Ryan McCarl, the speaker, is introduced with an extensive background in legal writing and reasoning, teaching and practicing law. Ryan plans to discuss the importance of logic in crafting persuasive legal arguments, addressing issues like conclusory reasoning and the use of legal syllogisms. He mentions his book, 'Elegant Legal Writing,' and notes that his current research focuses on legal reasoning, which will be the basis of his next project.

Ryan discusses the multifaceted nature of legal reasoning and the limitations of traditional frameworks like IRAC and CREAC. He emphasizes the importance of skills such as selecting and synthesizing rules, interpreting statutes, and making persuasive arguments. Ryan highlights the need for lawyers to weave together rules and facts to create coherent and persuasive narratives. He stresses the role of legal authority in arguments and the integration of policy and values to strengthen legal reasoning. Ryan warns against becoming too rooted in one's perspective and encourages considering alternative views of a case.

Ryan identifies common mistakes in legal writing, particularly the use of conclusory reasoning without supporting arguments. He advises that disputable statements should be defended with legally recognizable reasons and cites examples of how to improve arguments. Ryan critiques the over-reliance on rule statements and emphasizes the need to intertwine rules with facts to create compelling arguments. He discusses the pitfalls of using intensifiers and legal conclusions masquerading as facts, advocating for specificity and clarity. Ryan explains the concept of legal syllogisms and their limitations in complex legal arguments, highlighting the importance of defending premises.

Ryan explains how procedural context shapes litigation arguments, affecting the available tools and strategies for legal reasoning. He introduces the concept of 'bout' to describe the procedural and substantive situation in legal arguments. Ryan uses the example of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) to illustrate how procedural aspects influence argumentation. He discusses the importance of understanding case state, default rules, and evidentiary constraints in crafting effective legal arguments. Ryan emphasizes the need to select authority that aligns with the procedural posture of a case to strengthen arguments.

Ryan outlines a method for designing effective legal arguments, starting with a conclusion and supporting it with legally cognizable reasons. He introduces the mantra 'conclusion plus reasons' as an alternative to traditional frameworks like IRAC and CREAC. Ryan explains the importance of linking premises, using examples to illustrate how facts and rules work together to support conclusions. He discusses the concept of defeasible conclusions, which are subject to challenge and require robust defense. Ryan provides a step-by-step approach to crafting legal arguments, including establishing premises, supporting them with authority, and structuring arguments coherently.

Ryan introduces argumentation schemes as a tool for identifying and supporting legal reasoning, drawing on the work of Douglas Walton. He explains how argument schemes, like arguments from expert opinion, provide patterns for constructing and challenging inferences. Ryan discusses the importance of defending legal rules with binding authority and the role of argument moves in legal reasoning.

Ryan concludes by recommending resources for legal writing and reasoning. He suggests using a default template for organizing legal arguments, starting with a conclusion and supporting reasons. Ryan answers audience questions, offering advice on making legal writing more engaging and addressing the use of conclusory statements.