Rule Synthesis and Explanatory Synthesis: A Socratic Dialogue between IREAC and TREAT

Legal Communication & Rhetoric Journal, Vol. 8, 2011

Valparaiso University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 11-10

30 Pages Posted: 30 Jun 2011  

Michael D. Murray

University of Kentucky College of Law

Multiple version iconThere are 2 versions of this paper

Date Written: June, 30 2011

Abstract

This Article explores the theory and process of explanatory synthesis in comparison to rule synthesis and case-to-case analogical reasoning as a method of demonstrative legal reasoning and analysis and legal rhetoric. The Article takes the form of a Socratic dialogue to discuss the analytical and rhetorical advantages of explanatory synthesis. Explanatory synthesis provides an important option for inductive reasoning and argumentation within the deductive paradigm of legal analysis, and has rhetorical advantages over other forms of analogical reasoning when examined using the tools of modern argument theory and the rhetorical canons of law and economics.

Keywords: legal analysis, legal reasoning, rhetoric, legal rhetoric, modern argument theory, synthesis, explanatory synthesis, rule synthesis, paradigm

Suggested Citation

Murray, Michael D., Rule Synthesis and Explanatory Synthesis: A Socratic Dialogue between IREAC and TREAT (June, 30 2011). Legal Communication & Rhetoric Journal, Vol. 8, 2011; Valparaiso University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 11-10. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1875903

Michael D. Murray (Contact Author)

University of Kentucky College of Law ( email )

259 Law Building
Lexington, KY 40506-0048
United States
+1-219-299-9777 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://law.uky.edu/directory/michael-d-murray

Paper statistics

Downloads
135
Rank
133,823
Abstract Views
921