Ruggero J. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers

Update (2/24/06):
Commenter Ashley pointed out a typo in the logic problem below: "criminal procedure" should read "civil procedure." I apologize for any confusion or heads banging against walls caused by the typo.

Original post:
I've been on the road the last couple of days, and for my airport-airplane reading, I brought along Logic for Lawyers, by Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert. To my knowledge, this is the only book dedicated to teaching the classical principles of logic and applying them to common-law legal reasoning. The book was written for law students, but it's of great benefit to practicing lawyers too. As Judge Aldisert says in the preface, the book "is as much a checklist for clear legal thinking as it is a guide for the conduct of a case.... It is designed to be a lawyer's tool -- to ensure soundness in one's own arguments and to expose structural or material flaws in those of adversaries."

At the end of chapter 3, Judge Aldisert threw in three logic puzzles. Yesterday I had fun figuring them out. Aldisert advises readers to not only figure out the answers, but to construct logical arguments proving that the answers are correct. If you want to test your knowledge and application of logic, click on "Continue reading ..." below and see if you can solve the first puzzle. (In a couple of days, I'll post my answers and explain some of the logic by which I arrived at them.)

Here is Judge Aldisert's first puzzle. It's intended to help readers apply what they learn in the first three (of thirteen) chapters of the book. Have fun, and remember to construct logical arguments to support your answers.

Six law professors at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law are named Mr. Able, Ms. Baker, Ms. Charlie, Mr. Dogge, Mr. Easy, and Ms. Foxx. Not necessarily in any particular order they are graduates of the following law schools: two from Wisconsin and one each from Virginia, Pitt, Penn, and Harvard. They teach the following subjects: administrative law, contracts, evidence, torts, crimes, and criminal civil procedure.

Your assignment is to identify each professor with the subject he or she teaches and the law school from which each graduated.

The civil procedure class is taught by a Harvard graduate who lives in the same apartment house as does Mr. Easy, who does not teach evidence, torts, administrative law, or crimes.

Mr. Charlie, who teaches evidence, and the contracts professor recently attended a reunion of their same law school class.

Because he teaches at his alma mater and has acquired seniority, Mr. Dogge earns more money than Ms. Foxx does. Additionally, he earns more than does Professor Able, who teaches administrative law. Ms. Foxx has never attended a class reunion, does not teach torts, and did not go to Harvard or to any law school located in Pennsylvania. Mr. Able did not go to Pitt, and the torts professor did not go to Penn.

__________

p.s. 2/25/06: As you'll see in the comments below, Ashley Morris has solved the puzzle. For an exposition of the logic behind the solution, click here.

Comments

[ashley]

Uh, is there a typo?

"The civil procedure class is taught by a Harvard graduate"...but there is no subject listed named "civil procedure"...

No wonder I did great on the LSAT but didn't go to law school...

[Ray]

Good eye, Ashley. I was afraid of that — a typo screwing up the whole problem. "Criminal procedure" should read "civil procedure."

[kristine]

This is just like one of the logical games on the LSAT. I don't know about constructing an argument, but by the process of elimination, you can figure it out in a few minutes.

[ashley]

Well...that made it a bit easier

A, Penn, administrative
B, Harvard , Civil
C, Wisconsin, evidence
D, Pitt, torts
E, Wisconsin, Contracts
F, Virginia, crimes

[Ray]

I've lost the piece of paper with my solution, but I think it's the same as Ashley's.

Kristine is right; the solution is a process of elimination. But behind that process is a series of logical deductions. The problem gives you a set of premises, which you use to deduce certain conclusions. Those conclusions, in turn serve as the premises for other conclusions, and so on, until the problem is solved.

Kristine is also right that the solution is simple — if you think logically. If I have time this weekend, I'm going to write a follow-up post, to make explicit the logic behind the process of elimination. This is in keeping with Judge Aldisert's suggestion that you not only solve the problem, but construct logical arguments to support your solution.