for legal education , communication , critical thinking , judges , law professors , law school , law schools , Lawyer , lawyers , teaching |

3 Responses

I look forward to seeing this book. Given the trends in practice, teaching higher-order skills has become even more important. Critical thinking is one. Systematic decision-making is another. This is taught is many well-designed negotiation classes, but negotiation is a course and skill that is not offered enough in most law schools. (please see my article on Negotiation as a Foundational Skill: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3091415 )

Schools increasingly obsess over how much of AI and coding should be taught. But most schools barely (if at all) teach their students how to intelligently understand statistical information, despite the fact that this is knowledge vital to many areas of legal practice, as well as in public policy evaluation.

Law schools do lots of things well, but we can do better by rethinking what knowledge and skills our students will need in the future.

I received Mr. Fruhwald’s book yesterday. I read the chapter on understanding critical thinking today, and it is an eye opener. He is right. Law schools do not teach critical thinking, at least not critical thinking as it is defined by critical thinking experts. Teaching critical thinking in law schools would significantly improve our law students.

Great post! Teaching critical thinking to law students would definetely be a good idea, but I think that it is a skill that people from all professions and from all walks of life should learn. Not a lot of people have this capacity to think critically. We are all born with the capacity to think, but not everyone is capable of critical thinking. Moreover, we have a tendency to operate within our own echo chamber, where the only information that goes through our brain is information that validates our prior knowledge, vindicates our prior decision, sustains our existing beliefs. We should get into the habit from time to time of walking down the road less traveled, the one taken by critical thinkers. I wrote a blog article on this subject – https://authorjoannereed.net/what-is-critical-thinking/ . Feel free to check it out!

Comments are closed.

Maintained by

Davida finger, editor.

Melanie Daily, Editor

Join Best Practices!

Feedburner is the easiest way to get all the latest Best Practices news. Click here to receive Best Practices post updates by email! NEW!! Click here to subscribe to the comments too!

“Like” BP Blog on Facebook!

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

• Clinical Law Prof Blog and Best Practices for Legal Education
• The Economic Value of Law Clinic Legal Assistance
• Shifting Law School Faculty Demographics
• “Power and Politics in the Founding Era of Clinical Legal Education” by Roy Stuckey
• Teaching Students the Art of Giving (and Receiving) Feedback and Sharing IDEASS
• 567,908 hits
• Entries feed
• Comments feed
• WordPress.com

Blog at WordPress.com. WP Designer.

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Home > Blog > Tips for Online Students > Why Is Critical Thinking Important and How to Improve It

Tips for Online Students , Tips for Students

Why Is Critical Thinking Important and How to Improve It

Updated: July 8, 2024

Published: April 2, 2020

Why is critical thinking important? The decisions that you make affect your quality of life. And if you want to ensure that you live your best, most successful and happy life, you’re going to want to make conscious choices. That can be done with a simple thing known as critical thinking. Here’s how to improve your critical thinking skills and make decisions that you won’t regret.

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the process of analyzing facts to form a judgment. Essentially, it involves thinking about thinking. Historically, it dates back to the teachings of Socrates , as documented by Plato.

Today, it is seen as a complex concept understood best by philosophers and psychologists. Modern definitions include “reasonable, reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do” and “deciding what’s true and what you should do.”

The Importance Of Critical Thinking

Why is critical thinking important? Good question! Here are a few undeniable reasons why it’s crucial to have these skills.

1. Critical Thinking Is Universal

Critical thinking is a domain-general thinking skill. What does this mean? It means that no matter what path or profession you pursue, these skills will always be relevant and will always be beneficial to your success. They are not specific to any field.

2. Crucial For The Economy

Our future depends on technology, information, and innovation. Critical thinking is needed for our fast-growing economies, to solve problems as quickly and as effectively as possible.

3. Improves Language & Presentation Skills

In order to best express ourselves, we need to know how to think clearly and systematically — meaning practice critical thinking! Critical thinking also means knowing how to break down texts, and in turn, improve our ability to comprehend.

4. Promotes Creativity

By practicing critical thinking, we are allowing ourselves not only to solve problems but also to come up with new and creative ideas to do so. Critical thinking allows us to analyze these ideas and adjust them accordingly.

5. Important For Self-Reflection

Without critical thinking, how can we really live a meaningful life? We need this skill to self-reflect and justify our ways of life and opinions. Critical thinking provides us with the tools to evaluate ourselves in the way that we need to.

Photo by Marcelo Chagas from Pexels

6. the basis of science & democracy.

In order to have a democracy and to prove scientific facts, we need critical thinking in the world. Theories must be backed up with knowledge. In order for a society to effectively function, its citizens need to establish opinions about what’s right and wrong (by using critical thinking!).

Benefits Of Critical Thinking

We know that critical thinking is good for society as a whole, but what are some benefits of critical thinking on an individual level? Why is critical thinking important for us?

1. Key For Career Success

Critical thinking is crucial for many career paths. Not just for scientists, but lawyers , doctors, reporters, engineers , accountants, and analysts (among many others) all have to use critical thinking in their positions. In fact, according to the World Economic Forum, critical thinking is one of the most desirable skills to have in the workforce, as it helps analyze information, think outside the box, solve problems with innovative solutions, and plan systematically.

2. Better Decision Making

There’s no doubt about it — critical thinkers make the best choices. Critical thinking helps us deal with everyday problems as they come our way, and very often this thought process is even done subconsciously. It helps us think independently and trust our gut feeling.

3. Can Make You Happier!

While this often goes unnoticed, being in touch with yourself and having a deep understanding of why you think the way you think can really make you happier. Critical thinking can help you better understand yourself, and in turn, help you avoid any kind of negative or limiting beliefs, and focus more on your strengths. Being able to share your thoughts can increase your quality of life.

4. Form Well-Informed Opinions

There is no shortage of information coming at us from all angles. And that’s exactly why we need to use our critical thinking skills and decide for ourselves what to believe. Critical thinking allows us to ensure that our opinions are based on the facts, and help us sort through all that extra noise.

5. Better Citizens

One of the most inspiring critical thinking quotes is by former US president Thomas Jefferson: “An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.” What Jefferson is stressing to us here is that critical thinkers make better citizens, as they are able to see the entire picture without getting sucked into biases and propaganda.

6. Improves Relationships

While you may be convinced that being a critical thinker is bound to cause you problems in relationships, this really couldn’t be less true! Being a critical thinker can allow you to better understand the perspective of others, and can help you become more open-minded towards different views.

7. Promotes Curiosity

Critical thinkers are constantly curious about all kinds of things in life, and tend to have a wide range of interests. Critical thinking means constantly asking questions and wanting to know more, about why, what, who, where, when, and everything else that can help them make sense of a situation or concept, never taking anything at face value.

8. Allows For Creativity

Critical thinkers are also highly creative thinkers, and see themselves as limitless when it comes to possibilities. They are constantly looking to take things further, which is crucial in the workforce.

9. Enhances Problem Solving Skills

Those with critical thinking skills tend to solve problems as part of their natural instinct. Critical thinkers are patient and committed to solving the problem, similar to Albert Einstein, one of the best critical thinking examples, who said “It’s not that I’m so smart; it’s just that I stay with problems longer.” Critical thinkers’ enhanced problem-solving skills makes them better at their jobs and better at solving the world’s biggest problems. Like Einstein, they have the potential to literally change the world.

10. An Activity For The Mind

Just like our muscles, in order for them to be strong, our mind also needs to be exercised and challenged. It’s safe to say that critical thinking is almost like an activity for the mind — and it needs to be practiced. Critical thinking encourages the development of many crucial skills such as logical thinking, decision making, and open-mindness.

11. Creates Independence

When we think critically, we think on our own as we trust ourselves more. Critical thinking is key to creating independence, and encouraging students to make their own decisions and form their own opinions.

12. Crucial Life Skill

Critical thinking is crucial not just for learning, but for life overall! Education isn’t just a way to prepare ourselves for life, but it’s pretty much life itself. Learning is a lifelong process that we go through each and every day.

How To Improve Your Critical Thinking

Now that you know the benefits of thinking critically, how do you actually do it?

• Define Your Question: When it comes to critical thinking, it’s important to always keep your goal in mind. Know what you’re trying to achieve, and then figure out how to best get there.
• Gather Reliable Information: Make sure that you’re using sources you can trust — biases aside. That’s how a real critical thinker operates!
• Ask The Right Questions: We all know the importance of questions, but be sure that you’re asking the right questions that are going to get you to your answer.
• Look Short & Long Term: When coming up with solutions, think about both the short- and long-term consequences. Both of them are significant in the equation.
• Explore All Sides: There is never just one simple answer, and nothing is black or white. Explore all options and think outside of the box before you come to any conclusions.

How Is Critical Thinking Developed At School?

Critical thinking is developed in nearly everything we do, but much of this essential skill is encouraged and practiced in school. Fostering a culture of inquiry is crucial, encouraging students to ask questions, analyze information, and evaluate evidence.

Teaching strategies like Socratic questioning, problem-based learning, and collaborative discussions help students think for themselves. When teachers ask questions, students can respond critically and reflect on their learning. Group discussions also expand their thinking, making them independent thinkers and effective problem solvers.

How Does Critical Thinking Apply To Your Career?

Critical thinking is a valuable asset in any career. Employers value employees who can think critically, ask insightful questions, and offer creative solutions. Demonstrating critical thinking skills can set you apart in the workplace, showing your ability to tackle complex problems and make informed decisions.

In many careers, from law and medicine to business and engineering, critical thinking is essential. Lawyers analyze cases, doctors diagnose patients, business analysts evaluate market trends, and engineers solve technical issues—all requiring strong critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking also enhances your ability to communicate effectively, making you a better team member and leader. By analyzing and evaluating information, you can present clear, logical arguments and make persuasive presentations.

Incorporating critical thinking into your career helps you stay adaptable and innovative. It encourages continuous learning and improvement, which are crucial for professional growth and success in a rapidly changing job market.

Photo by Oladimeji Ajegbile from Pexels

Critical thinking is a vital skill with far-reaching benefits for personal and professional success. It involves systematic skills such as analysis, evaluation, inference, interpretation, and explanation to assess information and arguments.

By gathering relevant data, considering alternative perspectives, and using logical reasoning, critical thinking enables informed decision-making. Reflecting on and refining these processes further enhances their effectiveness.

The future of critical thinking holds significant importance as it remains essential for adapting to evolving challenges and making sound decisions in various aspects of life.

What are the benefits of developing critical thinking skills?

Critical thinking enhances decision-making, problem-solving, and the ability to evaluate information critically. It helps in making informed decisions, understanding others’ perspectives, and improving overall cognitive abilities.

How does critical thinking contribute to problem-solving abilities?

Critical thinking enables you to analyze problems thoroughly, consider multiple solutions, and choose the most effective approach. It fosters creativity and innovative thinking in finding solutions.

What role does critical thinking play in academic success?

Critical thinking is crucial in academics as it allows you to analyze texts, evaluate evidence, construct logical arguments, and understand complex concepts, leading to better academic performance.

How does critical thinking promote effective communication skills?

Critical thinking helps you articulate thoughts clearly, listen actively, and engage in meaningful discussions. It improves your ability to argue logically and understand different viewpoints.

How can critical thinking skills be applied in everyday situations?

You can use critical thinking to make better personal and professional decisions, solve everyday problems efficiently, and understand the world around you more deeply.

What role does skepticism play in critical thinking?

Skepticism encourages questioning assumptions, evaluating evidence, and distinguishing between facts and opinions. It helps in developing a more rigorous and open-minded approach to thinking.

What strategies can enhance critical thinking?

Strategies include asking probing questions, engaging in reflective thinking, practicing problem-solving, seeking diverse perspectives, and analyzing information critically and logically.

In this article

At UoPeople, our blog writers are thinkers, researchers, and experts dedicated to curating articles relevant to our mission: making higher education accessible to everyone. Read More

Critical Thinking: An Art Every Law Student Must Master!

Table of Contents

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following:

• Understand the logical connections between ideas
• Identify, construct, and evaluate arguments
• Detect common mistakes in reasoning
• Solve problems systematically

What do we need to think critically?

It’s crucial that you learn how to think critically, especially as a law student.

Critical thinking is an essential skill that you must develop in order to succeed not just in your legal studies but also in any area of life. As a key component of your cognitive development, it will help you develop the ability to absorb information and generate new ideas on a regular basis. It will give you the tools for effective decision making, critical analysis and problem solving skills.

In order for students to be successful at college, they must be able to think critically about their classes, professors, career options and everything else surrounding them. Critical thinking is different from simply being analytical or imaginative; it means using logic and reasoning with facts rather than imagination alone. Being able to engage in this type of reasoning requires one to focus primarily on the world around them rather than on one’s own emotions or mental processes as well as always asking questions whenever they make decisions or form opinions in order to find additional information they may require. It takes dedication and practice but anyone who can apply it properly can benefit greatly from critical thinking skills that can help improve their grades, career prospects and overall quality of life – so don’t be afraid!

Why is it important for law students?

You would have probably heard the terms “critical thinking” and “analytical thinking” being thrown around from time to time. Everyone claims that they are critical thinkers, but what does it really mean?

Critical thinking is the capacity to assess situations logically and make decisions based on facts rather than emotions or personal bias. Analytical skills, on the other hand, refer to your ability to collect and analyze information, problem-solve, and make decisions. These two sets of skills can be highly useful in both our professional and personal lives.

In any profession where an individual makes a decision (or contributes towards making a decision) for another person or group of people, these skills are essential. Lawyers especially will benefit greatly from having these skills since they need to be objective at all times while arguing their case in court. They also need to be able to pick out flaws in another argument very quickly while preparing their own argument.

How can you improve your critical thinking skills?

The skills of critical thinking are what you need to be able to reflect on your decision-making processes and improve them over time. We all have biases, blind spots, and tendencies that influence our thinking. Many of these are hardwired into our brain’s structure. There are a few simple steps you can take to grow more aware of how you make decisions, as well as how certain types of thought patterns might be holding you back from making better ones.

First things first: it is important to consider the viewpoints of others when deciding something, particularly if you want your decision to be unbiased. If possible, try not to let social factors such as your values or emotions affect your ability to reason objectively about the situation at hand. Everyone has a point of view that is unique, so it is always wise to take the time and do your due diligence in researching other perspectives through listening and observation before coming to any conclusions or taking action on an issue.

Secondly, examining the assumptions that underlie one’s reasoning can help uncover whether they may not actually hold true in every case–or even most cases! For example, if someone assumes all people with disabilities cannot work because “they have too many physical limitations,” then this may lead them towards leaving out large numbers of potential employees who could benefit from working part-time or full-time jobs depending on their abilities (such as those with learning disabilities). This would likely result in less diversity within an organization where only those who fit into specific criteria were hired (which tends towards homogeneity). Also note that this type assumption isn’t just limited by false beliefs about disability status; many preconceived notions about gender identity exist within society today which similarly prevent individuals from being judged fairly by employers for their qualifications rather than personal qualities outside their control (such as sexual orientation).

Thirdly–and perhaps most importantly!–you should always stay open minded when making decisions; otherwise there’s no room for growth! This means being willing ____ ,

Critical thinking skills are essential for law students.

Critical thinking skills are essential for law students. They help you to identify your own biases, understand and tell the difference between fact and opinion, see the big picture, see the connections between ideas, present information clearly and logically, analyze information and make better decisions.

Passionate about using the law to make a difference in people’s lives. An Advocate by profession.

Related Posts: