Legal Research, Writing and Analytical Reasoning: Authority and Argument
This domain tests the craft that supports every other one: find the governing authority, read it accurately, reason from rule to fact, and present the conclusion so a busy reader can follow it.
Authority and verification
- Primary authority: constitutions, statutes, regulations, binding judgments. Secondary: textbooks, commentary, journals - persuasive only, never a substitute for the source.
- Rank authority: binding and in force first, then persuasive, then secondary. Always check a case in a citator to confirm it has not been overruled or distinguished into oblivion.
Statutory interpretation
- Textual meaning first; then systematic reading in context of the whole instrument; then purposive analysis of object and purpose, with travaux préparatoires as a supplementary aid; then historical context. Presume against absurdity and against retroactivity.
Reasoning structure
- IRAC or CRAC: Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. Application must map each rule element to a specific fact, not restate the rule.
- Analogical reasoning: identify the material similarity between precedent and facts; distinguish on a material difference; address the strongest counter-argument before concluding.
Worked example
A statute fines 'any person who sells alcohol without a licence'; the accused supplied drinks free with a paid meal. Reasoning: the issue is whether a complimentary drink is a sale. The text is ambiguous; the purpose is to regulate licensed supply; a nominal gift priced into the meal defeats that purpose. Conclusion: the conduct falls within the statute, with the reasoning stated, not merely asserted.
Traps
- Citing overruled or repealed authority.
- Stating conclusions without applying the rule to the facts.
- Quoting long passages instead of analysing them.
- Ignoring adverse authority that the other side will raise.