Legal Argumentation and Evidence

Courtroom reasoning rarely looks like a textbook syllogism. Evidence is tested, arguments are answered, and conclusions rest on what is plausible rather than what is proven. Douglas Walton, a leading figure in informal logic, sets out to describe legal reasoning as it actually works, treating it as a dynamic, rule-governed conversation directed towards a goal. Approaches built on deductive and inductive logic dismiss many everyday arguments as fallacies. His dialogical model makes room for a broader sense of what counts as reasonable.

Drawing on methods of argumentation theory now gaining ground in artificial intelligence, Walton offers a way to identify, analyse and evaluate specific types of legal argument, with particular attention to the law of evidence. He also rethinks relevance and probative weight in pragmatic terms. Law students, evidence scholars and philosophers of logic will find a rigorous account that does not pretend a trial is a proof.