What is legal argumentation ? What is the difference between legal argumentation and legal reasonin

Legal analysis: Legal reasoning is a logical attempt to restore some objective facts, which is the process of restoration. Legal argumentation is the logical proof of legal facts under the legal framework.

Legal basis: Article 5 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China Article 5 The People's Republic of China implements the rule of law and builds a socialist country under the rule of law. The state upholds the unity and dignity of the legal system of the Communicative Communicism.

All laws, administrative regulations, and local regulations must not contradict the Constitution. All state organs, armed forces, political parties, social organizations, enterprises and institutions must abide by the Constitution and laws. All acts that violate the Constitution and the law must be investigated.

No organization or individual may have privileges that go beyond the Constitution and laws.

The relationship between legal inference and legal argumentation is that reasoning comes first, argumentation comes later, reasoning is dark, and argumentation is clear.

Legal reasoning is a logical attempt to restore some objective facts, which is the process of restoration.

Legal argumentation is the logical proof of legal facts under the legal framework.

Legal reasoning is a perceptual process, and the value judgment that is constantly being cut is still to be cut. Legal argumentation is a rational process, and only value judgments exist here.

If there is any correlation between the two, it is often the reasoning that comes first, the argument that comes later, the reasoning that is dark, and the argument that is clear.

The role of the law:

1. Guiding role. This refers to the guiding role of the law on individual behavior, including definite guidance and selective guidance. Definitive guidelines are generally the role of norms that provide for obligations, and selective guidelines are generally those of norms that provide for rights.

Second, the role of evaluation. This is the effect of the Dharma as a yardstick and standard for the behavior of others.

Third, the role of **. This is the effect of laughter on the behavior between the parties.

Fourth, the coercive effect. This is the effect on the behavior of the offender.

Fifth, the role of education. This is the effect on the behavior of ordinary people, including positive education and negative education. <>

Inference is a chain of inferences that are linked together in which the conclusion of one inference acts as the premise of the next; An argument is a sequence of inferences that contains a series of inferences, and the conclusion of one inference may serve as a premise for the next. An argument can contain many inferences, and an inference can contain many inferences; Inference is in reasoning, and reasoning is in argumentation. Of course, not all reasoning exists in arguments, and reasoning is also divided into reasoning in explanation and reasoning in arguments.

Therefore, we should not confuse these three concepts when we use them.

Legal argumentation is an abstract process of thinking about applying positive legal norms to concrete cases.

Legal reasoning is the external manifestation of the process of legal argumentation, and is the basic framework for applying abstract legal rules (major premises) to specific cases (minor premises). If legal interpretation only solves the problem of determining the meaning of the "major premise", legal reasoning must link the interpreted major premise with the proven minor premise in order to reach the conclusion of the case. The frequently used legal reasoning methods include deductive reasoning, non-deductive reasoning, anti-deductive reasoning, substantive reasoning, etc., and the application of each reasoning method is not only a simple inference of formal logic, but a multi-dimensional thinking process that integrates various other legal reasoning methods.

Legal argumentation and legal interpretation are two different but important concepts in judicial practice.

Legal interpretation refers to the interpretation and explanation of legal provisions on the basis of existing legal norms to determine the correct conclusion of a particular case or issue. The goal of legal interpretation is to ensure the applicability and reliability of the law, and it is also one of the basic processes of law implementation. It reveals the connotation and extension of legal provisions through the investigation of legal language, historical elaboration, legal system, etc., so as to provide sufficient theoretical support for adjudication and administrative organs.

Legal argumentation is a process of logical deduction and reasoning about texts such as legal norms, principles, theories, etc., in order to arrive at a legal opinion, conclusion, or mention a better legal amendment. Legal arguments can include an analysis of factors, benefits, and risks to help parties make sound decisions. The purpose of legal argumentation is to ensure fair, reasonable, scientific and effective legal decision-making, and to provide necessary reference and support for judicial practice and social development.

Therefore, legal interpretation provides a legal basis, and legal argumentation makes judgments, inferences and recommendations on this basis, and provides support for decision-making. In judicial practice, legal argumentation and legal interpretation complement each other, influence and complement each other, and provide important guidance and basis for judging and resolving specific cases.

Legal analysis: Legal reasoning is a logical attempt to restore some objective facts, and it is a process of returning to the original. Legal argumentation is the logical proof of legal facts under the legal framework.

Legal basis: Constitution of the People's Republic of China Article 5 The People's Republic of China implements the rule of law and builds a socialist country under the rule of law. The state upholds the unity and dignity of the socialist legal system.

All laws, administrative regulations, and local regulations must not contradict the Constitution. All state organs and armed forces, all political parties, all social organizations, and all enterprises and institutions must abide by the Constitution and laws. All acts that violate the Constitution and the law must be investigated.

No organization or individual may have privileges that go beyond the Constitution and laws.