critical thinking test law

• Numerical Reasoning
• Verbal Reasoning
• Inductive Reasoning
• Diagrammatic Reasoning
• Logical Reasoning
• Mechanical Reasoning
• Situational Judgement
• Deductive reasoning
• Critical thinking
• Spatial reasoning
• Error checking
• Verbal comprehension
• Reading comprehension
• Psychometric tests
• Personality test
• In-Tray exercise
• E-Tray exercise
• Group exercise
• Roleplay exercise
• Presentation exercise
• Analysis exercise
• Case study exercise
• Game based assessments
• Competency based assessment
• Strengths based assessment
• Strengths based interview
• Video interview
• Saville Assessment
• Talent Q / Korn Ferry
• Watson Glaser
• Test Partnership
• Clevry (Criterion)
• Criteria Corp
• Aon / Cut-e
• Sova Assessment
• For Practice
• For Business

Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Tests

Complex and challenging critical thinking tests, including the Watson-Glaser, are used mostly by law firms.

Page contents:

About critical thinking tests and how they work, free practice critical thinking test, the watson glaser critical thinking appraisal, what is measured by a watson glaser critical thinking test, what should i know before taking a watson glaser critical thinking test, major publishers' critical thinking tests, advice for all critical thinking tests, assessmentday's practice tests can help you to prepare for a critical thinking test, one final point, other test publishers.

Updated: 08 September 2022

Critical thinking tests, or critical reasoning tests, are psychometric tests used in recruitment at all levels, graduate, professional and managerial, but predominantly in the legal sector. However, it is not uncommon to find companies in other sectors using critical thinking tests as part of their selection process. This is an intense test, focusing primarily on your analytical, or critical thinking, skills. Some tests are still conducted by paper and pen, but, just like other psychometric tests, critical thinking tests are mostly administered online at home or on a computer at a testing center.

The questions are multiple choice, and these choices and the style of questions are explained in more detail further down the page. The tests will often follow these two common timings:

• 30 questions with a 40 minute time limit
• 80 questions with a 60 minute time limit

Critical Thinking can be defined in many ways and an exact description is disputed, however, most agree on a broad definition of critical thinking, that 'critical thinking involves rational, purposeful, and goal-directed thinking...by using certain cognitive skills and strategies.' An absence or lack of critical thinking skills at times may lead us to believe things which aren't true, because we haven't sufficiently analysed and criticized the information we've received or used this to formulate and independently test our own theories, arguments and ideas. These are all examples of critical thinking skills put into practice. Glaser (An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking, 1941) stated that to think critically involved three key parts:

• An attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences
• Knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning
• Some skill in applying those methods

Note: AssessmentDay and its products are not affiliated with Pearson or TalentLens. Our practice tests are for candidates to prepare for the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal; we do not sell tests for employers to select candidates.

Free Critical Thinking Test

Here, we have a full critical thinking test for you to practice for free. You can dive straight in and practice the full test (in blue at the bottom), or tackle each individual section one at a time.

All answers and explanations are included at the end of the test, or alternatively you can download the Solutions PDF. Each test has been given a generous time limit.

Critical Thinking Test 1

• 40 questions

Critical Thinking Test 2

Critical thinking test 3, critical thinking test 4.

TalentLens' Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) is the most common critical thinking test. You can visit their official site here: Watson Glaser . Most other critical thinking tests are based on the Watson Glaser format. More than 90 years' of experience have led to many modifications and improvements in the test.

The Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal is widely regarded as a good predictor of work productivity and at identifying candidates with a good potential to become managers and occupy other positions as a senior member of staff. The latest edition of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Test has improved its validity, appealed more to businesses by focusing on business-relevant topics, switched to the Item Response Theory (IRT) for its scoring, updated norm groups, and integrated anti-cheat measures by having an online retest, which can be used to validate results.

Developed by Goodwin Watson and Edward Glaser, the Watson Glaser test is favored by law firms , keen to measure people's abilities to reason, reach conclusions and know when leaps in logic have been made. Skills which are required in the legal sector. The questions in each of the 5 sections aims to evaluate the candidate's ability to:

• 1. Arrive at correct inferences
• 2. Identify when an assumption has been made
• 3. Use deductive reasoning
• 4. Reach logical conclusions
• 5. Evaluate the effectiveness of arguments

Did You Know

The most recent revision of the W-GCTA was published in 2011 with notable improvements being better face validity and business-relevant items, scoring based on Item Response Theory (IRT), updated norm groups, and an online retest which can be used to validate a paper and pencil test result.

A Critical thinking tests assesses your ability in 5 key areas mentioned above; assumptions, arguments, deductions, inferences and interpreting information. Often in this order. A short paragraph of text a few sentences long or a single sentence is used as a starting point. This passage will contain information which you will base your answer to the question on. Another sentence is then presented to you and you will be asked to judge something about this sentence based on the information in the short paragraph. The five sections are explained in more detail here:

• Assumptions - You are being asked to state whether the information in the second set of text you are presented is an assumption made in the first paragraph. Quite a tricky concept to get your head around at first. In a nutshell, when people speak or make arguments, there are underlying assumptions in those arguments. Here you are presented with some assumptions and are asked to judge if that is being made in the original statement. For example in the statement "only people earning a high salary can afford a fast car," what's being assumed is that fast cars are expensive because only people who are earning a lot of money can buy one, however, what's not being assumed is that people without high salaries aren't legally allowed to buy a fast car. You are asked to choose whether an assumption has been made or has not been made.
• Arguments - You are presented with an argument, such as "Should college fees be abolished?" Regardless of your own opinions and thoughts on the argument, you are then presented with statements related to this original argument. You are asked to say whether the responses to the original argument of "Should college fees be abolished?" make for strong or weak arguments. Arguments are considered strong if they are related to the topic such as, "Yes, many people who would benefit from a college education do not because they cannot afford it. This hurts the country's economic growth." The argument presented is sound, related to the original question. Compare this with a weak argument, "No, I do not trust people who read a lot of books." It is clear that the second argument bears very little relation to the subject of the abolition of college tuition fees. This is not to say that an argument against the original argument will always be a weak one, or that an argument in favor will always be a strong one. For example, "Yes, I like people that read books," is in favor of the abolition as indicated by "yes," but that person's like or dislike of others that read books isn't related, or hasn't been explained how it's related to removing the fees. Carefully considering what is being said, remove it from your own personal opinions and political views to objectively analyse what someone else has put forward.
• Deductions - A few sentences of information are presented to you. Another separate short statement will also be shown to you, which is supposed to represent a conclusion that someone has reached. You will have to determine whether this conclusion logically follows from the information given to you. Can the statement be deduced from the information available>? If so, and without a doubt, then the conclusion follows, if not, then the conclusion does not follow. Your decision must be based on the information given and not from your own knowledge.
• Inferences - A short scenario is described to you, followed by possible inferences. The inferences are short statements. Imagine that these are what people have said is inferred from the scenario. Use your judgement and the short scenario to assess whether what's being said has actually been inferred from the passage and the likelihood of this inference. You are asked to rank each inference as either 'true,' 'false,' 'possibly true,' 'possibly false.' For some proposed inferences there isn't enough information to say either 'true' or 'false' so a fifth option is included; 'more information required.' You can only select one option from the five.
• Interpreting Information - Following a similar format to the previous four sections, a short passage of information and then a series of statements are shown to you. You are asked to judge whether the information in the passage can be interpreted as the statements suggest. The answer options are straightforward here; you either select 'conclusion follows,' or 'conclusion does not follow,' depending on whether or not you believe that the statement can be logically reached from the information given. Again, for this section and all others, you are to base your choice of answer on what you're given, not on any specialized knowledge you might have.

If a watson glaser critical thinking test is used in the early stages of the application process it's likely to be used as a screening tool. This puts some pressure on candidates to meet a minimum pass mark, which will allow them to be selected to go on to the next stage of the selection process. If it's used at a later stage in the process, the results from this will be combined with performance in other assessments, tests, exercises and interviews. All the information you need to answer the questions will be in the test. Below the details of a few companies' critical thinking tests are pointed out.

Here is a list of critical reasoning tests on the market at present, which candidates may be likely to encounter for recruitment, selection or development.

• W-GCTA - The Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal as it is formally called is the most ubiquitous critical thinking test out there. This is the one that you are most likely to encounter.
• GMAT - The general management aptitude test, used by business schools and colleges test students' critical thinking ability. The critical thinking questions are written in a business or finance context.
• SHL - SHL have produced the Critical Reasoning Test Battery composed of 60 critical reasoning questions with a strict time limit of 30 minutes.
• Cornell - Cornell have developed a critical thinking test to be used in educational environments. The two levels, X and Z, are aimed at children and adults, respectively.
• Area-specific - There are tests which focus on either numerical critical reasoning skills and verbal critical reasoning skills. These tests will ask only numerical or only verbal questions to assess your skills in a specific area.

Here is some general advice to help you perform to the best of your ability for your critical reasoning test.

• No prior knowledge - The key point here is that critical reasoning tests are measuring your ability to think, or the method that you use to reach a conclusion. You should therefore not rely on prior knowledge to answer the question. Questions will be written so that you do not need to know any specialist knowledge to answer the question. For example, you will not be expected to know mathematical formulas or laws of nature and to answer questions with that information. If you are given the formula and its description in the questions, you are expected to use that information to reach the answer.
• Carefully read the instructions - There are 5 sections to most critical thinking tests and each will assess a slightly different skill. Make sure you have read the instructions and understand what it is you are expected to do to answer the questions for this section. There is quite a difference between the Assumptions section and the Deductions section for example. Applying the rules of one to the other would lead to just guessing the answers and making many mistakes.
• Keep your eye on the timer - These tests are complex. You might find yourself fixated on answering one question and taking up a lot of the time you are allowed. Checking how much time you have every so often can help you to more evenly distribute your time between the questions. This is done to avoid spending too much time on one question when that time would be better spent answering more or checking your answers. This time management applies to all tests, but is particularly important with Critical Thinking tests, as many people believe they have such a large amount of time, but underestimate the number of questions they have to answer.
• Logical fallacies - Identifying logical fallacies is key to many parts of this test, and researching the difference between sound and fallacious logic will prove helpful in a critical reasoning test. A fallacy is an error in reasoning due to a misconception or a presumption, and an argument which employs a formal fallacy, logical fallacy or a deductive fallacy in its reasoning becomes an invalid argument. Researching the different types of fallacy (i.e. red herring argument, straw man argument, confusing correlation and causation etc.) can help you spot these in the test and correctly answer the question.

The practice tests that we have cover all of the sections of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking test and these overlap with many of the variations in Critical Thinking tests produced by major publishers. practice helps to increase your confidence, gives you a chance to learn from your mistakes in a risk-free environment, and can reduce stress before an exam.

The best place to get advice on taking a critical thinking tests is the test publisher's website, for example this one for the Watson Glaser .

If you have already successfully passed a few initial stages of the application process, it's unlikely that companies will focus solely on your results in the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking test when deciding whether or not to hire you. This type of selection by results on one test is more likely if it is part of the early stages of the process. However, towards the later stages the company will look at your results across interviews, group exercises, other aptitude tests and your résumé and will collate all of this information before reaching a decision. If you have been invited to undertake a critical reasoning test then the organisation clearly has an interest in hiring you, let that fact inspire confidence and perform to the best of your ability on your test, good luck!

You may also be interested in these popular tests sections.

How to Prepare and Pass the Watson-Glaser Test

In the following article, we will explore one of the most challenging pre-employment tests in the UK and worldwide – the Watson Glaser test – which is most commonly used for recruitment in the legal sector.

Included are an overview of the test, its main challenges, and how to overcome them with effective practice methods. The article also features two brief introductory videos:

Video #1 – Structure, content, and practice tips

Video #2 – Step-by-step solutions to five Watson Glaser sample questions, to exemplify the rules and requirements of the test.

What Is the Watson Glaser Test?

The Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) is a pre-employment test used primarily in the law industry. Some of the major employers using the test are Linklaters, Clifford Chance, Hogan Lovells, and the Government Legal Service. The test assesses your critical thinking – namely, your ability to analyse and interpret verbal information, draw conclusions, evaluate arguments, etc.

The test contains 40 questions divided into 5 sections, each one assessing a different aspect of critical thinking:

• Recognition of Assumptions
• Interpretation
• Evaluation of Arguments

Visit the Complete Watson Glaser Test Guide for a full overview of the test sections and content, including sample questions and a free sample test.

The Watson Glaser Test Guide

Check out the following 3.5-minutes video for a complete overview of the Watson Glaser test:

What Are the Main Challenges of the Watson Glaser Test and How to Overcome Them?

The Watson Glaser test is indeed considered a difficult test, designed with very specific rules, and often requiring counterintuitive solving methods. And yet, with a good understanding of the three main challenges of the test and the ways to overcome them, you CAN improve your score and get the offers you want. Let’s see how:

Challenge #1 – A Single Trait Measured

The Watson Glaser test is aimed at assessing one thing only – your critical thinking. It does so in five different ways and being successful on all of them is the best guarantee to passing the test.

Overcoming Challenge #1 – Prepare for Test Sections as They Are

You have a test, so prepare for the test.

Learn how the Watson Glaser test questions look like, and practise that.

Once you have a grasp of the test, you can certainly construct your own practice plan using open sources. However, structured preparation plans such as JobTestPrep’s Watson Glaser Preparation Pack make it much easier, with practice material replicating the actual test’s rules and formatting.

Challenge #2 – A Unique Set of Rules

The Watson Glaser has its own set of rules, unparalleled by any other critical thinking test. For example:

• Generalisation equals existence
• “Probably True” and “Probably False” answer choices.

This makes the Watson Glaser test a unique, tailored testing experience, which requires a tailored preparation plan.

Overcoming Challenge #2 – Learn to Let Go

A major part of your preparation will be to uproot all your misconceptions about how to solve critical thinking questions and to learn how to ignore any irrelevant information. This may be the hardest part of you preparation. You will learn to go against what you believe to be true, just to get the question right. To beat your competitors, you must think like the test does and not like you do.

Want to see the test rules in action? Watch the following video , where we explain the logic behind five sample Watson Glaser questions, one of each category.

Challenge #3 – Intuition and Knowledge Will Fail You

The Watson Glaser test uses a collection of tactics to constantly elude, distract, and mislead you with near-correct answers. To avoid these pitfalls, you must understand the exact rules of the test and disregard anything else.

Up for the challenge? Try a 7-minutes free Watson Glaser sample test

Overcoming Challenge #3 – Develop Thinking Algorithms

One of the best ways to make sure you set your own beliefs and opinions aside is developing thinking algorithms – a methodical series of simple Q&As that lead you to the correct answer. For instance:

• Evaluation of Arguments– ITDN table
• Recognition of Assumptions – The Negative Test
• Inference – Common Inference vs. Common Knowledge

With some focused practice, thinking algorithms will replace your intuition and personal knowledge as your main critical thinking tool.

This article was written by Shlomik Silbiger, JobTestPrep’s expert on the Watson Glaser test. If you have any questions, contact  [email protected]

Free access to JobTestPrep for Oxford University students

As an Oxford University student, you can get free access to JobTestPrep via the Careers Service to practise for a wide variety of online recruitment tests, including Watson Glaser CTA, e-tray exercises and assessment centres as well as numerical-, verbal- and spatial-reasoning tests. Find out how you can gain access >>

AllAboutLaw

What are you looking for? Submit

• Speak to an expert Ask about postgrad courses CHAT NOW
• SQE: Need to prep? Find out all about the SQE LEARN NOW
• Selection & Assessment Week Tues 6th - Thurs 9th Feb Reserve your Spot

Jun 11, 2023

Written By Yi Kang Choo

Understanding the Watson Glaser Test: How to Improve Your Critical Thinking Skills

The Watson Glaser test is a popular measure of critical thinking ability used by employers (especially law firms) to evaluate a candidate's reasoning and problem-solving skills. In this article, we'll explore what the test consists of, its importance, and how you can improve your critical thinking skills to score well in similar tests.

What is the Watson Glaser test?

Originally developed by psychologists John B. Watson and Edward M. Glaser in the 1920s, the Watson Glaser test is a cognitive ability test designed to assess an individual's critical thinking skills. Being able to think critically and analytically has always been a vital part of a lawyer’s work, so there’s a clear rationale for law firms to use Watson Glaser Tests to assess their candidates and future trainees.

The test usually consists of 40 multiple-choice questions and measures five key components of critical thinking: inference, recognition of assumptions, deduction, interpretation, and evaluation of arguments.

There might be some variations depending on law firms (you can assess free practice tests online), but most questions are commonly designed to test your ability to analyse information, draw logical conclusions, and identify key strengths/weaknesses in arguments.

What is the purpose of the Watson Glaser test?

By administering the Watson Glaser test, law firms are searching for individuals who can analyse complex information, make sound decisions, and solve problems creatively instead of only applying rigid solutions.

Through the test, candidates can also demonstrate their strengths and weaknesses when it comes to critical thinking. Some employers will even publish a free report for candidates outlining these after the test. This allows candidates to work on their weaknesses, in order to become more effective problem solvers.

How can I improve my critical thinking skills?

Whilst improving your critical thinking skills takes time and effort, it is still possible to significantly improve them before taking the test! Here are some tips for enhancing your general critical thinking ability:

- Practise active listening: Pay attention to what others are saying and try asking useful questions to clarify their ideas. Try to avoid just relying on underlying assumptions.

- Read widely: Reading (op-eds, the news) exposes one to different ideas and perspectives. It also helps to develop a broader understanding of different issues that might actually be relevant to your future as a solicitor.

- Evaluate arguments: Search for trusted facts and evidence to support or refute arguments. It will also be helpful if you can identify any biases or logical fallacies behind such arguments.

- Seek feedback: Never be shy to request for feedback on your ideas/arguments, and be open to constructive criticism to help improve the way you think.

- Reflect on how you think: Take time to also reflect on your own thinking process and identify areas for improvement (i.e. being prone to relying on biases or being emotionally-driven).

- Challenge your assumptions: It is important to be willing to challenge your own assumptions and consider alternative viewpoints.

By practising these skills regularly, you can improve your critical thinking ability. This will help you generally, as well when you are taking the Watson Glaser test.

How can I improve my Watson Glaser score?

Aside from your general critical thinking skills, there are also some key technical tips on how you might be able to score better in the future. These include:

- Doing as many practice tests as possible. Even if you might be able to think critically, you will still need to familiarise yourself with the actual tests. Different questions will usually have different instructions that require very different ways of thinking.

- Read the instructions in detail, and don’t rush through the questions. Make sure you are super mindful of not just the actual questions and statements but also the instructions. They might include key details that will play a vital role in your final decision-making/analysis.

- Check if your test is timed. Whilst most firms do not time candidates for their Watson Glaser Test, it is still very important to double check. This ensures you can practise the test under timed constraints.

By understanding the rationale for why employers are using Watson Glaser tests, and familiarising themselves with the details of the test itself, students should be able to score well.

Regardless, improving your critical thinking skills in general will always be a transferable skill that is crucial for aspiring lawyers to excel in their personal and professional lives.

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

• Numerical Reasoning
• Verbal Reasoning
• Inductive Reasoning
• Logical Reasoning
• Situational Judgement
• Mechanical Reasoning
• Watson Glaser Critical thinking
• Deductive reasoning
• Abstract reasoning
• Spatial reasoning
• Error checking
• Verbal comprehension
• Reading comprehension
• Diagrammatic Reasoning
• Psychometric tests
• Personality test
• In-Tray exercise
• E-Tray exercise
• Competency based assessment
• Game based assessments
• Analysis exercise
• Group exercise
• Presentation exercise
• Video interview
• Strengths based assessment
• Strengths based interviews
• Saville Assessment
• Talent Q / Korn Ferry
• Watson Glaser
• Criterion Partnership
• Test Partnership
• Cut-e / Aon
• Team Focus PFS
• Sova Assessment

Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Practice Tests and Advice

Critical thinking tests are high-level aptitude tests, with the Watson-Glaser being the most common.

• Buy critical tests
• Start for free

Page contents:

What is a critical thinking test, critical thinking test format.

• Watson Glaser critical thinking explained

Critical thinking arguments tutorial

Free watson glaser practice tests, critical thinking assumptions tutorial.

• What does a critical test measure?

Critical thinking deductions tutorial

• Most popular critical thinking tests

Critical thinking inferences tutorial

• How to pass Watson Glaser test

Watson Glaser FAQs

Updated: 24 August 2023

A critical thinking test is used to assess your ability to logically analyse assumptions, arguments, deductions, inferences and interpreting information. Critical thinking can be defined as ‘the ability to consider a range of information derived from many different sources, to process this information in a creative and logical manner, challenging it, analysing it and arriving at considered conclusions which can be defended and justified’ (Moon, 2008).

Critical reasoning tests, also known as critical thinking tests, are psychometric tests commonly used in graduate, professional and managerial recruitment. These high-level analytical test are most commonly encountered in the legal sector, but other organisations such as the Bank of England also use them as part of their selection process.

If we lack critical thinking skills, it is possible to be misguided into believing that an argument is strong, when in actual fact there is little evidence to support it. Critical thinking skills therefore include the ability to structure a sound, solid argument, to analyse and synthesise available information, and to make assumptions and inferences. Critical thinking skills are also about being able to evaluate the information and draw conclusions that can be supported.

Your critical thinking test may be pencil and paper or, more likely, it may be administered online. Which one you take will often depend on the format and the structure of the recruitment process. The questions will be multiple choice format and will usually be administered under time constraints.

Common test formats are as follows:

• 40 questions - 30 minutes
• 80 question - 60 minutes

Once you understand the format of your test, you are much more likely to perform better. Practice is the best way to maximise your chances of test success.

Watson Glaser critical thinking appraisal explained

By far the most common type of critical thinking test is the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (W-GCTA) which is published by TalentLens. You can visit their official site here: Watson Glaser . With over 85 years' worth of development, the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal is the most popular measure of critical thinking ability. The test is most commonly used by law firms, which is understandable as the abilities measured by the W-GCTA are good predictors of future success in roles which require clarity of understanding from multiple perspectives and the ability to reason with fact versus assumption.

The Watson-Glaser Thinking Appraisal (W-GCTA) is one of the main evaluating tools for cognitive abilities in professionals, since it measures critical thinking. It is seen as a successful tool to predict job success, as well as being used to select good managers and finding possible future leaders. It is also used in order to select the right person for a specific job role, especially for careers in the law.

Did You Know

The most recent revision of the W-GCTA was published in 2011 with notable improvements being better face validity and business-relevant items, scoring based on Item Response Theory (IRT), updated norm groups, and an online retest which can be used to validate a paper and pencil test result.

The W-GCTA was originally developed by Goodwin Watson and Edward Glaser. The W-GCTA measures the critical skills that are necessary for presenting in a clear, structured, well-reasoned way, a certain point of view and convincing others of your argument. The test questions are looking at the individual’s ability to:

• Make correct inferences
• To recognise assumptions
• To make deductions
• To come to conclusions
• To interpret and evaluate arguments

The following video features Ben explain how to answer an arguments-style question from a critical thinking test:

Free Critical Thinking Test

We have broken down a critical thinking test into the different sections. You can try each section or take the full test (86 questions, 60 minutes).

Critical Thinking Test 1

• 40 questions

Critical Thinking Test 2

Critical thinking test 3, critical thinking test 4.

The following video features Ben explain how to answer an assumptions-style question from a critical thinking test:

Start practising quality tests with a free account

Practice makes perfect

• Learn from detailed solutions
• Track your progress

What does a critical thinking test measure?

Critical thinking tests assess your ability to logically analyse assumptions, arguments, deductions, inferences and interpreting information. You will be given a passage of information which may contain a mixture of verbal and numerical data, and will be provided with a statement which requires the candidate’s critical assessment of how true that statement is based on the above passage.

The Watson and Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal contains five sections which are specially designed in order to find out how good an individual is at reasoning analytically and logically. There are five sections:

• Assumptions: In these questions a statement will be presented and the candidate will have to decide if an assumption has been made in making the statement. For example in the statement “only people earning a high salary can afford a fast car” it is assumed that fast cars cost more than not fast cars (this is just one of many assumptions implicit in the statement). An assumption is something someone effectively takes for granted. Statements are given for the individual to read and they are then followed by several proposed assumptions. The candidate has to select whether an assumption has or has not been made.
• Analysing arguments: Candidates will be provided with a given scenario i.e. “Should the government pay student’s tuition fees?” They are subsequently provided with a list of arguments for or against the scenario presented. The candidate will need to assess if each argument is strong or weak, based on how relevant it is and how well it addresses the question. The argument is considered to be strong if it directly relates to the question or statement, and weak if it is not directly related to the question or statement.
• Deductions: Candidates will be provided with a passage of information and candidates will need to evaluate a list of deductions made based on that passage. If one cannot deduce a particular statement from the passage, then that deduction does not follow, and the candidate must select which deductions follow and which do not follow. The answer must be entirely based on the statements made and not on conclusions made from one’s own knowledge.
• Inferences: In this section candidates will be provided with a passage of information on a scenario. A subsequent list of possible inferences will follow, and candidates will be asked to rate if they are true, false, possibly true, possibly false or whether it is not possible to say based on the information in the passage.
• Interpreting Information: A paragraph of information will be provided to the candidate, with a list of possible conclusions. Candidates will need to interpret the information in the paragraph and decide if each conclusion follows based on the presented information. Once again the decisions must solely be based on the information given.

With so many sections, each having their own instructions and guidelines, it can be tough to become confident on all areas.

Survey results

We asked critical thinking test takers what they found was the most difficult section of a critical thinking test. 35% of them believed 'assumptions' to be the most difficult. You can see the full results below:

The following video features Ben explain how to answer a deductions-style question from a critical thinking test:

Most popular critical thinking test publishers

There may be variations in your test depending on the test publisher you have for your critical thinking test.

Throughout 2020, we analysed a sample of critical thinking tests to discover the most popular test publishers. It was found that 77% of critical thinking tests were published by Watson Glaser.

Here is a list of critical reasoning tests on the market at present, which candidates may be likely to encounter for recruitment, selection or development:

• Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: The W-GCTA is the most widely-used critical reasoning test on the market, and the one candidates are most likely to encounter.
• SHL Critical Reasoning Test Battery: The SHL Critical Reasoning Test Battery is a collection of 60 critical reasoning questions with varying difficulty depending of the level of candidate. This test has a time limit of 30 minutes.
• Cornell Critical Thinking Assessment: The Cornell Critical Thinking Assessment is a test primarily used in educational settings. There are two versions of this test, one for children and one for adults. This test may be used for entry onto particular degree courses or for recruitment/development purposes.
• Cappfinity Critical Reasoning Test: This assesses your problem solving and decision making skills. Its topics have similarities with the Watson Glaser.
• Test Partnership Concepts Critical Thinking Test: This also shares some similarities with the Watson Glaser. Test Partnership assesses the classic aspects of critical thinking with a modern candidate experience.

The following video features Ben explain how to answer an inference-style question from a critical thinking test:

How to pass Watson Glaser test - critical thinking tips

Here is some general advice to help you learn how to improve your Watson Glaser score:

• Only use the information contained in the test: When reading the passages of information within the test, your first instinct may be to use general knowledge or your own personal experience. Critical reasoning tests are not tests of what you think; they are tests of how you think. You will not be required to utilise any prior knowledge when answering a question, and at times the correct answer will completely contradict what you know to be true based on your own knowledge, but is true in the context of the passage.
• Read the instructions thoroughly: Critical reasoning tests will require numerous separate types of logical reasoning, and reading the instructions will inform you of how to answer questions correctly. For example if a question requires you to evaluate the strength of an argument, the instruction page will inform you what constitutes a strong or weak argument. Take ample time to ensure you know how to answer questions regardless of any time limits.
• Pay attention to time limits: Due to the complex nature of critical reasoning tests, there will often be no time limits or there will be generous time limits. Candidates are advised to use this to their advantage and take plenty of time when reading, evaluating and answering. An easy mistake to make is treating this type of test like a verbal or numerical reasoning test and answering questions as quickly as possible. Rushing through a critical thinking test may lead to candidates missing key points, and answering incorrectly as a result.
• Understand logical fallacies: Understanding logical fallacies is an important part of the test, and researching the difference between sound and fallacious logic can help maximise performance on a critical reasoning test. A fallacy is an error in reasoning due to a misconception or a presumption, and an argument which employs a formal fallacy, logical fallacy or a deductive fallacy in its reasoning becomes an invalid argument. Researching the different types of fallacy (i.e. red herring argument, straw man argument, confusing correlation and causation etc.) can help you identify them in the test and therefore answer the question correctly.

You will not be hired solely on your Watson Glaser score, but a score of 75% is a good score that will give you a good chance of progressing through selection rounds. When taking practice Watson Glaser tests try to achieve +75% in your raw score, this should be enough.

The Watson Glaser test has a time limit of 30 minutes. There is a total of 40 questions to complete within this time limit.

Yes, the Watson Glaser test is multiple-choice format and is split into the five section: assumptions, analysing arguments, deductions, inferences, interpreting information.

Most law firms will use a Watson Glaser test to assess the candidate's critical thinking ability. Some well known law firms include: Hogan Lovells, Clifford Chance, DLA Piper, Linklaters, Freshfields BD and others.

Schoenherr recognised as leading law firm in South East Europe by Chambers

Schoenherr has been named as as the South East Europe Law Firm of the Year 2015 by legal publisher Chambers and Partners. Schoenherr lawyers Monica Cojocaru, Miloš Laković and Marko Prušnik accepted the award on behalf of the firm at the Chambers Europe Awards event held this past Friday evening at Amsterdam’s Hotel Okura. Headline deals and […]

Chambers Europe 2015 recommends Wierzbowski Eversheds

Chambers has published latest edition of Chambers Europe guide. Wierzbowski Eversheds, as well as its individual practitioners, has once again been recommended in numerous fields of law. The firm has been recognised in the following areas of law: Construction (Band 1) Intellectual Property (Band 2) Public Procurement (Band 2) Dispute Resolution (Band 3) Employment (Band […]

Wragge & Co’s retention rises

Wragge & Co will keep on 75 per cent of its spring 2014 qualifying trainees. The Birmingham-headquartered firm, which is shortly to merge with Lawrence Graham, will retain six of eight newly-qualified (NQ) solicitors. The six NQs will join the commercial litigation; corporate; government and infrastructure; public law; and real estate departments. Wragges stated that […]

KWM loses 13-strong IP team to Minter Ellison in Melbourne

King & Wood Mallesons (KWM) has seen two IP partners exit the firm in Melbourne, taking their 13-strong team to rival Minter Ellison. IP partner Robert Cooper has left the firm, alongside partner Wayne McMaster who previously headed King & Wood Mallesons’ Australian IP and health and pharmaceuticals practice groups. The pair left KWM with […]

The Watson Glaser and BCAT critical thinking tests

Increasingly, law firms are using critical thinking tests as part of their recruitment process. Critical thinking tests, also referred to as critical reasoning tests, are a type of psychometric test considered especially accurate in the assessment of potential lawyers. These tests are designed to measure the following skill sets:

• The ability to identify problems
• The general understanding of the importance of evidence when making conclusions
• The ability to differentiate between inferences, abstractions and generalizations through applying logic
• The ability to combine these skills above when making these decisions.

In general, if you do well on a critical thinking test you are likely to have good analytical, logical and comprehension abilities. You are also likely to be able to see an argument from both sides. For these reasons Critical Reasoning tests are seen as a good measure of potential lawyers. The most famous and prominent of these tests is the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking test.

The Watson Glaser test

The Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal was first introduced in 1925 though has subsequently gone through many updates and revisions to become one of the most trusted methods for efficiently measuring critical thinking skills. The modern version (known technically as the Watson Glaser II) is used by employers all over the world for assessing candidates in a variety of roles. Some of the biggest users of the Watson Glaser assessment are law firms and other legal employers.

The Watson Glaser test can come in an older 55-minute version or a newer 40-minute version: both are still in use.

The Bar Course Aptitude Test (or BCAT) is a Critical Thinking test based entirely on the Watson Glaser test. As of 2013, all students in the UK who intend to take the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) are required to first pass the BCAT. The BCAT needs to be taken and passed before the deadline for accepting a place on the Bar Professional Training Course, which is on the 2nd of April. The question types of the BCAT are the same as the ones in the Watson Glaser, the BCAT test is always 55 minutes long.

You can get hold of BCAT Practice tests with explanations and guides from JobTestPrep here .

What the Watson Glaser test and BCAT look like:

Both Watson Glaser and BCAT questions present you with statements and conclusions in the form of paragraphs or sentences. You are required to answer in a particular way according to the question type.

There are five basic question types you will come across in the test, each testing a specific ability. These five abilities are:

• Interpretation
• Recognition of assumptions
• Evaluation of Arguments

1. Deduction

In this question type you are given a statement as well as a conclusion. You need to decide whether the conclusion follows logically from the original statement.

The answer types will be either “Yes” or “No”

2. Inferences

Here you are presented with an extended statement together with a sentence that is supposedly inferred from the original statement.

You need to grade the probability that the inferred sentence is “True” i.e. that it is a correct inference.

The answer types will be either: “True”, “Probably True”, “Insufficient Data”, “Probably False” and “False”

3. Interpretation

This question type is similar to Deduction in that there is a statement and a conclusion, where you need to decide if the conclusion is correct. The difference is that interpretation questions require you to decide whether the generalisation being made is justified or not.

4. Recognition of Assumptions

For these question types you will be given a statement, often in the form of a quotation, as well as a possible assumption. You need to decide if the assumption provided is correct with regards to the statement given.

5. Evaluation of Arguments

Here you are presented with a statement, often an opinion together with a possible argument. You need to decide if the argument provided is indeed an argument that can be used to prove or strengthen the above statement.

Which firms use the Watson Glaser?

As stated above, the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal is used by countless law firms all over the world. Below are just a few examples of law employers that use the Watson Glaser as part of their job application process:

• Allen & Overy
• Baker & McKenzie
• Burges Salmon
• Clifford Chance
• Government Legal Service
• Hogan Lovells
• Hill Dickinson
• Ince & Co
• Irwin Mitchell
• Simmons & Simmons

Understanding critical thinking tests and preparing for tests like the Watson Glaser and BCAT are important steps needed for a successful career in law. This information will help make sure you aren’t caught by surprise at your next job interview.

You can find free Watson Glaser sample questions here .

You can get Watson Glaser practice tests, with tips and explanations,  here .

Latest News

Slaughters and Kirkland cash in on Royal Mail’s £25m takeover fees

Slaughter and May, Kirkland & Ellis and Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison have together banked nearly £25m on EP Group’s (EP) takeover of Royal Mail’s parent company, IDS. EP, owned by Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky, announced its intention to acquire IDS just over a month ago in May. The bid valued the distribution company […]

Taylor Rose shakes up senior team after last year’s redundancies

Taylor Rose MW has refreshed its leadership team with eight senior-level appointments including the firm’s first chief operating officer and first director of professional standards. The news follows what was a rocky 2023 for the firm after it launched a redundancy round last September to “carefully manage costs” in a difficult economic climate. According to […]

Stephenson Harwood turnover rises 16 per cent

Stephenson Harwood’s revenue jumped by 16 per cent over 2023/24 to a record high figure of £264.2m. Alongside the revenue increase, the firm also saw a 10 per cent increase in net profit from £82.4m to more than £90m. The firm’s average profit per equity partner rose by 7 per cent from £725,000 to £775,000. […]

Macfarlanes’ NQ pay jumps by 20 per cent

Macfarlanes has increased its pay for newly-qualified solicitors by £25,000, as UK firms respond to rates set by the magic circle last month. The City firm has upped pay for NQs from £115,000 to £140,000, a rise of nearly 22 per cent. This heaps pressure on firms that include Slaughter and May on £125,000 and […]

Perkins Coie launches ‘untraditional’ London training contract

Perkins Coie is designing a training contract that aims to harness the flexibility of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) and take up to a year off the traditional training contract route. The launch of a legal trainee programme in London is understood to have been signed off by the US firm and will be finalised […]

Signal Research Reports

Cleary Gottlieb: Under the skin of a firm playing catch-up

This report contains: an analysis of the reality of Cleary Gottlieb’s growth trajectory in London since 2014 an overview of challenges faced by the top global firms which are pursuing similar growth strategies a discussion on Cleary’s distinctive practice area mix, highlighting its substantial focus on antitrust cases.

The Nordic 50 2024

This report contains: ranking of the Nordic 50 firms on a headcount basis headcount analysis of the largest firms split into three groups financial and market analysis of the four jurisdictions in the region firm specific data profiles

Litigation team of the year

This report includes: a breakdown of the eight firms shortlisted for the Litigation Team of the Year at The Lawyer Awards 2024 an overview of the case they have been nominated for an analysis of the firms’ larger litigation team

Regional efficiency of the UK 101-200: the Independents

This report includes: a regional efficiency map for firms ranked 101-200 (The Independents) insight into the impact of geographic location on efficiency, highlighting regional disparities, drivers of success, and areas for improvement.

US 50 2024 – Financial results

This report contains: financial performance of the largest US firms in London analysis of five standout firms that achieved significant revenue growth, detailing key factors behind their success individual firm profiles highlighting financial performance, growth strategies and client base and matters  

Find legal roles

Make your next move with The Lawyer Careers. Search and apply for thousands of vacancies, or receive email alerts for new roles when they go live. Whether you're looking at private practice, in-house legal or an exciting business support role, you'll find your future here.

The $20m lawyers have arrived

$20m partners are rare, but they are multiplying. Paul Weiss, Kirkland, Davis Polk, Weil Gotshal and latterly Latham are reshaping their partner compensation for the big figure, stretched upwards from the $9m that Paul Weiss paid for Scott Barshay in 2016. As The Lawyer reported yesterday, even Cleary – Cleary! – is now considering it. […]

Most firm leaders are from the right political bloc

Power is largely siloed. When we look at the top 25 firms in The Lawyer’s UK200, partners drawn from the practices most identifiable with the firm’s culture almost always end up in the managing partner spot. There are two exceptions in Slaughters’ Deborah Finkler (disputes) and Pinsents’ Laura Cameron (health/safety), but firms have largely stuck […]

Blackadders goes forth to the UK200

Every year we bid goodbye to famous old names from Britain’s legal scene. Whether by merger or misadventure in the last few years the likes of BLM, Coffin Mew, Ince, RadcliffesLeBrasseur and Taylor Vinters have made graceful or not-so-graceful exits from the ranks of the UK200. But every mighty tree that falls in the forest […]

Paul Weiss’ Soho home is getting full

If everyone puts their feet up for the rest of the year, Paul Weiss will feature above Covington, Morgan Lewis and Cleary Gottlieb in The Lawyer’s next iteration of its US 50 rankings based on headcount. That’s based on Paul Weiss’ current list of London lawyers, which numbers 117 when including some partners who are […]

Dentons is fast tracking future leaders

Dentons may have already found its next generation of leaders, even if the hunt for its next global chief executive is taking an age. The development of the firm’s first shadow executive shows Dentons is keen to forge closer ties between management and the junior ranks. It is a fundamental recognition that Gen Z and […]

Recent news

North East council panel drops 17 firms from £100m roster

The North East Procurement Organisation (NEPO) has drastically reduced its legal services panel, cutting 17 firms from its £100m roster. The new panel – effective from 3 June 2024 to 2 June 2028 – features 18 firms, down from the previous 29. New additions to the panel include Bird & Bird, Brodies, Devonshires, TLT and […]

Vatican conspiracy dispute kicks off as claimants make their case

The universal government of the Catholic Church, the Holy See, appeared in an English court for the first time in history today before Mr Justice Knowles, in a sweltering courtroom on the hottest day of the year so far. This case is one of The Lawyer‘s Top 20 of 2024. From the halls of the Vatican […]

Kirkland and White & Case lead on KKR’s €1.3bn festival purchase

Kirkland & Ellis and White & Case have taken leading roles on KKR’s €1.3bn (£1.1bn) purchase of Superstruct Entertainment from Providence Equity Partners. The Kirkland team leading for KKR was steered by corporate partners Alvaro Membrillera and Pelin Demirdere Eski, with the support of associates Jef Dupont, Sophie Thomas and Bonian Wu. Debt finance aspects […]

Cleary: We can pay lateral partner hires $20m too

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton has prepared the groundwork for its first $20m partner lateral hire, if it “can find that special person”, The Lawyer can reveal. The move comes as Cleary looks to build on an unprecedented growth spurt in the City over the past few years, which has seen partner headcount increase by […]

Pinsents acts for Chapel Down on potential sale

Pinsent Masons is acting for England’s largest winemaker on a potential sale that could see the company de-list from the alternative investment market (AIM) less than a year after its float. Chapel Down Group, the official English sparkling wine sponsor of Ascot Racecourse, is conducting a strategic review of its funding options including a potential […]

Fantastic article, very useful. Thanks for making it so clear. We’ve been putting together a Watson-Glaser success guide for students (it’s here btw: http://www.assessmentcentrehq.com/watson-glaser-practice-test/ ) and the information you laid out here was so useful in terms of pulling together lots of different strands (eg WGT vs BCAT) that we’ve previously seem presented in a very disparate ways on lots of other sites. Thumbs up from us, many thanks!!

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

The Lawyer has updated security and added new features that can't run on this version of Internet Explorer in accordance with Microsoft's end of life notice for Internet Explorer 11.

Our digital products are fully compatible with all modern internet browsers, including Chrome, Firefox, Microsoft Edge and more. You will need to access The Lawyer in one of these.

If this message continues to display, please check your system settings and change your default browser or contact your IT team.

Critical Thinking test

By 123test team . Updated May 12, 2023

Critical Thinking test reviews

This Critical Thinking test measures your ability to think critically and draw logical conclusions based on written information. Critical Thinking tests are often used in job assessments in the legal sector to assess a candidate's  analytical critical  thinking skills. A well known example of a critical thinking test is the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal .

Need more practice?

Score higher on your critical thinking test.

The test comprises of the following five sections with a total of 10 questions:

• Analysing Arguments
• Assumptions
• Interpreting Information

Instructions Critical Thinking test

Each question presents one or more paragraphs of text and a question about the information in the text. It's your job to figure out which of the options is the correct answer.

Below is a statement that is followed by an argument. You should consider this argument to be true. It is then up to you to determine whether the argument is strong or weak. Do not let your personal opinion about the statement play a role in your evaluation of the argument.

Statement: It would be good if people would eat vegetarian more often. Argument: No, because dairy also requires animals to be kept that will have to be eaten again later.

Is this a strong or weak argument?

Strong argument Weak argument

Statement: Germany should no longer use the euro as its currency Argument: No, because that means that the 10 billion Deutschmark that the introduction of the euro has cost is money thrown away.

Overfishing is the phenomenon that too much fish is caught in a certain area, which leads to the disappearance of the fish species in that area. This trend can only be reversed by means of catch reduction measures. These must therefore be introduced and enforced.

Assumption: The disappearance of fish species in areas of the oceans is undesirable.

Is the assumption made from the text?

Assumption is made Assumption is not made

As a company, we strive for satisfied customers. That's why from now on we're going to keep track of how quickly our help desk employees pick up the phone. Our goal is for that phone to ring for a maximum of 20 seconds.

Assumption: The company has tools or ways to measure how quickly help desk employees pick up the phone.

• All reptiles lay eggs
• All reptiles are vertebrates
• All snakes are reptiles
• All vertebrates have brains
• Some reptiles hatch their eggs themselves
• Most reptiles have two lungs
• Many snakes only have one lung
• Cobras are poisonous snakes
• All reptiles are animals

Conclusion: Some snakes hatch their eggs themselves.

Does the conclusion follow the statements?

Conclusion follows Conclusion does not follow

(Continue with the statements from question 5.)

Conclusion: Some animals that lay eggs only have one lung.

In the famous 1971 Stanford experiment, 24 normal, healthy male students were randomly assigned as 'guards' (12) or 'prisoners' (12). The guards were given a uniform and instructed to keep order, but not to use force. The prisoners were given prison uniforms. Soon after the start of the experiment, the guards made up all kinds of sentences for the prisoners. Insurgents were shot down with a fire extinguisher and public undressing or solitary confinement was also a punishment. The aggression of the guards became stronger as the experiment progressed. At one point, the abuses took place at night, because the guards thought that the researchers were not watching. It turned out that some guards also had fun treating the prisoners very cruelly. For example, prisoners got a bag over their heads and were chained to their ankles. Originally, the experiment would last 14 days. However, after six days the experiment was stopped.

The students who took part in the research did not expect to react the way they did in such a situation.

To what extent is this conclusion true, based on the given text?

True Probably true More information required Probably false False

(Continue with the text from 'Stanford experiment' in question 7.)

The results of the experiment support the claim that every young man (or at least some young men) is capable of turning into a sadist fairly quickly.

• A flag is a tribute to the nation and should therefore not be hung outside at night. Hoisting the flag therefore happens at sunrise, bringing it down at sunset. Only when a country flag is illuminated by spotlights on both sides, it may remain hanging after sunset. There is a simple rule of thumb for the time of bringing down the flag. This is the moment when there is no longer any visible difference between the individual colors of the flag.
• A flag may not touch the ground.
• On the Dutch flag, unless entitled to do so, no decorations or other additions should be made. Also the use of a flag purely for decoration should be avoided. However, flag cloth may be used for decoration - for example in the form of drapes.
• The orange pennant is only used on birthdays of members of the Royal House and on King's Day. The orange pennant should be as long or slightly longer than the diagonal of the flag.

Conclusion: One can assume that no Dutch flag will fly at government buildings at night, unless it is illuminated by spotlights on both sides.

Does the conclusion follow, based on the given text?

(Continue with the text from 'Dutch flag protocol' in question 9.)

Conclusion: If the protocol is followed, the orange pennant will always be longer than the horizontal bands/stripes of the flag.

Please answer the questions below. Not all questions are required but it will help us improve this test.

My educational level is

-- please select -- primary school high school college university PhD other

Get 25% off all test packages.

Get 25% off all test packages!

Click below to get 25% off all test packages.

Law Assessments

• 204 questions

If you are looking to land a job working in a law firm, either as a paralegal, lawyer or in another capacity including administration, marketing or IT, as part of the recruitment process you are likely to encounter psychometric tests that assess your skills and fit. Our practice tests will help you succeed in your application.

What skills do lawyers typically need?

Lawyers typically need to be well rounded individuals who balance commercial awareness and business acumen with good people skills and strong verbal and oral communication. As the practice of law and the business of providing legal services modernises and adapts, those with strong project management, numerical and analytical skills and even better, data and coding ability will succeed.

The more traditional skills of research, teamwork, attention to detail and creative problem solving remain essential, as does the ability to process information both written and numerical, quickly and accurately, assessing data for inaccuracies and patterns.

The very best lawyers will also have strong management and leadership skills, and able to manage a team as well as their own workload. They should be able to think strategically, have a highly developed social confidence and be able to influence others in adopting their way of thinking.

They should also have self-awareness, be driven and able to work well under stress or pressure particularly in producing accurate work to tight deadlines.

What psychometric tests do legal firms use to assess these skills?

Law firms have adopted a more thorough process for assessing job applicants, particularly at graduate level where the application process for a trainee or paralegal job often occurs before the candidate has finished their legal training.

Law firms are using psychometric tests to assess potential and other skills which can then be considered alongside a candidate’s legal and business knowledge.

Typically a law firm will ask a candidate to undertake a number of psychometric tests, often taken one after the other, which consider the rounded skills of a candidate, including critical thinking , situational judgement , verbal reasoning and logical reasoning .

Watson Glaser and critical thinking tests

The Watson Glaser test is one of the most well known critical thinking tests. Law firms want to employ individuals who are able to think for themselves and make informed decisions rooted in fact that can be justified and are free from bias.

Critical thinking is both a skill and something which can be practised and developed. It is particularly important for lawyers to be able to critically analyse arguments and presentations of facts by clients and make decisions without having to involve others.

The Watson Glaser test tests five areas of critical thinking to compile a picture of how well a candidate can recognise assumptions, evaluate arguments and draw conclusions. This is done by presenting information in five areas: inferences, assumptions, deductions, interpretations and evaluation of arguments.

For each area of testing candidates must read a short paragraph and then answer short questions based on the information contained therein, with the information contained in the paragraph assumed to be factually correct.

For further advice, check out our full set of tips for Watson Glaser tests .

Situational judgement tests

Situational judgement tests consider how a candidate might respond when faced with workplace scenarios appropriate to the kind of role to which they have applied. After reading or watching a workplace based scenario, the candidate must rank the responses provided, usually from most likely to least likely, or which best fits how they might respond in any given scenario.

Situational judgement tests allow employers to consider whether the candidate shares the appropriate values for the role and workplace. Scenarios which might be particularly appropriate in the context of a law firm might relate to decisions regarding ethics, bribery, confidentiality or prioritising workload – especially last-minute client instructions when a more senior member of the team is unavailable.

The answers that you give are not right or wrong but give an insight into how you would approach work, particularly in relation to teamwork, communication and decision making - basically assessing your competency to perform the role in the particular environment (rather than your legal knowledge).

Verbal reasoning tests

Verbal reasoning tests allow an employer to consider how a candidate understands and makes deductions based on written passages of text. They assess language and comprehension skills as well as the ability to apply reasoning and logic to their decision making.

Typically you will be invited to read a passage of text and consider whether a specific statement is true, false or you cannot say. You could also be presented with multiple choice answers and invited to pick the correct response, which could be implicit or explicit within the text.

Verbal reasoning is key for lawyers, who will be expected to be able to read and interpret a wide variety of written information, from client instructions to legal documents, statutes and case law through to commercial documentation. It is vital that candidates can demonstrate their ability to read and accurately summarise and interpret written documents.

Logical reasoning tests

Much like verbal reasoning tests, logical reasoning tests are designed to understand how well a candidate can deduce accurate information from a presentation of facts, which may be in a written paragraph or may be presented as a data table or in the form of shapes. It assesses interpretations of patterns and relationships, as well as data.

For example, it is important that lawyers can accurately assess the difference between fact and assumption, and indeed identify where the assumption is. Lawyers should also be able to identify and apply rules to data or information.

You will also need to demonstrate you are able to apply logic in your decision making and have strong problem solving skills.

Logical reasoning tests can also indicate how you might respond in relation to taking risks and even in relation to forecasting and projecting how a case or decision might pan out, which is a crucial skill when assessing which cases to take on or not.

LNAT and LSAT Tests

For students who are yet to work in the law industry you may need to take an LSAT or LNAT (https://www.practiceaptitudetests.com/admissions/lnat/) test as part of the selection process for Law School.

Prepare yourself for leading employers

Further information for specific law firms

The following law firms use psychometric tests as part of their recruitment process. You can find more details on each of the firms by clicking the links below:

Allen & Overy is a leading global law firm operating in over 30 countries. Read more about Allen & Overy tests .

Linklaters is a global law firm and part of the magical circle, headquartered in London. Read more about Linklaters tests .

Hogan Lovells is an American-British law firm formed in 2010 when US firm Hogan & Hartson merged with London based Lovells. Read more about Hogan Lovells tests .

Litigation specialists Herbert Smith Freehills is a UK/Australian headquartered global law firm. Read more about Herbert Smith Freehills tests .

Bristol based Burges Salmon is a UK focused independent law firm. Read more about Burges Salmon tests .

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer is one of the world’s largest law firms and is based in London. Read more about Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer tests .

DLA Piper is a multinational law firm based in London and more than 40 other countries. Read more about DLA Piper tests .

Clifford Chance is a magic circle and one of the world’s ten largest law firms, based in London. Read more about Clifford Chance tests .

Baker McKenzie is an American law firm and one of the world’s largest by both headcount and revenue. Read more about Baker McKenzie tests .

Based in Liverpool, Hill Dickinson is a British international commercial law firm. Read more about Hill Dickinson tests .

Irwin Mitchell is a UK based full service law firm originating in Sheffield. Read more about Irwin Mitchell tests .

Slaughter and May is a magic circle, multinational law firm with headquarters in London. Read more about Slaughter and May tests .

Eversheds Sutherland was created by a merger in 2017 creating one of the world’s largest global law firms. Read more about Eversheds Sutherland tests .

Mayer Brown LLP is a global law firm headquartered in Chicago, U.S. Read more about Mayer Brown tests .

Simmons & Simmons LLP is a leading international law firm. Read more about Simmons and Simmons tests .

Dentons is a multinational law firm, the 5th-largest law firm by revenue globally. Read more about Dentons tests .

Ince Gordon Dadds is an international commercial law firm with a focus on shipping. Read more about Ince Gordon Dadds tests .

Sample Law Tests question Test your knowledge!

What conclusion can be drawn from the information that a new law increases the limit on non-economic damages in civil lawsuits from $300,000 to $500,000?

• Plaintiffs may seek higher compensation for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience, and other intangible damages.
• The change will decrease the overall number of civil lawsuits filed.
• Economic damages, such as medical expenses and lost wages, are now capped at $500,000.
• The statute of limitations for filing civil lawsuits has been extended.

In a legal dispute, the plaintiff was awarded damages 25% higher than what was initially claimed. If the original claim was $80,000, how much was the final award?

After reading a case summary, it is discerned that the primary legal argument is rooted in a breach of contract. Which part of the contract is LEAST likely to be relevant in adjudicating the breach?

• Penalties for delays
• Project timeline
• Scope of work

During a shareholder meeting, four key discussion points were deliberated. If the sequence of these items discussed followed the order 'Financial Review, Merger Proposals, Regulatory Compliance, then Community Engagement Initiatives', which topic was likely discussed third?

• Financial Review
• Merger Proposals
• Regulatory Compliance
• Community Engagement Initiatives

A supervising attorney allocates tasks to the legal associates. Associate A is assigned 30% more tasks than Associate B. If Associate B is assigned 20 tasks, how many tasks does Associate A have?

Start your success journey

Access one of our Law tests for FREE.

After using the platform for two weeks, I’ve never felt more prepared for an Aptitude test.

Ethan used Practice Aptitude Tests to improve his situational judgement scores.

Hire better talent

At Neuroworx we help companies build perfect teams

Law Tests Tips

1 understand the law field.

Gain a solid understanding of the law industry, including terminology and procedures. The better you grasp the fundamentals, the easier you’ll navigate through the tests.

2 Practice Critical Thinking

Develop your analytical and critical thinking skills. Law tests often gauge how well you can assess and interpret information to make decisions.

3 Manage Your Time

Learn to manage your time effectively. While practicing, simulate real exam conditions by setting time limits for yourself.

4 Free Practice on Our Site

Remember, the best way to prepare is to practice, and you can take free practice tests right here at Practice Aptitude Tests. They’re designed to mimic the actual exam experience.

5 Stay Updated

Keep abreast of current events and new laws. Being current can often give you an extra edge in the reasoning and scenario-based questions.

Prepare for your Law Assessments

Immediate access. Cancel anytime.

• 20 Aptitude packages
• 59 Language packages
• 110 Programming packages
• 39 Admissions packages
• 48 Personality packages
• 315 Employer packages
• 34 Publisher packages
• 35 Industry packages
• Dashboard performance tracking
• Full solutions and explanations
• Tips, tricks, guides and resources
• Access to free tests
• Basic performance tracking
• Solutions & explanations
• Tips and resources

Law Tests FAQs

What are covered on law tests.

Law tests typically assess your analytical skills, comprehension, attention to detail, and your ability to work with complex texts. They may also check your understanding of legal principles and scenarios.

How do I prepare for Law tests?

To prepare for law tests, brush up on your legal knowledge, practice with sample questions, and familiarize yourself with the test format. Focus on improving your critical thinking and time management.

How difficult are Law tests?

Law tests can be challenging due to their focus on complex information and critical reasoning. However, with sufficient practice and a clear understanding of legal concepts, you can improve your performance.

What types of tests are included in the Law tests?

Law tests include a variety of assessments such as verbal reasoning, situational judgement tests, and case studies that relate to legal scenarios, each designed to measure a specific skill set relevant to the field.

Where can I practice free Law test questions?

The best way to gear up for law tests is to practice answering the types of questions you’ll face. Practice Aptitude Tests offers a wide selection of free law test questions to help you prepare effectively.

Reviews of our Law tests

What our customers say about our Law tests

Irene Razavi

August 02, 2023

It is an overall amazing test for students

Since i am 12 years old i did not feel that ashamed of myself for not getting good results but i think that this is a very good test for people that will soon have law school tests,but for me my tests wont be for a few years.

Asatta B.Tekai

May 09, 2023

Good law test

I like the entire test and I hope to have more tutorials for the test.

United Kingdom

March 20, 2023

Seems like a good simulation of the type of tests I've done before for university scholarship assessments

Krisha Noelle “Shang” Eamiguel

Philippines

February 22, 2023

Need to have analytical skills and a good head for math.

I like how you had to think before answering. Not that easy for some and a walk in the park for others.

Chetna Ervankai

November 17, 2021

Have a pen and paper handy and don't spend too much time on questions.

There was numerical reasoning, which was doable, but I spent more time on questions than I expected and what was most likely appropriate. It is unlikely many of the questions could be done in 1 minute.

Mildred Collins

United States of America

November 06, 2021

Understand questions

The questions were concise and easy to understand. It was important to read questions carefully and look at all the details. The graphs were clear and professional. I didn’t like the questions using foreign currency, since I had no up to date information on international monies.

September 01, 2021

Arithmetic skills

The test centers more on mathematical interpretation than everyday life scenarios that people go through

Pierce Family

June 21, 2021

Exploring My Options

Test was more complicated than I expected and I appreciate that very much. I don't want results that will make me feel good, I want accurate results that will be beneficial.

Twesiime irene

May 26, 2021

Hard questions

The questions need serious thinking and yet I'm not settled

Toju Dottie

May 15, 2021

The process to achieve the solutions

I disliked that it involved way too many calculations

By using our website you agree with our Cookie Policy.

How To Develop Your Critical Thinking Skills

Competition Law: Is the doctrine of ancillary restraints of any practical use to legal advisors?

Guide On Completing Law Essays for Students in the UK

• News & Articles
• Tips for Students
• critical thinking test
• watson glaser

Do critical thinking skills matter? Yes, yes, yes, and YES! You can use them not only at work, but also in everyday life.

What is critical thinking?

Remember to always see the bigger picture! Instead of thinking ‘Why is this law firm so mean to ask me to pass those stupid tests…’, try to understand what is the aim in such a structure of application process. Bear in mind that in a real job you will deal with way more complicated scenarios which will require you to think critically and analytically , and what then? So treat those tests as a pre-party to the challenges awaiting in your future career.

Types of CTTs

There are plenty of CTTs, however, Watson Glaser is still the most popular one (at least in the City). They all will try to assess you in five sectors (five types of questions): Inference, Recognition of Assumptions, Deductions, Interpretations, and Evaluation of Arguments . Through your answers you need to prove that you t hink analytically and logically .

Inferences check whether you come to a conclusion which is based on evidence. Logic is applied to this evidence, and the person who makes an inference is figuring out a conclusion that is not explicit, but rather implied from the evidence.

EXAMPLE: You’re leaving the house and cannot find your keys or phone, even though you are quite certain that you put them on a kitchen table. There are several inferences that you can make in that scenario:

1. A burglar snuck into the house and stole them.

2. They disappeared as a result of abnormal laws of physics.

3. A ghost took them.

4. Someone else in the house moved them.

5. You are wrong, and actually you left them somewhere else.

TO REMEMBER : Inferences ask you to comment how likely they are to be true or false, than simply if they are correct or not. Therefore, you must assess whether the given conclusions are Definitely True, Probably True, Insufficient data to say whether it is true or false, Probably False, Definitely False .

Applying those to the above scenario, we can say that:

1. Probably false – there is always a chance that a burglar might sneak into, but such chances are slim. It is not Definitely False because it could have happened.

2. & 3. False or probably false – why? Because depending on your beliefs and you must consider both as impossible to happen. Because both are quite ambiguous and subjective, there is a little chance that this kind of inference will take place on a real CTT.

4. & 5. Probably true – it is the most rational explanation, however, we do not for sure that this is the case. Therefore, it is PROBABLY True.

Assumptions are sometimes made by a person making the argument. They might be explicit or implicit, and you are asked to identify the latter. CTT assesses your ability to highlight what assumptions an argument or statement is making.

EXAMPLE: It is vital that we increase public spending on healthcare to keep the population in good health.

1. Public spending on healthcare is too low.

2. The health of the population is in decline.

3. Better healthcare is needed to keep the population healthy.

You answer in this section whether Assumption (is) Made or Assumption (is) Not Made . In the first example you should answer ‘Assumption Made’ because the person making an argument is saying that the spending should be increased, thus, he makes the assumption that the amount spent on healthcare is too low. In second example, the answer is ‘Assumption Not Made’ – even though the statement is arguing that more spending is required, there is nothing about the current level of population health, and whether it is in decline. In the third example the assumption was made (Assumption Made), for the statement is saying that better healthcare is needed in order to keep people healthy.

Deductions are conclusions reached logically by examining premises. CTTs focus on your ability to tell correct deductions from incorrect ones.

EXAMPLE: The library stocks books in specific areas. These are ‘Classics’, ‘Law’, ‘20th Century History’ and ‘True Crime’. Gemma is currently studying Classics and Psychology, and need to find a few books on both.

1. Gemma will be able to find the books that she needs here.

2. Some of the books that Gemma needs will be available in this library, but not all.

3. Gemma will not find any useful books in this library.

In first case Conclusion Does Not Follow because the library doesn’t contain any psychology books. In the second, Conclusion Follows , for the library contains classics books but not psychology ones, thus, only partially Gemma’s needs will be satisfied. And in the third one, Conclusion Does Not Follow because since Gemma needs classics and they are available, at least one of her subjects is covered.

Interpretations are conclusions made from carefully evaluating data, and figuring out what logically follow from it. This section is the most likely to include mathematics and scientific data.

EXAMPLE: The pitch of sounds can be measured by their frequency, such as Hertz (Hz) and Kilohertz (kHz). It is known that human beings can hear sounds in the range of around 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. Human speech tends to sit in the range of 1,000 Hz to 5,000 Hz. For comparison, elephants are able to hear sounds in the range of 17 Hz to 10,500 Hz.

1. Humans cannot hear most of the noises made by bats, which occupy the range of 10 kHz to 160 kHz.

2. Humans cannot hear sounds at the frequency of 15 kHz.

3. Elephants can hear a wider range of frequencies than human beings.

In the first example Conclusion Follows, for humans can hear up to 20,000 Hz (or 20 kHz), so bat sounds from the range 10-20 kHz. Because bats make noises up to 160 kHz, most of them cannot be heard by humans. In second case, Conclusion Does Not Follow, because humans can hear up to 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). And in the third example the answer is Conclusion Does Not Follow. Humans have range of 19,800 Hz (20 Hz – 20,000 Hz), whereas elephants 10,483 Hz (17 Hz – 10,500 Hz), therefore, human beings can hear a wider range of frequencies than elephants.

Evaluating arguments . A critical thinker needs to be able to evaluate arguments by figuring out how strong they are by comparing them to the information they are based on. I remember that when I took Watson Glaser two years ago for the first time (as a part of the application to Magic Circle – I was young, unprepared and apparently naïve), I truly hated this section and found it extremely difficult! Now, it is probably my favourite part of CTTs, and I find it quite easy to evaluate the arguments. The difference between those two girls is PRACTICE! And some basic knowledge about the fallacies that are usually used in the test. You can read more about the logical fallacies here .

EXAMPLE: Should nurses trained in the UK, and funded by the NHS, be required to work for a certain period of time within the UK public sector before being allowed to work in the private sector or overseas?

1. Yes – the NHS funds many of these nurses through training, so they should have to give back for a fixed period of time. This further experience would benefit them as well.

2. No – this denies them of their freedom where to work. They might as well be in a work camp.

3. Yes – I find it ridiculous that taxpayers’ money is spent on training these nurses, only for them to go overseas.

The first argument is Strong – it states a good reason, and additionally acknowledges that the experience benefits the nurses as well. The second argument is Weak – this is a false equivalence, the type of fallacy. Being required to work in the UK is nothing like a work camp, so the comparison made makes the circumstances sound worse than they actually are. And the last argument should be evaluated as Weak, for it is an argument from incredulity – the speaker attached their own shock of the situation in order to make it seem more unacceptable.

Read about what CTTs are and how to prepare for them.

TSL has partnered with JobTestPrep, the number one provider of practice CTTs in the world, to provide a bespoke package of practice tests tailored to firms like Allen & Overy, Hogan Lovells, and Linklaters .

There are also plenty of tutorials on Youtube ( Types of Questions , Answers to Sample Questions ) that will help you develop your critical thinking skills. You might also find plenty of free practice tests online, like here or here , or even free online courses like this one . I also recommend you some books that are available on Amazon: Critical Thinking Tests and Critical Thinking Skills . Additionally, have a look at this website .

Camilla Uppal

Related posts.

The Importance of Having a Life Outside of Law

Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Legal Tech

Review on the billable hour

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

What Is Critical Thinking?

Who uses critical thinking tests and why, how to prepare for a critical thinking test in 2024, final thoughts, critical thinking tests (2024 guide).

Updated November 18, 2023

Critical thinking is the ability to scrutinize evidence using intellectual skills. Reflective skills are employed to reach clear, coherent and logical conclusions – rather than just accepting information as it is provided.

Critical thinking tests measure the candidate’s understanding of logical connections between ideas, the strength of an argument, alternate interpretations and the significance of a particular claim.

A major facet of critical thinking is the ability to separate facts from opinions and work against any subconscious bias.

In critical thinking tests, employers are looking for people who can think critically about information, showing they are open-minded, good problem-solvers and excellent decision-makers.

Critical thinking tests assess how well a candidate can analyze and reason when presented with specific information.

They are used as part of the application process in several industries, most commonly for professions where employees would need to use advanced judgment and analysis skills in decision-making.

For example:

Academic applications – In some instances, critical thinking tests are used to assess whether prospective students have the skills required to be successful in higher education.

Law – Critical thinking assessments are often used in the legal sector as part of the application process. In many law positions, facts are more important than opinion, subconscious bias or pre-existing ideas so an applicant needs to be skilled in critical thinking.

Finance – In financial institutions, decisions often need to be made based on facts rather than emotion or opinion. Judgments made in banking need to be skilled decisions based on logic and the strength of data and information – so to be successful, candidates need to demonstrate that they will not accept arguments and conclusions at face value.

Graduate roles – In some sectors, critical thinking tests are used in graduate recruitment because they are considered to be predictors of ability.

With several different tests available, suited to different industries, many top-level jobs are likely to include critical thinking assessments as part of the application process.

Critical Thinking Tests Explained

Critical thinking tests are usually presented in a similar format no matter who the publisher is. A paragraph of information and data is given, with a statement that is under scrutiny.

Multiple-choice answers are presented for each statement, and there may be more than one question about the same paragraph.

While each question is presented in the same way, different aspects of critical thinking are assessed throughout the test.

Assessing Assumptions

For this type of question, there may be something ‘taken for granted’ in the information provided – and it might not be explicitly stated.

The candidate needs to evaluate the scenario and conclude whether any assumptions are present. The statement below the scenario may or may not support the statement and the answer selection will be about whether the stated assumption is made or not made in the scenario.

Example Question for Assessing Assumptions

Practice Critical Thinking Test with JobTestPrep

The mainstream media presents information that is supported by the political party in power.

Assumption: The information that the mainstream media presents is always correct.

a) Assumption made b) Assumption not made

Determining Inferences

Following a paragraph of information containing evidence, you will be presented with an inference and need to assess whether the inference is absolutely true, possibly true, possibly false, absolutely false, or it is not possible to reach a decision.

An inference is a conclusion that can be reached based on logical reasoning from the information. Although all the evidence to support (or not support) the inference is included in the passage, it will not be obvious or explicitly stated, which makes the inference harder to conclude.

Example Question for Determining Inferences

It has been snowing all night and there is thick snow on the ground. Today’s weather is sunny and bright.

Inference: The snow will melt today.

a) Possibly true b) Absolutely true c) Possibly false d) Absolutely false e) Not possible to reach a decision

Making Deductions

For this type of question, the information presented will be a set of factual statements and the candidate will need to decide if the deduction applies or does not apply.

This logical thinking is a top-down exercise where all the information is provided and needs to be read in the order it is presented.

If statement A = B, does B = C? There should be no grey areas – it either does or does not follow.

Example Question for Making Deductions

All plants have leaves. All leaves are green.

Proposed deduction: All plants are green.

a) Deduction follows b) Deduction does not follow

If you need to prepare for a number of different employment tests and want to outsmart the competition, choose a Premium Membership from JobTestPrep . You will get access to three PrepPacks of your choice, from a database that covers all the major test providers and employers and tailored profession packs.

Get a Premium Package Now

Interpretation of Conclusions

Presented with information, the candidate needs to assess whether a given conclusion is correct based on the evidence provided.

For the purposes of the test, we need to believe that all the information provided in the paragraph is true, even if we have opinions about the correctness of the statement.

Example Question for Interpretation of Conclusions

When cooking a meal, one of the most important things to get right is the balance between major food groups. Satisfaction from a good meal comes from getting the most nutrition and can therefore be attributed to a wide variety of flavors, including vegetables, a good source of protein and carbohydrates. A balanced diet is about more than just everything in moderation and should be considered a scientific process with measuring of ingredients and efficient cooking methods.

Proposed conclusion: The best meals are those that are scientifically prepared.

a) Conclusion follows b) Conclusion does not follow

Evaluation of Arguments (Analysis of Arguments)

In this analysis section, the candidate is presented with a scenario and an argument that might be in favor of the scenario or against it.

The candidate needs to evaluate whether the argument itself is weak or strong. This needs to be based on the relevance to the scenario and whether it accurately addresses the question.

Example Question for Evaluation of Arguments

Should all drugs be made legal?

Proposed argument: No, all drugs are dangerous to everyone.

a) Argument is strong b) Argument is weak

Most Common Critical Thinking Tests in 2024

Watson glaser test.

Watson Glaser is the most commonly used test publisher for critical thinking assessments and is used by many industries.

When sitting a Watson Glaser test, your results will be compared against a sample group of over 1,500 test-takers who are considered representative of graduate-level candidates.

The test is usually 40 questions long, with 30 minutes to answer, but there is a longer version that asks 80 questions with a time limit of an hour.

Who Uses This Test?

The Watson Glaser Test is used in a wide variety of industries for different roles, especially in the legal and banking sectors. Some employers that use the Watson Glaser Test are:

• Bank of England
• Irwin Mitchell
• Simmons & Simmons

What Is the RED model?

The Watson Glaser Test is based on something called the ‘RED model’. The questions in the test are based on:

• Recognizing assumptions
• Evaluating arguments
• Drawing conclusions

The science behind the Watson Glaser Test shows that candidates who show strong critical thinking skills in these areas are more likely to perform well in roles where logical decisions and judgments have to be made.

Where to Take a Free Practice Test

Watson Glaser Tests have a specific layout and format. If you are going to be completing one of the assessments as part of your application, it’s best to practice questions that match the test format.

You can find Watson Glaser practice tests at JobTestPrep as well as a prep pack to give you all the tips, tricks and information you need to make the most of your practice time.

Take a Practice Watson Glaser Test

SHL Critical Reasoning Battery Test

The SHL Critical Reasoning Battery Test includes questions based on numerical, verbal and inductive reasoning. This test is usually used for managerial and supervisory roles, and can include mechanical comprehension if needed for the job role (usually in engineering or mechanical roles).

You can find out more on JobTestPrep’s SHL Critical Reasoning Battery pages .

Take a Practice SHL Test

The Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAT) is an online adaptive test – using sophisticated algorithms to adjust the difficulty of the questions according to the answers already provided.

Questions include integrated, quantitative and verbal reasoning as well as an analytical writing assessment. The GMAT is widely used to predict performance in business or management programs in more than 1,700 universities and organizations.

Take a Practice GMAT

Preparation is key to success in any pre-employment assessment. While some people think critical reasoning is not a skill you can practice, there are some steps you can take to perform at your best.

Critical thinking tests are straightforward but not necessarily easy.

Step 1 . Consider Buying a Preparation Pack

If you can determine who the publisher is for the test you will take, it may be worthwhile investing in a prep pack from that particular publisher.

JobTestPrep offers prep packs for many major test publishers. These packs include realistic practice tests as well as study guides, tips and tricks to help you build your own question-solving strategies.

Step 2 . Use Practice Tests

Even if you decide not to purchase a prep pack, taking practice tests will help you focus on the areas where you need to improve to be successful.

It is important to find out the publisher of the test you will take because not all critical thinking tests are at the same level and they may not follow the same structure. Timings, answering methodologies and the number of questions will vary between publishers.

You can usually find out the test publisher before you take the assessment by asking the recruiter or searching online.

Step 3 . Practice Under Test Conditions

Critical thinking tests are timed. To give yourself the best chance of achieving a high score, you need to answer the questions quickly and efficiently.

Practicing under test conditions – including the time limit – will help you to understand how much time you need to spend on each question and will help you to develop efficient time management skills for the assessment.

Practicing under test conditions will also help you focus so you can make the most of the session.

Step 4 . Practice Abstract Reasoning

Abstract reasoning is a form of critical thinking that uses logic to form a conclusion. Some abstract reasoning tests are presented as word problems.

Practicing these is a good way to flex critical thinking muscles. You can find practice questions on the Psychometric Success website .

Step 5 . Practice Critical Thinking in Everyday Life

Reading widely, especially non-fiction, is a good way to practice your critical thinking skills in everyday life.

Newspaper articles, scientific or technical journals, and other sources of information present an opportunity to think about:

• The strength of arguments
• The perspective of the author
• Whether there are enough facts presented to draw the conclusion given
• Whether other conclusions could be drawn from the same information

Step 6 . Revise Logical Fallacies

Knowledge of logical fallacies will help you to judge the effectiveness of an argument. Fallacy describes ‘faulty reasoning’ in an argument and is often seen in hyperbole or opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines.

There are many types of fallacy that you might come across, such as:

• Strawman – An argument that doesn’t address the statement.
• False cause – An argument based on a connection that doesn’t exist.
• Ambiguity – An argument using a phrase that is unclear or that may have different meanings.
• Appeal to popularity – An argument that states it must be true because many people believe it.

There are many others, including red herrings, appeal to authority and false dichotomy. Learning these will help you to identify a weak argument.

Step 7 . Focus on Long-Term Practice

Cramming and panicking about a critical thinking assessment is rarely conducive to great performance.

If you are looking for a career in a sector where critical thinking skills are necessary, then long-term practice will have better results when you come to be assessed. Make critical thinking a part of life – so that every day can be a chance to practice recognizing assumptions.

Key Tips for Critical Thinking Test Success

Understand the format of the test and each question type.

Familiarity is important for any assessment, and in critical thinking tests, it is essential that you can recognize what the question is looking for. As mentioned above, this is usually one of the following:

• Assessing assumptions
• Determining inferences
• Making deductions
• Interpreting conclusions

Practice tests will help you become comfortable with the structure and format of the test, including ways to answer, and will also demonstrate what the question types look like.

Read Test Content Carefully

Taking time to read and understand the content provided in the question is important to ensure that you can answer correctly.

The information you need to determine the correct answer will be provided although it might not be explicitly stated. Careful reading is an important part of critical thinking.

Only Use the Information Provided

While some of the information provided in the critical thinking test might be related to the role you are applying for, or about something that you have existing knowledge of, you mustn't use this knowledge during the test.

A facet of critical thinking is avoiding subconscious bias and opinion, so only use the information that is provided to answer the question.

Look Out for Facts and Fallacies

Throughout the critical thinking test, look out for facts and fallacies in the information and arguments provided.

Identifying fallacies will help you decide if an argument is strong and will help you answer questions correctly.

Critical thinking tests are used as pre-employment assessments for jobs that require effective communication, good problem-solving and great decision-making, such as those in the legal sector and banking.

These tests assess the ability of candidates to question and scrutinize evidence, make logical connections between ideas, find alternative interpretations and decide on the strength of an argument.

All critical thinking tests are not the same, but they do have similar question types. Learning what these are and how to answer them will help you perform better. Practicing tests based on the specific publisher of your test will give you the best results.

You might also be interested in these other Psychometric Success articles:

Or explore the Aptitude Tests / Test Types sections.

• AON Hewitt G.A.T.E.
• PI Cognitive Assessment (PLI Test)
• Korn Ferry Leadership Assessment
• Berke Assessment
• Ergometrics
• Thomas International
• Predictive Index (PI)
• NEO Personality Inventory
• Leadership Assessment
• Gallup’s CliftonStrengths
• Sales Personality Tests
• Personality Management Tests
• Saville Wave
• McQuaig Word Survey
• Bell Personality Test
• Myers Briggs Personality Test
• DISC Personality Test
• Management SJT
• Supervisory SJT
• Administrative SJT
• Call Center SJT
• Customer Service SJT
• Firefighter SJT
• Numerical Reasoning Tests
• Verbal Reasoning Tests
• Logical Reasoning Tests
• Cognitive Ability Tests
• Technical Aptitude Tests
• Spatial Reasoning Tests
• Abstract Reasoning Test
• Deductive Reasoning Tests
• Inductive Reasoning Tests
• Mechanical Reasoning Tests
• Diagrammatic Reasoning Tests
• Fault Finding Aptitude Tests
• Mathematical Reasoning Tests
• Critical Thinking Tests
• Analytical Reasoning Tests
• Raven’s Progressive Matrices Test
• Criteria’s CCAT
• Matrigma Test
• Air Traffic Controller Test
• Administrative Assistant Exam
• Clerical Ability Exam
• School Secretary Tests
• State Trooper Exam
• Probation Officer Exam
• FBI Entrance Exam
• Office Assistant Exam
• Clerk Typist Test
• Police Records Clerk Exam
• Canada’s Public Service Exams
• Firefighter Exams
• Police Exams
• Army Aptitude Tests
• USPS Postal Exams
• Hiring Process by Professions

Select Page

Law Firms & Legal Services Hiring Process & Assessment Test Online Preparation – 2024

• Information
• Hiring Law Firms

What Is the Hiring Process Like for Law Firms?

Going through law school is a laborious experience. One that closely resembles the selection process for law firms. Law firms employ an array of tools to evaluate candidates. From psychometric tests to interactive exercises, candidates should prepare for an in-depth process focused on practical and cognitive intelligence.

The hiring process for law firms can take anywhere from four to eight weeks. Job seekers can expect the four following stages during the selection process for law firms.

Law Application Process

The application is the candidate’s first chance to make a good impression on the firm. The form will ask for experience, education and other qualifications. Some firms also ask that a tailored CV and cover letter be included alongside the application form.

The application form may also ask some questions about the applicant’s possible future with the firm. Common questions on the application form include “Are you willing to work long hours?” or “Are you willing to travel?”.

Law Assessments

The assessments are one of the most important parts of the selection process. Firms utilize these assessments because they measure the applicant’s raw cognitive and behavioral skills. The results will inform the firm if the applicant has the aptitude to execute tasks associated with the job professionally and efficiently.

These assessments are sent to the applicant via email with the request that they are completed within five days, however, the sooner the better. Some assessments may have to be taken again in person to verify the results. During this stage, only about one-fourth of the candidates will proceed to the third stage.

Law firms typically use the following assessments to evaluate candidates.

• Logical Reasoning Test The logical reasoning aptitude exam analyzes the candidate’s ability to work with ambiguous information and identify patterns. This assessment arranges shapes in a particular sequence but will leave one shape missing from the pattern. The test taker will have to determine the shape that logically completes the sequence from about five to eight different options. Each question is timed. The patterns are commonly depicted by changes in position, frequency, shape, and color.
• Personality Test The personality questionnaire helps outline the applicant’s likes, dislikes, work preferences, and general demeanor. There will be a series of statements that the candidate must rate on a five-point scale. The scale ranges from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”. Generally, the statements are very short and will be something along the lines of “I get stressed out very easily” and the candidate must mark how well they relate to that statement. The results will give the firm insight into how the applicant will fit in at the company and in a work setting.
• Situational Judgment Test The situational judgment test is personalized to assess specific behavioral skills that are favored in lawyers. The questions will adhere to an outline of the values and competencies that are needed to successfully complete the responsibilities that come with the job. The SJT will present a series of hypothetical scenarios that lawyers will likely encounter. Following the scenarios is a list of possible responses. The test taker must choose the most appropriate response for the given situation.
• Verbal Reasoning Test The verbal reasoning aptitude exam is among the most important of the online assessments because it appraises the ability to understand written information. Lawyers must sort through and proLawyers must sort through and read hundreds and hundreds of documents for their job. The verbal reasoning test ensures that the candidate can accurately determine the key points of the documents and prioritize the important information. The test will present a paragraph of information using a legal context with three to five follow-up questions. The follow-up questions are either multiple-choice inquiries about specific information, or the questions have the answer choices of “True”, “False”, or “Cannot Say” to establish a relationship between the statement and the passage. The verbal reasoning test is timed.
• Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking The Watson-Glaser critical thinking test assesses the candidate’s ability to draw conclusions, recognize assumptions, and interpret arbitrary information. The test taker must read a brief passage and then a subsequent statement. The multiple answer choices will ask the test taker to identify the connection between the statement and the passage. The answer choices include “True”, “Probably True”, “Insufficient Data”, “Probably False”, and “False”.

Video/Phone Interview

The third stage serves as a pre-screening interview. Depending on the firm and the location, this interview may be held over the phone or on video chat. During this interview, the firm tries to get a better picture of the candidate, their goals, interest in the company, and their overall background.

The interview usually starts with a walkthrough of the candidate’s resume, some questions about the company itself, and a handful of competency-based questions. Competency-based questions ask about past behavior as a way to estimate how the person may act in the future.

Candidates who are successful during this stage will be invited to interview in-person with one of the firm’s partners.

The face-to-face interview is the final stage of the hiring process. The candidate will be assessed on their knowledge of the industry, their communication skills, and how they present themselves among other things.

Below are common interview questions asked during this stage:

• What would you do if you were assigned to a case that you had a moral conflict with?
• Describe a time when you have failed. What did you learn from it?
• What skills make you an asset to our team?
• Do you prefer to self-manage or be managed by someone else?
• Why are you interested in ______ practice of the law?
• What would you do if you found out a colleague did not like working with you?

How to Prepare for the Tests in the Legal Sector?

Due to the high volume of cuts made during the assessment stage of the interview process, it is extremely important that you do your due diligence when preparing for these tests. The questions and time limits make it easy to get flustered during these assessments, but practicing is a great way to put your mind at ease.

First, you may want to rank the tests based on which one you may find the most difficult or will need the most practice with. Typically, the most difficult tests are the aptitude ones. The best way to prepare for law tests is by using online practice tests. Online practice tests recreate the testing environment to give you an inside look of what to expect before you take the firm’s assessments. Practicing this way allows you to become comfortable with the content, work at a faster pace, and simultaneously improve your accuracy. An additional benefit is the chance to see your score at the end. Your score on these practice tests is an estimate of how well you will do on the firm’s assessment and indicates how much more time you should put toward practicing.

The behavioral assessments are slightly harder to practice for because certain firms value different qualities than other firms. Therefore, although there are right and wrong answers, the “right” answers may vary depending on the company’s preferences. A good way to determine which answers the firm is looking for is by doing background research on them. This includes reviewing their values, competencies, and any other information listed on their website or the job posting. Then, look through some sample questions to practice applying these values to your answers. This will help your results align with the company’s preferences making you a favorable candidate.

Law Firms Interview Tips

Interviews can be nerve-racking, but they don’t have to be. With enough time and effort, you will be able to breeze right through your upcoming interview.

First and foremost, prepare for possible competency-based questions. These are important because they examine your disposition whether it be with a client, the opposing party, or just around the office. Take a visit to the company’s website and read their values and “about” page to get an idea of what the interviewer is looking for. Below are some sample competency-based and tricky ethics questions. Use these to practice associating the company’s values with your answers.

• Would you sacrifice quality to meet a deadline?
• You are alone in the office and an important client calls demanding that you get rid of certain documents. What do you do?
• A client tells you that they are guilty but wish to plead “not guilty”. How does this affect your performance on the case?
• Describe a time you and a colleague disagreed. How did you handle this situation?

Be sure to include specific examples that demonstrate one or more of the company’s values. Firms will also ask questions about how you work, your thought-process, and possibly some job-specific questions. Other common interview questions include the following:

• How do you stay up to date with changes in this area of the law?
• If you could change any law, what would it be and why?
• If you were stranded on a desert island what would you bring with you and why?
• How you approach networking events?
• Describe possible major changes to this area of the law in the next five years?
• Why are you interested in our firm?

Leading Worldwide Law Firms:

Related Links:

• Situational Judgement Tests (SJT)
• Job Personality Tests
• Aptitude Tests
• Civil Service Exams
• Police Officer Exams
• Firefighters Exams

Assessment Companies

• Assessment Centers Guide – 2024
• Hiring Companies – Find an Employer
• Hogan Assessment
• Aon Hewitt G.A.T.E. Assessment
• Professional Learning Indicator (PLI)
• Korn Ferry Assessment
• Criteria Assessment
• Caliper Assessment
• Cubiks Tests
• Hudson Assessment
• Revelian Assessment
• Thomas International Assessment
• Talent Q Tests
• Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
• Ergometrics Tests
• cut-e Tests
• Kenexa Assessment
• Capp Assessment
• Psytech International
• Saville Assessment
• Test Partnership
• Profiling for Success (PFS)
• McQuaig Mental Agility Test
• ACER Aptitude Tests
• More Assessment Companies

Username or email  *

Password  *

Forgotten password?

[email protected]

+44 (0)20 8834 4579

A Guide to the Watson Glaser Test for Hogan Lovells

Secure your chances of obtaining a training contract at the prestigious law firm Hogan Lovells by following this guide.

Watson Glaser for Hogan Lovells

• Learn why you should apply to Hogan Lovells
• Find out about the Watson Glaser Test
• See what to expect in the Watson Glaser Test
• Discover tips to improve your score

Jump to Section

• Deciding on Law
• How to Become a Lawyer
• Areas of Law
• Solicitor vs Barrister
• What is a Solicitor
• Becoming a Barrister
• Legal Executive
• What Is A Legal Secretary?
• How to Become a Judge
• Legal Apprenticeships
• Studying Law at University
• Law at Oxbridge
• Studying Law Abroad
• Personal Statement
• Law Research Techniques & Resources
• Commercial Awareness
• Law Work Experience
• Vacation Schemes
• Law Courses
• Non-Law Students
• PGDL (Conversion)
• Bar Training Guide
• Training Contract Applications
• Watson Glaser Test
• Firms Requiring the Watson Glaser Test
• Watson Glaser Test For Clifford Chance
• Watson Glaser Test For CMS
• Watson Glaser Test For DLA Piper
• Watson Glaser Test For Freshfields
• Watson Glaser Test For Hogan Lovells
• Situational Judgement Tests
• Training Contract Interviews
• Training Contract Salaries
• How Many Applications Should I Send?
• In-House Training Contract Guide
• Baker & McKenzie: Application Timeline
• Expert Insight: A Day in the Life (Debevoise)
• Freshfields: Training Contract
• Freshfields: Top TC Tips
• Gibson Dunn: Hong Kong Secondment
• Herbert Smith Freehills: Training Contract
• Simmons & Simmons: Top Tips
• Taylor Vinters: Training Contract
• Taylor Vinters: Top Tips
• Law Firm Applications
• Pupillage: a Guide for Aspiring Barristers
• Law Firm Insights
• Networking Guide
• Diversity In Law

The Watson Glaser critical thinking test is designed to assess your skills as a lawyer and plays a significant role in determining your eligibility for further stages of the application process for a training contract at Hogan Lovells. In this article, we will provide an overview of the Watson Glaser test for Hogan Lovells, explore how you can prepare for it, discuss what to expect, and shed light on the desired score.

About Hogan Lovells

Hogan Lovells  is a global legal firm that was established in 2010 following the merger of two leading law firms, Hogan & Hartson and Lovells. With over 2,500 lawyers spread across more than 45 locations all over the world, they are one of the most prominent international law firms.

The firm has a wide range of expertise and offers services in areas such as corporate and finance, litigation and dispute resolution, intellectual property, employment and benefits, competition and antitrust, tax and real estate. They have extensive experience advising clients in major industries like energy & infrastructure, technology & communications, life sciences & healthcare, automotive & transport amongst others.

Hogan Lovells is committed to making a positive impact in their communities and have launched various initiatives to promote diversity and inclusion within the firm. They have also implemented mentoring programs for staff members at all levels of seniority to help them develop professionally.

Hogan Lovells Training Contract

Hogan Lovells offers a comprehensive training contract program for aspiring solicitors, providing an excellent opportunity to gain hands-on experience in different practice areas. The program consists of four six-month seats, in which trainees will be given real work on client matters and the chance to attend networking events and client meetings.

By the end of the program, trainees will have been exposed to a range of legal practice areas and gained valuable insight into their chosen field.

The training contract also involves taking the Watson Glaser Test. This assessment evaluates key skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving and decision-making abilities – all essential for success in many roles within Hogan Lovells.

The test helps determine if a candidate is suitable for the role they are applying for and it provides employers with insight into how an applicant may handle pressure during their career at Hogan Lovells.

Application Process

The application process for training contracts at Hogan Lovells is relatively straightforward. Prospective trainees need to submit an online application which includes a personal statement, CV and academic transcript.

The application deadline for the 2024 and 2025 intakes is 31 January 2023, and for the 2025 intake is 31 July 2023. Successful applicants will then be invited to attend a virtual assessment day. Once accepted, trainees will be required to study the Postgraduate Diploma in Law at BPP University Law School prior to starting their contract.

What Is The Watson Glaser Test?

The Watson Glaser test  has been used since the 1920s as an effective measure of critical thinking skills. The Watson Glaser test is a widely used critical thinking assessment that evaluates an individual’s ability to analyse, interpret, and draw conclusions from complex information.

It consists of various sections that assess skills such as drawing inferences, recognising assumptions, making deductions, interpreting information, and evaluating arguments.

The test aims to measure your ability to think critically, solve problems, and make sound judgments – all essential qualities for a successful legal career.

Watson Glaser Test for Hogan Lovells

Hogan Lovells incorporates the Watson Glaser test as an integral part of their application process. Upon submitting your online application, you will receive an invitation to take the test within 48 hours.

You will have approximately five days to complete the test, providing ample time for preparation.

Watson Glaser Test Guide

Get expert insight to help you master the Watson Glaser test.

Watson Glaser Test Structure

The Watson Glaser test for Hogan Lovells consists of 40 questions divided into five sections, each focusing on a specific critical thinking skill. These sections will require you to draw inferences, recognize assumptions, make deductions, interpret information, and evaluate arguments. It is essential to carefully read and understand the instructions for each question type to answer them accurately.

These questions involve analysing a passage of text and determining if a given deduction logically follows or not.

• Interpretation

In interpretation questions, you will evaluate a paragraph of information and decide if a series of conclusions can be reasonably drawn from it.

• Recognising Assumptions

Here, you need to identify the assumptions presented in a statement and determine if they are explicitly stated or not.

• Drawing Inferences

Drawing on your critical thinking skills, you will assess the validity of inferences made in a given scenario, categorising them on a sliding scale of truthfulness.

• Evaluating Arguments

This question type presents a contentious scenario followed by a series of arguments, which you must evaluate based on their strength rather than their correctness

The test is timed, with a duration of 30 minutes. It is recommended that you manage your time effectively, keeping track of the remaining time and avoiding getting stuck on individual questions. Remember, the test assesses critical thinking abilities, so rushing through the questions may result in overlooking crucial details.

Watson Glaser Test Prep

Preparing for the Watson Glaser Test is crucial for candidate aspiring to secure a training contract with Hogan Lovells. To increase your chances of success, it is indispensable to familiarise yourself with the format and thinking required in the Watson Glaser test. 

Fortunately, there are numerous online resources available to help you effectively prepare for the test:

• Explore a range of online resources to enhance your preparation. While some resources may require payment, there are also free options available. These resources can provide valuable insights into critical thinking, logical reasoning, and the specific skills required for success in the Watson Glaser Test.
• One such online resource is TalentLens , the publisher of the Watson Glaser Test. Their website offers a comprehensive overview of the test, including sample questions and explanations of the different question types. Familiarising yourself with these question types and understanding the underlying concepts is essential for performing well in the test.
• Another useful resource is The Lawyer Portal, an online platform that specialises in psychometric test preparation. They offer a dedicated Watson Glaser practice test pack that includes sample questions, detailed answer explanations, and additional practice materials. This can be a valuable resource for honing your critical thinking skills and improving your performance in the test. 
• Using  Job Test Prep  is also a great way to get practising, since they offer a diagnostic Watson Glaser test, 20+ additional practice tests and five interactive study guides. For the best results, it’s important to practice frequently, assess your performance and learn from any mistakes to keep improving.
• Additionally, various books and guides are available that specifically focus on critical thinking and logical reasoning. Examples include “Critical Thinking Skills for Dummies” by Martin Cohen and “ The Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal ” by Goodwin Watson and Edward Glaser. These resources provide comprehensive coverage of the skills and techniques required to excel in critical thinking assessments like the Watson Glaser Test.

By using these resources and practising regularly, you can familiarise yourself with the test format, improve your critical thinking abilities, and increase your chances of success in the Watson Glaser Test for Hogan Lovells.

Remember, preparation is key, and investing time and effort into practice will significantly enhance your performance and give you a competitive edge in the application process.

What Score Do I Need?

The required score for the Watson Glaser test at Hogan Lovells is not publicly disclosed. While this depends on each role available, generally a good score would exceed 70%.

Fortunately there are practice tests available online so applicants can become accustomed with how the test works before taking it officially. This gives applicants an opportunity to gain insight into what questions will be asked during the assessment so that when they take it officially they’re prepared for success!

However, it is advisable to aim for a high score to increase your chances of progressing to the later stages of the application process. Strive to perform at your best and showcase your critical thinking skills, as a strong performance in the test will undoubtedly enhance your application.

The Watson Glaser test is a vital component of the application process for training contracts at Hogan Lovells. By adequately preparing for this critical thinking assessment, you can demonstrate your analytical abilities and enhance your chances of securing a coveted position at this prestigious law firm.

Remember to practise, stay focused, and strive for excellence in your test performance. Good luck on your journey towards a rewarding legal career!

Application Advice

If you're an aspiring lawyer and want tailored advice on applying to university, navigating different pathways into law, or anything else law-related - we can help!

Save 20% on all the best LNAT prep, with our LNAT Prep Packages.

Personal Statement Reviews

Get your Personal Statement reviewed so you can create a knock-out UCAS application.

How well do you know the LNAT? Take our quiz to find out!

Mastering The Watson Glaser Test For Freshfields

How to pass situational judgement tests.

Loading More Content

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.

Ukraine war latest: Russia says it is considering nuclear shift - and tells West it is 'playing with fire'; US leads drills after North Korea warhead test

A senior Russian diplomat says Putin is reviewing the country's nuclear doctrine - and warns the West it is "playing with fire". Meanwhile, a Russian navy missile cruiser carries out drills in the Mediterranean. Listen to a Sky News podcast on Putin and North Korea while you scroll.

Thursday 27 June 2024 23:33, UK

• US warned of 'dangerous illusions' as Russia mulls change in nuclear stance
• EU signs security agreement with Ukraine in Brussels
• Ukraine receives latest EU financial support package worth £1.6bn
• N Korea tests multiple warhead missile - as US leads drills after Putin-Kim pact
• Your questions answered : Has the West been honest about Ukraine's failures?
• Big picture : What you need to know this week
• Listen to the Daily above and tap here to follow wherever you get your podcasts
• Live updates by Katie Williams

Ask a question or make a comment

We're pausing our live coverage of the war in Ukraine for this evening.

Scroll through below to catch up on the latest developments.

Two people have been killed and two more are wounded as a result of Russian shelling in Ukraine's eastern Donetsk region, an official has said.

Vadym Filashkin, head of the regional military administration, said Russian forces struck the centre of Kurakhove city, killing a woman and a 40-year-old man.

Two injured people were taken to hospital, he said.

He added that the extent of the damage in the attack was being assessed.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban had a seemingly lively chat ahead of a meeting of European leaders in Brussels today.

It's not known what that the two men discussed - but relations between Budapest and Kyiv have become more strained since the Russian invasion in 2022.

Hungary is Russia's closest ally in the EU and Mr Orban has maintained a friendship with Vladimir Putin while criticising the EU's strategy on Ukraine.

In December, Mr Orban blocked a €50bn aid package for Ukraine in a move that frustrated other EU leaders. He lifted the veto several months later.

Two people have been injured in a Russian drone attack on southern Ukraine, an official has said.

The Kherson regional administration said Russian forces launched an attack on the village of Novodmytrivka, leaving a 66-year-old man and 71-year-old woman hurt.

Both have blast injuries and have been taken to hospital for treatment, it said on Telegram.

The US, Israel and Ukraine are all in talks to provide Ukraine with up to eight Patriot air defence systems, according to the Financial Times.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly called for NATO members to send his country the US-made Patriot systems as it battles intensifying Russian attacks.

The FT said the deal would likely involve Israel first sending the systems it plans to retire to the US, before they are handed over to Kyiv.

Sources with knowledge of the negotiations told the paper the outlines of the deal have been discussed between ministers and senior officials from each of the three countries.

Mr Zelenskyy said in May that Kyiv urgently needed at least seven more Patriot missile systems to ward off Russian strikes against its power grid, civilian areas and military targets.

Pictures have emerged this evening of the aftermath of Russia's latest airstrike on the northeastern Ukrainian region of Kharkiv.

Emergency services said earlier that five people were injured and buildings were damaged in the attack (see 17.55 post).

Russian forces launched an assault on a new front in Kharkiv in May, after months of fighting focused on the east.

Ukrainian troops have repelled Russian forces from a neighbourhood in the frontline town of Chasiv Yar, a Ukrainian military official has said.

Nazar Voloshin, a spokesman for the Khortytsia operational-strategic group, told the Interfax-Ukraine news agency that Russian forces had been pushed out of the Kanal neighborhood in the east of the town.

Mr Voloshin claimed Moscow's forces were not slowing down in their push to break through in Chasiv Yar, and said two assault operations were ongoing.

"Ukrainian defenders reliably hold the defence in this area and give a decent rebuff to the Russian aggressor," he told the agency.

For context: Chasiv Yar, a strategically-important town in the eastern Donetsk region, has long been a Russian target.

It has been pummelled by Russian air, artillery and drone strikes for months now, as Moscow views the town as a gateway to launch direct offensives against several Ukrainian "fortress cities".

Chasiv Yar had a pre-war population of more than 12,000, but now only a few hundred residents remain.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has urged EU leaders to make good on their promises to provide his country with military aid after the bloc signed a security agreement underlining its support for Kyiv in the long term.

"Fulfilment of every promise is important, not only in terms of protecting lives but also to destroy the Russian illusion that they will achieve something by war," he said at the summit in Brussels today.

The Ukrainian president thanked countries that have so far promised equipment and arms aid, but pointed out that they were "needed urgently on the battlefield".

He also urged more help on "the urgent things - air defence, that is one".

The EU-Ukraine security agreement entrenches the EU's commitment to help Ukraine in nine areas of security and defence policy - including arms deliveries, military training, defence industry cooperation and demining,

In essence, it encapsulates what the 27-nation bloc has been doing for the country since the start of the war.

But the EU has made a specific commitment to the "predictable, efficient, sustainable and long-term provision of military equipment" for Ukraine.

Kyiv in return has promised to uphold European values and continue on its reform path in preparation to join the EU.

Five people have been injured in Russian airstrikes in Ukraine's northeastern Kharkiv region, according to emergency services.

The State Emergency Service of Ukraine said the strikes hit a residential area of the region, partially destroying one building and damaging others - including a school - as well as cars.

Crews at the scene said five people were hurt.

The windows and gates of the local fire station were also damaged, the emergency service said.

While the apparent gains made by Russia during its spring offensive in Kharkiv were the focus of much of the news coverage of the way in May, a new report indicates any progress made by Vladimir Putin's troops came at a significant cost.

According to UK and other Western intelligence agency sources cited by the New York Times, more than 1,000 Russian soldiers were injured or killed each day last month.

However, the newspaper also cites US officials as saying Moscow is continuing to recruit between 25,000 and 30,000 new soldiers a month - roughly as many as it is losing from the battlefield.

American officials told the outlet that Russia achieved a critical objective of Mr Putin in creating a buffer zone along the border to make it more difficult for the Ukrainians to strike into the country.

But, the Western officials said, this did not threaten Kharkiv and was ultimately stopped by Ukrainian forces.

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free