We are excited to announce our forthcoming (2026) book:
“Connecting The Dots In Court: How To Build Logical Evidentiary Arguments That Judges and Jurors Can Follow And Trust”
Turn complex facts into clear, logical, persuasive arguments every time you step into court.
This book teaches attorneys, trial expert witnesses, and law students—regardless of prior experience—how to construct logically flawless evidentiary arguments. Using the only universal, rigorously tested system, you’ll learn to string together facts and evidence to reach your conclusions. Any illogical reasoning simply cannot fit within this argument structure.
The method has been successfully applied in trial and appellate courts for over 15 years and peer-reviewed in Oxford academic journals (search: defeasible class inclusion transitivity).
Why This Matters
There remains a critical neglect of factual logical inferential analysis—the science of proof—in law school.
Professor William Twining, co-author of the textbook Analysis of Evidence, is the leading critic of this serious gap in legal education. In one of his two landmark Journal of Legal Education articles on this gap (“Taking Facts Seriously” and “Taking Facts Seriously—Again”), he writes: “When Jerome Frank argued that over 90 per cent of adjudication and pre-trial work is more concerned with doubts and uncertainties about facts than with disputed questions of law, he partly understated the case because he was only concerned with litigation and his main focus was on the contested jury trial. But the general message is basically correct — that inferential reasoning and other aspects of information processing are important in most contexts of legal practice and have been relatively neglected in legal education and training.”
Further, a mastery of the principles of proof is essential in addressing the courtroom issues of relevancy, materiality, inference, admissibility, probative weight/force of evidence, hearsay, credibility, inference-upon-inference, sufficiency of evidence, standards of proof, prejudicial effect, presumptions, and logical fallacies.
Twining argues that, unfortunately, there is a mistaken belief that commonsense, intuition, and practical experience is all that is needed for logical evidentiary reasoning mastery by attorneys. Trial and appellate court decisions often reflect the error in this belief.
The Solution
Our system makes the logic of your logical evidentiary reasoning self-evident to judges and juries, no matter the subject matter, complexity, or their familiarity with the topic. You’ll never have to wonder if your reasoning is sound or worry about hidden flaws.
We also teach how to translate your reasoning into clear, user-friendly argument maps or diagrams, making the connections in your argument visually obvious.
A Note on Critical Thinking
While logically flawless evidentiary reasoning is essential, it does not guarantee that your conclusions are true—uncertainty can still reside in premises, assumptions, or supporting ancillary evidence. Analytical Thinking, which forms the core of evidentiary reasoning, is just one component of Critical Thinking.
Proper Critical Thinking also involves:
- Searching for disconfirming evidence
- Ensuring sufficient research and investigation
- Avoiding conceptual and cognitive biases
- Analyzing competing hypotheses
- Reaching conclusions only after thorough evaluation
These strategies complement logical evidentiary reasoning but cannot substitute for it. If your argument isn’t flawlessly logical, transparent, and understandable to the judge or juror, it will fail under scrutiny—no matter how well other critical thinking principles are applied.
This book provides a foolproof system for the two most critical linchpins of persuasive, sound arguments:
- Rigorous, flawless logic
- Transparent, self-evident reasoning
Audience: Attorneys, trial expert witnesses, and law school students.
LogicǁGuaranteed 