By selecting the 'Susbcribe & Save' option you are enrolling in an auto-renewing subscription of Zookal Study Premium. Cancel at anytime.
Auto-Renewal
Your Zookal Study Premium subscription will be renewed each month until you cancel. You consent to Zookal automatically charging your payment method on file $19.99 each month after 1st month free period until you cancel.
How to Cancel
You can cancel your subscription anytime by visiting Manage account page, clicking "Manage subscription" and completing the steps to cancel. Cancellations take effect at the end of the 1st month free period (if applicable) or at the end of the current billing cycle in which your request to cancel was received. Subscription fees are not refundable.
Zookal Study Premium Monthly Subscription Includes:
Ability to post up to ten (10) questions per month.
20% off your textbooks order and free standard shipping whenever you shop online at
textbooks.zookal.com.au
Unused monthly subscription benefits have no cash value, are not transferable, and expire at the end of each month. This means that subscription benefits do not roll over to or accumulate for use in subsequent months.
Payment Methods
Afterpay and Zip Pay will not be available for purchases with Zookal Study Premium subscription added to bag.
$1.00 preauthorisation
You may see a $1.00 preauthorisation by your bank which will disappear from your statement in a few business days..
Email communications
By adding Zookal Study Premium, you agree to receive email communications from Zookal.
Is legal reasoning rationally persuasive, working within a discernible structure and using recognisable kinds of arguments? Does it belong to rhetoric in this sense, or to the domain of the merely 'rhetorical' in an adversative sense? Is there any reasonable certainty about legal outcomes in dispute-situations? If not, what becomes of the Rule of Law? Neil MacCormick's book tackles these questions in establishing an overall theory of legal reasoning which shows
the essential part 'legal syllogism' plays in reasoning aimed at the application of law, while acknowledging that simple deductive reasoning, though always necessary, is very rarely sufficient to
justify a decision.There are always problems of relevancy, classification or interpretation in relation to both facts and law. In justifying conclusions about such problems, reasoning has to be universalistic and yet fully sensitive to the particulars of specific cases. How is this possible? Is legal justification at this level consequentialist in character or principled and right-based?Both normative coherence and narrative coherence have a part to play in
justification, and in accounting for the validity of arguments by analogy. Looking at such long-discussed subjects as precedent and analogy and the interpretative character of the reasoning involved, Neil
MacCormick expands upon his celebrated Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (OUP 1978 and 1994) and restates his 'institutional theory of law'.