Giving Reasons

Question 1

What two arguments can be found within this passage?

“The judges reasoning was as follows. If the applicant were to appear for sentence now, the court would be setting a whole life term. This is because of two separate and independently sufficient reasons. First, the murder in question is a second murder committed by the applicant. Secondly, the murder in question is one committed for gain.”

(R v Johnson [2011] EWCA Crim 448)

Answer 1

FIRST

(1) If the murder in question is a second murder, then the court would be setting a life term
(2) The murder in question is a second murder
(3) The court would be setting a life term

SECOND

(1) If the murder in question was committed for gain, then the court would be setting a life term
(2) The murder in question was committed for gain
(3) The court would be setting a life term

Question 2

Give the reconstruction of this argument involving a disjunction:

“The judges reasoning was as follows. If the applicant were to appear for sentence now, the court would be setting a whole life term. This is because of two separate and independently sufficient reasons. First, the murder in question is a second murder committed by the applicant. Secondly, the murder in question is one committed for gain.”

(R v Johnson [2011] EWCA Crim 448)

Answer 2

(1) If the murder in question is a second murder or the murder was committed for gain, then the court would be setting a life term
(2) The murder in question is a second murder or the murder in question was committed for gain
(3) The court would be setting a life term

Question 3

What does arguing in alternative mean?

Answer 3

when either or both considerations (separate and independently sufficient reasons) are presented as sufficing to establish

Question 4

What does it mean for reasons to be taken jointly or cumulatively?

Answer 4

not that each consideration is by itself sufficient to establish the conclusion, but that they are sufficient to establish the conclusion when taken together

Question 5

“Let’s go to restaurant R”
“Why?”
“Because their wine list is good”

Give the three replies to this.

Answer 5

No

• their wine list isn’t good at all
• this answer calls into question (by denying or at least raising doubt as to) the truth of what is being offered as a reason

So what?

• we never drink wine at lunch
• this answer calls into question the relevance for the conclusion of what is being offered as a reason

Yes, but…

• the food is overpriced and terrible
• this kind of answer grants both the truth and relevance of what is being offered as a reason, but offers a countervailing reason suggesting that all things considered we should not go to restaurant R

Question 6

At each stage of an exchange, a new issue will arise.

“Let’s go to restaurant R”
“Why?”
“Because their wine list is good” [pro tanto reason in favour of accepting the final conclusion]
“Is it really? Why do you think that?” [no]
“Well it’s what the 2016 Restaurant Guide says” [pro tanto reason in favour of accepting the previously offered pro tanto reason”

Give the three replies to this exchange

Answer 6

No
- that’s not what the guide says

So what?
- their wine critic is an amateur

Yes, but…
- the 2016 Fine Drinking Guide gave them a poor review

Question 7

Upon who, does the burden of establishing a claim fall?

Answer 7

(the need to offer reasons in favour of it)

the party who is making the claim

Question 8

What does denying the fact otherwise mean?

Answer 8

“No, I didn’t do it” which means the plantiff must provide truth

Question 9

What does raising a defence otherwise mean?

Answer 9

“Yes but, my mistake was a result of a mistake by the plantiff”

Question 10

What does the questioning the relevance of the fact mean?

Answer 10

“So what? Providing incorrect information by itself is not grounds for compensation under existing law”

(can be deployed as an argument in the alternative)