CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING AND LEGAL REASONING
MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. Critical thinking skills can best be defined as
a. the ability to understand what someone is saying and then to apply
evaluative criteria to assess the quality of the reasoning offered to support the
conclusion. (page 2, easy)
b. the ability to demonstrate your superiority to others.
c. the ability to paraphrase and criticize others..
d. All of the above.
2. Which of the following BEST illustrates the use of critical thinking skills by a lawyer?
a. A lawyer raises a courtroom objection when her opponent engages in critical
commentary about an opponent without prior permission of the judge.
b. A lawyer develops a closing argument using visual aids likely to impress a jury
comprised of ordinary citizens.
c. A lawyer approaches a difficult problem by gathering all relevant facts,
determining the real issue in dispute, and applying reason to reach a
conclusion.
(pages 3 – 6, moderate)
d. A lawyer scientifically analyzes the handwriting of a defense witness to determine
the potential for bias.
3. Once you identify a judge’s conclusion in a case, what should you do?
a. Remember it as a guide for future business decision making.
, b. Make a judgment about its quality.
c. Both a and b.
(page 3, moderate)
d. None of the above.
4. Which is the most accurate statement about critical thinking?
a. There are different forms of critical thinking, but all share a focus on
evaluating the quality of someone’s reasoning. (pages 2 – 4, moderate)
b. There are wide differences between the many forms of critical reasoning, and each
form bears little or no relationship to the other.
c. The highest forms of critical reasoning are those based on mathematical models
developed in the 17th Century.
d. The notion that there are many forms of critical reasoning is a myth. There is really
only one way to apply critical reasoning.
5. Which of the following BEST illustrates a “conclusion”?
a. The opening argument delivered by the defendant’s lawyer to the jury.
b. The most important evidence offered by an eyewitness.
c. The action of a lawyer in objecting to unconvincing testimony.
d. The judge’s written decision in favor of the plaintiff or defendant at the end of
a trial. (page 7,13 easy)
6. Which of the following BEST summarizes the four first steps to legal reasoning?
a. Understanding the client, preparing the legal paperwork, appearing in court,
arguing the case.
b. Drafting the summons, drafting the complaint, preparing the answer, filing
documents in court.
, c. Finding the facts, determining the issue, reasoning to a conclusion, and
applying the relevant rules of law. (pages 4, easy)
d. Raising an objection, explaining the reasons for the objection, waiting for the judge’s
ruling, proceeding with the testimony
7. The facts in a legal decision are BEST described by which of the following?
a. Facts are the most basic building blocks in a legal decision and provide the
environment or context in which the legal issue is to be resolved. (page
6, moderate)
b. Facts are words we use to describe our reasons for reaching conclusions in a
complex legal dispute.
c. Facts are the issues in the dispute, the bone of contention between two opposing
litigants.
d. Facts are all the parties need to determine the ultimate outcome of a case.
8. Which of the following was not one of the facts upon which Judge Selya based his
opinion in the case of United States of America v. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic?
a. Defendant Stewart sold 3, 928 shares of Imclone stock on December 27,2001.
b. Expert witness Lawrence Stewart was accused of perjuring himself in the testimony
he gave prior to the defendants’ conviction.
c. Defendant Stewart was a very successful businesswoman. (page 4 –7,
moderate)
d. According to a federal rule and case law, perjury of a witness could constitute
grounds for a new trial.
9. Of the following, which is the BEST definition of a legal issue?
a. A legal issue is the ultimate reasoning behind a judge’s final decision.
b. A legal issue is the set of facts by which the lawyers and their clients assist the judge
in reaching a final decision.
c. A legal issue is the question that caused the lawyers and their clients to enter
the legal system. (pages 7, moderate)
, d. A legal issue is an ethical norm fundamental to the court’s decision.
10. Which of the following is a correct statement about legal issues?
a. There is generally only one right way to word a legal issue, and it is important for
lawyers to discover the proper wording in each case.
b. There is generally only one right way to word a legal issue, but lawyers generally
wait for a judge’s ruling on this point.
c. There are multiple useful ways to word a legal issue, but each variation must
fulfill the definition of an issue in the particular factual situation at hand.
(page 7, moderate)
d. Lawyers never disagree aobut how an issue hshould be stated..
11. Which of the following was an issue considered by Judge Cedarbaum in the case of
United States of America v. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic?
a. In what instances may a court grant a new trial?
b. Does the perjury of a witness mean the defendants should have a new trial?
c. Do the regulations associated with Rule 33 and relevant case law permit the
defendants to have a new trial?
d. All of the above were issues considered by the judge. (pages 4 - 5,
moderate)
12. Which of the following BEST states the conclusion reached by the federal district court
in the case of United States of America v. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic?
a. Only rarely should a judge grant a new trial.
b. The defendants are not entitled to a new trial. (pages 4 - 5, difficult)
CRITICAL THINKING AND LEGAL REASONING
MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. Critical thinking skills can best be defined as
a. the ability to understand what someone is saying and then to apply
evaluative criteria to assess the quality of the reasoning offered to support the
conclusion. (page 2, easy)
b. the ability to demonstrate your superiority to others.
c. the ability to paraphrase and criticize others..
d. All of the above.
2. Which of the following BEST illustrates the use of critical thinking skills by a lawyer?
a. A lawyer raises a courtroom objection when her opponent engages in critical
commentary about an opponent without prior permission of the judge.
b. A lawyer develops a closing argument using visual aids likely to impress a jury
comprised of ordinary citizens.
c. A lawyer approaches a difficult problem by gathering all relevant facts,
determining the real issue in dispute, and applying reason to reach a
conclusion.
(pages 3 – 6, moderate)
d. A lawyer scientifically analyzes the handwriting of a defense witness to determine
the potential for bias.
3. Once you identify a judge’s conclusion in a case, what should you do?
a. Remember it as a guide for future business decision making.
, b. Make a judgment about its quality.
c. Both a and b.
(page 3, moderate)
d. None of the above.
4. Which is the most accurate statement about critical thinking?
a. There are different forms of critical thinking, but all share a focus on
evaluating the quality of someone’s reasoning. (pages 2 – 4, moderate)
b. There are wide differences between the many forms of critical reasoning, and each
form bears little or no relationship to the other.
c. The highest forms of critical reasoning are those based on mathematical models
developed in the 17th Century.
d. The notion that there are many forms of critical reasoning is a myth. There is really
only one way to apply critical reasoning.
5. Which of the following BEST illustrates a “conclusion”?
a. The opening argument delivered by the defendant’s lawyer to the jury.
b. The most important evidence offered by an eyewitness.
c. The action of a lawyer in objecting to unconvincing testimony.
d. The judge’s written decision in favor of the plaintiff or defendant at the end of
a trial. (page 7,13 easy)
6. Which of the following BEST summarizes the four first steps to legal reasoning?
a. Understanding the client, preparing the legal paperwork, appearing in court,
arguing the case.
b. Drafting the summons, drafting the complaint, preparing the answer, filing
documents in court.
, c. Finding the facts, determining the issue, reasoning to a conclusion, and
applying the relevant rules of law. (pages 4, easy)
d. Raising an objection, explaining the reasons for the objection, waiting for the judge’s
ruling, proceeding with the testimony
7. The facts in a legal decision are BEST described by which of the following?
a. Facts are the most basic building blocks in a legal decision and provide the
environment or context in which the legal issue is to be resolved. (page
6, moderate)
b. Facts are words we use to describe our reasons for reaching conclusions in a
complex legal dispute.
c. Facts are the issues in the dispute, the bone of contention between two opposing
litigants.
d. Facts are all the parties need to determine the ultimate outcome of a case.
8. Which of the following was not one of the facts upon which Judge Selya based his
opinion in the case of United States of America v. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic?
a. Defendant Stewart sold 3, 928 shares of Imclone stock on December 27,2001.
b. Expert witness Lawrence Stewart was accused of perjuring himself in the testimony
he gave prior to the defendants’ conviction.
c. Defendant Stewart was a very successful businesswoman. (page 4 –7,
moderate)
d. According to a federal rule and case law, perjury of a witness could constitute
grounds for a new trial.
9. Of the following, which is the BEST definition of a legal issue?
a. A legal issue is the ultimate reasoning behind a judge’s final decision.
b. A legal issue is the set of facts by which the lawyers and their clients assist the judge
in reaching a final decision.
c. A legal issue is the question that caused the lawyers and their clients to enter
the legal system. (pages 7, moderate)
, d. A legal issue is an ethical norm fundamental to the court’s decision.
10. Which of the following is a correct statement about legal issues?
a. There is generally only one right way to word a legal issue, and it is important for
lawyers to discover the proper wording in each case.
b. There is generally only one right way to word a legal issue, but lawyers generally
wait for a judge’s ruling on this point.
c. There are multiple useful ways to word a legal issue, but each variation must
fulfill the definition of an issue in the particular factual situation at hand.
(page 7, moderate)
d. Lawyers never disagree aobut how an issue hshould be stated..
11. Which of the following was an issue considered by Judge Cedarbaum in the case of
United States of America v. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic?
a. In what instances may a court grant a new trial?
b. Does the perjury of a witness mean the defendants should have a new trial?
c. Do the regulations associated with Rule 33 and relevant case law permit the
defendants to have a new trial?
d. All of the above were issues considered by the judge. (pages 4 - 5,
moderate)
12. Which of the following BEST states the conclusion reached by the federal district court
in the case of United States of America v. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic?
a. Only rarely should a judge grant a new trial.
b. The defendants are not entitled to a new trial. (pages 4 - 5, difficult)
