The reading on Causal Arguments

The main thing I liked about this reading is how it discussed law. My dad is a lawyer and so I have grown up with having to argue with a professional arguer. This reading, however, was very interesting to me because I have always wondered how lawyers think and argue so fluently in a court of law. Causal reasoning is basically what lawyers use a lot when trying to when a case. They go over the “cause and effect” of a situation and then try and argue the validity. The reading concluded with giving us three main pointers in causal reasoning. The first was to question how acceptable the implied comparison is. Second, we must question how likely the case of the cause is. And third, we must question how credible the “only significant difference” or “only significant commonality” claim is. The difference and commonality part are what help make the argument valid and that is what we always see lawyers arguing about in court to win their case. I enjoyed the reading and hope you guys did too ;P