Enhancing Logical Reasoning in Decision Making Process
Daniel Doherty—
Daniel Doherty—
Maryland Department of
Maryland Department of
Labor, Licensing, and
Labor, Licensing, and
Regulation
Regulation
Nanette Green—
Nanette Green—
USDOL, ETA, Region 4
USDOL, ETA, Region 4
(Dallas)
(Dallas)
Federal Criterion # 28
Federal Criterion # 28
Logical Reasoning in
Logical Reasoning in
Decision Making
Decision Making
Criterion # 28: Logical Reasoning
•
Purpose:
The decision should state logical reasons for the outcome
that are consistent with the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
•
The
legal analysis
criterion.
Scoring Segment
•
Good (6):
The HO stated logical reasons for the decision consistent with the
findings of fact and applied those facts in a logical manner to the conclusions of
law.
•
Fair (3):
The reasoning was not fully stated or contained some inconsistencies; but,
when read as whole, the decision is understandable both factually and legally.
•
Unsatisfactory (0):
The reasoning and rationale in the decision were not stated and
did not logically follow from the findings of fact to the conclusions.
(Not Applicable
is not an option.)
National Appeals Review Results
•
Number of Cases Rated
Unsatisfactory
:
12
•
Number of Cases Rated
Fair
:
46
•
Total Deductions: 58
Ways to Improve your Criterion # 28 Scores
•
The goal: Explain how the facts apply to the applicable law. Don’t skip an element or
material analysis.
•
Avoid facts mascaraing as reasoning.
•
Don’t be afraid to explain the obvious.
•
During final edits, make sure any facts mentioned in your Conclusions are listed in the
Findings of Facts section.
•
Could a party disagree with a fact listed in the Finding of Fact Section?
•
Then, a conflict resolution piece is needed.
Federal Criterion #28 emphasizes the importance of stating logical reasons for decisions that align with findings of fact and conclusions of law. This criterion is key to ensuring fairness and accuracy in legal analysis. The scoring criteria, national appeals review results, and ways to improve scores provide insights into how to strengthen logical reasoning in decision-making. The goal is to apply facts to the law correctly, avoid inconsistencies, and ensure a comprehensive analysis.
Uploaded on Jul 30, 2024 | 1 Views
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Federal Criterion # 28 Logical Reasoning in Decision Making Daniel Doherty Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation Nanette Green USDOL, ETA, Region 4 (Dallas)
Criterion # 28: Logical Reasoning Purpose: The decision should state logical reasons for the outcome that are consistent with the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The legal analysis criterion.
Scoring Segment Good (6): The HO stated logical reasons for the decision consistent with the findings of fact and applied those facts in a logical manner to the conclusions of law. Fair (3): The reasoning was not fully stated or contained some inconsistencies; but, when read as whole, the decision is understandable both factually and legally. Unsatisfactory (0): The reasoning and rationale in the decision were not stated and did not logically follow from the findings of fact to the conclusions. (Not Applicable is not an option.)
National Appeals Review Results Number of Cases Rated Unsatisfactory: 12 Number of Cases Rated Fair: 46 Total Deductions: 58
Ways to Improve your Criterion # 28 Scores The goal: Explain how the facts apply to the applicable law. Don t skip an element or material analysis. Avoid facts mascaraing as reasoning. Don t be afraid to explain the obvious. During final edits, make sure any facts mentioned in your Conclusions are listed in the Findings of Facts section. Could a party disagree with a fact listed in the Finding of Fact Section? Then, a conflict resolution piece is needed.
