Under the rules of logic, what is proper reasoning (valid logic) as applied in the legal profession? Here’s my point of view.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog*, an official governmental website, or a well-recognized organization. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
Thinking Like a Logician: Why Proper Reasoning Is a Trial Lawyer’s Greatest Asset in Employment Discrimination Cases
More Than Evidence: The Need for Sound Reasoning
Most lawyers appreciate the importance of evidence. Fewer spend much time thinking about the process by which evidence becomes a persuasive argument.
That process is reasoning.
Every trial, whether it concerns a contract dispute, a criminal charge, or an employment discrimination claim, ultimately asks decision-makers to answer a simple question: What conclusion should we draw from the facts?
Logic provides the framework for answering that question. It is the discipline that separates a justified conclusion from a mere assumption.
For employment discrimination lawyers, understanding logic is particularly important because these cases often revolve around inferences about human motivation. Rarely does an employer announce, “We fired this employee because of her age,” or, “We denied this promotion because of race.” Instead, lawyers and jurors must determine what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the surrounding circumstances.
What is Valid logic?
Logic examines the process by which conclusions are drawn from established propositions. Every argument contains a set of underlying propositions and an ultimate conclusion. The propositions supply the basis for the argument; the conclusion is the position the argument is intended to support.
An argument is considered logically valid when the conclusion is warranted by the propositions on which it rests. In other words, assuming the underlying propositions are true, the conclusion follows from them as a matter of rational inference. Logical validity therefore concerns the soundness of the reasoning process rather than the independent truth or falsity of the propositions themselves.
video Example: Valid Logic
What Makes Reasoning “Valid”?
At its most basic level, logic examines whether a conclusion is supported by the reasons offered in its favor.
Imagine a lawyer arguing:
• The employee was terminated.
• The employee is over forty years old.
• Therefore, the termination was motivated by age discrimination.
Something is missing.
The conclusion does not naturally emerge from those two facts alone. Additional information is needed before the argument becomes persuasive. Perhaps younger employees with similar records were retained. Perhaps supervisors repeatedly referenced the employee’s age. Perhaps company policies were ignored during the termination process.
The lesson is straightforward: a conclusion should not exceed what the evidence can reasonably support.
Valid reasoning requires a connection between facts and conclusions. Without that connection, an argument becomes speculation.
Facts Are Not Conclusions
One of the easiest mistakes to make in litigation is to confuse evidence with the interpretation of evidence.
Suppose a manager repeatedly refers to an employee as “old school” and jokes about retirement. Those comments are facts if they are established by testimony or documents.
But the statement, “The manager was biased against older workers,” is a conclusion drawn from those facts.
The distinction matters.
Lawyers often persuade juries not by uncovering new facts, but by helping jurors understand why certain conclusions logically follow from the facts already in evidence.
A skilled advocate recognizes the difference between proving a fact and proving what that fact means.
Connecting the Dots Without Guessing
Jurors are routinely asked to connect dots. The challenge is determining whether the dots genuinely form a picture or whether someone is drawing lines that do not belong there.
For example, consider the following sequence:
• An employee reports discrimination.
• The employee receives a negative evaluation shortly afterward.
• The employee is terminated a month later.
Those events may suggest retaliation. But they do not automatically establish retaliation.
The logical inquiry is whether the sequence of events, viewed alongside all other evidence, makes retaliation a reasonable explanation.
Good reasoning does not require certainty. It requires justification.
In the courtroom, lawyers should be able to explain not only what happened, but why a particular interpretation of events is more convincing than competing explanations.
Common Breakdowns in Legal Reasoning
Treating Suspicion as Proof
Certain facts naturally raise questions. Sudden changes in treatment, inconsistent explanations, and unusual timing can all create suspicion.
Suspicion, however, is not the same as proof.
A logical argument uses suspicious circumstances as a starting point for analysis, not as the final destination.
Starting With the Answer
Another frequent error occurs when someone begins with a conclusion and then works backward.
For example:
“The employer discriminated because the decision was discriminatory.”
This type of argument sounds persuasive until examined closely. It offers no independent reason for believing the conclusion.
Proper reasoning works in the opposite direction. It begins with evidence and proceeds toward a conclusion.
Ignoring Alternative Explanations
Strong arguments survive scrutiny because they account for competing possibilities.
If an employer asserts that a termination resulted from poor performance, a plaintiff’s lawyer should not simply dismiss that explanation. The better approach is to examine whether the evidence actually supports it.
Were performance concerns documented? Were other employees treated differently? Did the explanation change over time?
Logic becomes stronger when it confronts alternative explanations rather than pretending they do not exist.
Why Employment Cases Depend So Heavily on Logic
Many areas of law involve tangible events. A contract was signed or it was not. A payment was made or it was not.
Employment discrimination cases often focus on something less visible: intent.
Intent cannot usually be placed on an exhibit board.
Instead, intent must be inferred from behavior, statements, patterns, and circumstances. This makes logical reasoning indispensable.
Jurors are frequently asked to decide whether a particular employment decision resulted from legitimate business considerations, unlawful bias, retaliation, or some combination of factors. The answer often depends on which explanation best fits the evidence as a whole.
In that sense, employment trials are exercises in reasoned judgment.
The Lawyer as a Guide to Reasoning
The most effective trial lawyers do more than present facts. They teach jurors how to think about those facts.
They identify the critical evidence, explain the significance of that evidence, and show how individual pieces fit together into a coherent conclusion.
Importantly, they avoid overstating what the evidence proves. Jurors tend to trust advocates who acknowledge complexity while providing a logical path through it.
A lawyer who respects the principles of sound reasoning is better positioned to build credibility, whether representing an employee or an employer.
Conclusion
Logic is sometimes viewed as an abstract academic subject, far removed from the realities of litigation. In truth, it lies at the heart of every trial.
Employment discrimination cases provide a particularly clear example. Because direct evidence of unlawful motive is often unavailable, lawyers must rely on careful reasoning to bridge the gap between facts and conclusions.
The central question is not whether a particular story is emotionally appealing. The central question is whether the conclusion being urged follows logically from the evidence presented.
When trial lawyers remain focused on that principle, they not only become more persuasive advocates—they help ensure that verdicts rest on reason rather than assumption.
Read Our Related Articles
» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Populum
» Law & Logic: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)
» Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)
» Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)
» Law & Logic: The Straw Man Fallacy
LEARN MORE
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
–gw
