The Role of Logic and Argumentation in Legal Reasoning: From Deduction to Analogy

Abstract

This study examines the role of logic and argumentation in legal reasoning, focusing on the relationship between deductive syllogism and analogical reasoning in judicial decision-making. The research aims to clarify how these two forms of inference interact rather than compete, and to identify emerging methods for analyzing this relationship systematically. A qualitative literature study approach was used, drawing on jurisprudential theory, argumentation scheme scholarship, and computational legal analysis retrieved from academic sources. The findings show that deductive form persists as a legitimating structure in judicial opinions, while analogical reasoning functions as the operative mechanism for applying precedent, generating premises that subsequently support deductive conclusions. The study further finds a growing trend toward formalizing and computationally annotating these reasoning patterns in judicial texts. These results suggest that deduction and analogy should be understood as complementary rather than opposing modes of legal inference