⚖️

Structural Integrity of Legal Arguments

Agent Progress
Built
Keywords
법적 논리의 구조적 완결성 / 법리적 근거 / 일관성
Lesson #
S
Done
Section
Advanced Vocabulary
⚖️
TL;DR 🦄
  • ⚖️ 법적 논리의 구조적 완결성 means the legal reasoning has all its necessary parts: issue, rule, facts, analysis, and conclusion.
  • 🧾 법리적 근거 is the legal or jurisprudential basis behind a claim — statutes, precedents, principles, doctrines, or interpretive logic.
  • 🧭 일관성 means the argument keeps the same standard and logic from start to finish, without contradiction.
🎧
🎧 Iru Helper Note
Use
Korean Helper Widgets
Korean Helper Widgets whenever you want to hear a phrase like 법리적 근거가 빈약하다 (the legal basis is weak) or 논리적 일관성이 흔들리다 (logical consistency becomes unstable). Long academic phrases get much friendlier when your ears meet them first. 👂⚖️

🌈 The Big Picture

Advanced Korean often evaluates an argument not by whether it sounds impressive, but by whether its structure can survive pressure. In legal, policy, debate, and academic writing, a claim needs more than a strong conclusion. It needs a clear basis, connected reasoning, and a stable standard. 🧠
This lesson focuses on three high-level expressions: 법적 논리의 구조적 완결성 (structural completeness of legal reasoning), 법리적 근거 (legal or jurisprudential basis), and 일관성 (consistency). Together, they help you evaluate whether an argument is legally sturdy or just wearing a fancy suit. 👔
A strong legal argument usually answers these questions:
  • 🧾 What rule, doctrine, precedent, or principle supports the claim? → 법리적 근거 (legal basis)
  • 🔗 Do the reasoning steps connect without a hidden jump? → 논리적 연결성 (logical connectedness)
  • 🧭 Does the argument apply the same standard throughout? → 일관성 (consistency)
  • 🏛️ Are all necessary parts present? → 구조적 완결성 (structural completeness)

🎨 The Core Legal-Argument Vocabulary Family

⚖️ 1. 법적 논리의 구조적 완결성 — structural completeness of legal reasoning

법적 논리 means “legal reasoning,” and 구조적 완결성 means “structural completeness.” Together, 법적 논리의 구조적 완결성 evaluates whether a legal argument has all the necessary reasoning pieces in the right relationship.
Use it when discussing whether a judgment, essay, petition, policy argument, or legal opinion includes:
  • 쟁점 (legal issue)
  • 법리 (legal principle or doctrine)
  • 근거 (basis)
  • 사실관계 (facts)
  • 논증 (argumentation)
  • 결론 (conclusion)
Useful collocations:
  • 구조적 완결성을 갖추다 — to have structural completeness
  • 구조적 완결성이 떨어지다 — to lack structural completeness
  • 구조적 완결성을 확보하다 — to secure structural completeness
  • 구조적 완결성을 해치다 — to undermine structural completeness

🧾 2. 법리적 근거 — legal or jurisprudential basis

법리적 근거 is more specialized than ordinary 근거 (basis/reason). It suggests that the claim is supported by legal principles, statutes, precedents, doctrinal interpretation, or recognized reasoning inside a legal framework.
Useful collocations:
  • 법리적 근거를 제시하다 — to present a legal basis
  • 법리적 근거가 명확하다 — the legal basis is clear
  • 법리적 근거가 빈약하다 — the legal basis is weak
  • 법리적 근거를 보완하다 — to supplement the legal basis
  • 법리적 근거 없이 주장하다 — to argue without a legal basis

🧭 3. 일관성 — consistency

일관성 means “consistency.” In legal and academic writing, it does not mean repeating the same sentence. It means the argument keeps its standards, assumptions, definitions, and logic stable.
An argument loses 일관성 when it:
  • applies different standards to similar cases without explanation
  • contradicts its own premise
  • changes the meaning of a key term halfway through
  • reaches a conclusion that does not follow from the earlier reasoning
Useful collocations:
  • 논리적 일관성을 유지하다 — to maintain logical consistency
  • 주장의 일관성이 흔들리다 — the consistency of the claim becomes unstable
  • 판단 기준의 일관성 — consistency of the judgment standard
  • 일관된 법 해석 — consistent legal interpretation

🛠️ How They Work in a Sentence

1. Evaluating completeness 🏛️

  • 이 판결은 결론은 설득력 있지만, 법적 논리의 구조적 완결성은 다소 부족하다.
    • The judgment’s conclusion is persuasive, but the structural completeness of its legal reasoning is somewhat lacking.
    • 판결 = judgment; 설득력 = persuasive force; 다소 = somewhat; 부족하다 = to be insufficient.

2. Evaluating the legal basis 🧾

  • 해당 주장은 사회적으로 이해될 수 있으나, 법리적 근거가 충분하지 않다.
    • The claim may be socially understandable, but it does not have sufficient legal basis.
    • 해당 주장 = the claim in question; 사회적으로 = socially; 충분하다 = to be sufficient.

3. Evaluating consistency 🧭

  • 이 논증은 예외를 판단하는 기준이 불분명해 일관성이 약하다.
    • This argument lacks consistency because the standard for judging exceptions is unclear.
    • 논증 = argumentation; 예외 = exception; 판단하다 = to judge; 불분명하다 = to be unclear.

🧩 General Formation Rule

These are advanced noun-heavy expressions, so the main skill is combining the noun phrase with a clear predicate.
Common sentence frames:
  • A는 B라는 점에서 설득력이 있으나, C가 부족하다는 한계가 있다.
    • A is persuasive in that B, but it has the limitation that C is insufficient.
  • A를 충분히 설명하지 않으면 B가 약화될 수 있다.
    • If A is not sufficiently explained, B may be weakened.
  • A와 B를 연결하는 논증이 필요하다.
    • Argumentation connecting A and B is necessary.
  • A는 B의 구조적 완결성을 높인다.
    • A increases the structural completeness of B.
No irregular conjugation is hiding here. The “advanced” part is choosing the right evaluation noun and pairing it with a natural predicate like 갖추다 (to possess/equip), 떨어지다 (to fall/lack), 제시하다 (to present), 보완하다 (to supplement), 유지하다 (to maintain), or 약화되다 (to be weakened). 🛠️

📚 Cross-check note

The key vocabulary and collocations were checked against 국립국어원 / korean.go.kr resources and common advanced Korean usage patterns, including public-language and writing-evaluation contexts where 근거 (basis), 완결성 (completeness), and 일관성 (consistency) are used in formal evaluation. ✅

🪞 Synonym Alert

  • 법리적 근거 — legal/jurisprudential basis; formal, legal, academic.
  • 법적 근거 — legal basis; often more statute/rule-focused and slightly broader.
  • 근거 — basis/reason; general and less specialized.
  • 논리적 일관성 — logical consistency; focuses on reasoning.
  • 통일성 — unity/coherence; often used for writing organization, not always legal logic.
  • 타당성 — validity/soundness; evaluates whether reasoning or a conclusion is acceptable.
  • 설득력 — persuasive force; evaluates whether the argument convinces the reader.

⚠️ Pitfalls to Dodge

  • ❌ 법리적 근거가 맛있다 → ✅ 법리적 근거가 빈약하다 (Use evaluation predicates like “weak,” “clear,” or “sufficient,” not sensory adjectives. 🍲)
  • ❌ 설득력 = 구조적 완결성 → ✅ They differ: an argument can sound persuasive but still have missing reasoning steps. 🧩
  • ❌ 일관성 means “repeating the same phrase” → ✅ It means applying the same standard or logic without contradiction. 🧭
  • ❌ 근거가 있다 is always enough → ✅ In legal analysis, specify 법리적 근거, 판례상 근거, or 조문상 근거 when precision matters. 🧾
  • ❌ Long noun pile with no predicate → ✅ Add a clear predicate: 제시하다, 확보하다, 약화되다, 유지하다. 🛠️
You now have the vocabulary to say, “This argument is not just weak — here is exactly where its legal skeleton wobbles.” Tiny courtroom gavel, big academic glow-up. ⚖️✨

Try this exercise

Instructions: Complete each sentence with the most natural advanced Korean expression. Read the whole sentence first, decide whether it needs basis, completeness, consistency, or a predicate, then open the Answer toggle. ⚖️
1. 그 주장은 결론은 강하지만 법리적 ＿＿＿＿가 부족하다.
The claim has a strong conclusion, but its legal basis is insufficient. 🧾
Answer
근거 — 법리적 근거 means a legal or jurisprudential basis.
2. 중간 논증이 빠지면 구조적 ＿＿＿＿이 떨어진다.
If the middle reasoning is missing, structural completeness decreases. 🧩
Answer
완결성 — Missing reasoning steps weaken 구조적 완결성.
3. 비슷한 사건에 다른 기준을 적용하면 ＿＿＿＿이 흔들린다.
If different standards are applied to similar cases, consistency becomes unstable. 🧭
Answer
일관성 — Changing standards without explanation damages consistency.
4. 판례와 조문을 연결해 법리적 근거를 ＿＿＿＿해야 한다.
One should supplement the legal basis by connecting precedent and statutory text. 📚
Answer
보완 — 보완하다 means to supplement or reinforce.
5. 반례 검토는 논증의 구조적 완결성을 ＿＿＿＿.
Reviewing counterexamples increases the argument’s structural completeness. 🔍
Answer
높인다 — 높이다 means to raise or increase.
6. 그 해석은 판단 기준의 일관성을 ＿＿＿＿한다.
That interpretation maintains the consistency of the judgment standard. ⚖️
Answer
유지 — 유지하다 means to maintain.
7. 결론만 있고 법리가 없으면 논리적 ＿＿＿＿이 생긴다.
If there is only a conclusion and no legal doctrine, a logical leap occurs. 🦘
Answer
비약 — 논리적 비약 means a leap in reasoning.
8. 그 판결은 법적 원칙과 사실관계를 명확히 ＿＿＿＿한다.
The judgment clearly connects the legal principle and factual relationship. 🔗
Answer
연결 — 연결하다 means to connect.
9. 기준이 불분명하면 주장의 타당성이 ＿＿＿＿될 수 있다.
If the standard is unclear, the validity of the claim may be weakened. 🧯
Answer
약화 — 약화되다 means to be weakened.
10. 법리적 근거 없이 결론을 내리면 설득력이 ＿＿＿＿진다.
If one reaches a conclusion without a legal basis, persuasive force decreases. 📉
Answer
떨어 — 떨어지다 means to fall or decrease.
📚
Vocabulary Box
  • 주장 → claim
  • 결론 → conclusion
  • 법리적 근거 → legal basis
  • 중간 논증 → intermediate reasoning
  • 구조적 완결성 → structural completeness
  • 일관성 → consistency
  • 판례 → precedent
  • 조문 → statutory provision
  • 반례 → counterexample
  • 판단 기준 → judgment standard
  • 논리적 비약 → logical leap
  • 타당성 → validity
  • 설득력 → persuasive force
Tip 💡 Legal evaluation often pairs an abstract noun with a precise predicate: 제시하다, 보완하다, 유지하다, 약화되다.
🚀
Want more reps? The Practice Hub below will make these legal-analysis phrases feel courtroom-ready. ⚖️
📦
🎯 Practice Hub — Structural Integrity of Legal Arguments
Welcome to your advanced legal-argument vocabulary gym. ⚖️ Here, you’ll practice judging whether an argument has 법리적 근거 (legal basis), 구조적 완결성 (structural completeness), and 일관성 (consistency), without turning every sentence into a granite statue. 🏛️
🔊 Audio reminder: Use
Korean Helper Widgets
Korean Helper Widgets to hear dense phrases like 판단 기준의 일관성 (consistency of the judgment standard) or 논증의 구조적 완결성 (structural completeness of the argument).
📝 Instructions: Complete each sentence with the missing legal-analysis expression or predicate. Say the full sentence aloud, check whether the logic is about basis, completeness, consistency, or weakness, then open the Answer toggle.

Exercise 1 — Legal Basis Builder 🧾

A. 이 의견서는 판례상 ＿＿＿＿를 충분히 제시했다.
This legal opinion sufficiently presented a precedent-based basis. 📚
Answer
근거 — 판례상 근거 means a basis in precedent.
B. 그 해석은 조문상 근거가 ＿＿＿＿하다.
That interpretation has a clear statutory basis. 📜
Answer
명확 — 명확하다 means clear.
C. 청구인의 주장은 법리적 근거가 ＿＿＿＿하다.
The claimant’s argument has a weak legal basis. 🧾
Answer
빈약 — 빈약하다 naturally describes a weak basis.
D. 재판부는 헌법 원칙을 근거로 결론을 ＿＿＿＿했다.
The court presented the conclusion based on constitutional principles. ⚖️
Answer
제시 — 제시하다 means to present.
E. 그 설명은 법리와 사실관계를 ＿＿＿＿하지 못했다.
That explanation failed to connect the legal doctrine and the facts. 🔗
Answer
연결 — A legal basis is stronger when doctrine and facts connect clearly.
F. 변호인은 기존 판례를 통해 주장을 ＿＿＿＿했다.
The attorney reinforced the argument through existing precedent. 🧑‍⚖️
Answer
보강 — 보강하다 means to reinforce.
G. 법리적 근거 없이 결론만 강조하면 설득력이 ＿＿＿＿진다.
If only the conclusion is emphasized without legal basis, persuasive force decreases. 📉
Answer
떨어 — 떨어지다 means to fall or decrease.
H. 쟁점에 맞는 법리를 찾아 근거를 ＿＿＿＿해야 한다.
One should supplement the basis by finding the doctrine that fits the issue. 🔍
Answer
보완 — 보완하다 means to supplement.
I. 그 반박은 법리보다 감정에 ＿＿＿＿했다.
That rebuttal relied on emotion rather than legal doctrine. 🌧️
Answer
의존 — 의존하다 means to rely on.
J. 법적 책임을 주장하려면 구체적 근거가 ＿＿＿＿하다.
To claim legal responsibility, a concrete basis is necessary. 🧱
Answer
필요 — 필요하다 means necessary.
📚
Vocabulary Box
  • 의견서 → legal opinion or written opinion
  • 판례상 근거 → precedent-based basis
  • 조문상 근거 → statutory basis
  • 청구인 → claimant
  • 재판부 → court or judicial panel
  • 헌법 원칙 → constitutional principle
  • 법리 → legal doctrine/principle
  • 사실관계 → facts/factual relationship
  • 변호인 → attorney/defense counsel
  • 기존 판례 → existing precedent
  • 설득력 → persuasive force
  • 쟁점 → issue
  • 반박 → rebuttal
  • 감정 → emotion
  • 법적 책임 → legal responsibility
  • 구체적 근거 → concrete basis
Tip 💡 Use 근거 with source labels like 판례상, 조문상, and 법리적 when you need precision.

Exercise 2 — Structural Completeness Check 🏛️

A. 쟁점과 결론 사이의 설명이 빠져 구조적 ＿＿＿＿이 낮다.
The structural completeness is low because the explanation between issue and conclusion is missing. 🧩
Answer
완결성 — Missing middle reasoning weakens structural completeness.
B. 반례 검토는 논증의 완결성을 ＿＿＿＿다.
Reviewing counterexamples increases the completeness of the argument. 🔍
Answer
높인 — 높이다 means to increase or raise.
C. 그 판결문은 사실관계와 법리를 순서대로 ＿＿＿＿했다.
The judgment organized the facts and legal doctrine in order. 📑
Answer
정리 — 정리하다 means to organize.
D. 필수 논증 단계가 누락되어 결론의 타당성이 ＿＿＿＿되었다.
The validity of the conclusion was weakened because an essential reasoning step was omitted. 🧯
Answer
약화 — 약화되다 means to be weakened.
E. 법적 원칙과 구체적 사실을 연결하면 완결성을 ＿＿＿＿할 수 있다.
If legal principles and specific facts are connected, completeness can be secured. 🧱
Answer
확보 — 확보하다 means to secure.
F. 논증의 흐름이 끊기면 독자는 논리적 ＿＿＿＿을 느낀다.
If the flow of argument breaks, readers sense a logical leap. 🦘
Answer
비약 — 논리적 비약 is a jump in reasoning.
G. 전제와 결론이 명확히 연결되어 논증이 ＿＿＿＿하다.
The argument is complete because the premise and conclusion are clearly connected. 🔗
Answer
완결 — 완결하다 is less common in everyday speech, but 완결적이다 can describe complete argument structure.
H. 숨은 전제가 많으면 구조적 완결성이 ＿＿＿＿진다.
If there are many hidden premises, structural completeness decreases. 🕳️
Answer
떨어 — Hidden premises make the reasoning feel incomplete.
I. 각 단계가 자연스럽게 이어져 논증의 흐름이 ＿＿＿＿하다.
Each step continues naturally, so the flow of argument is smooth. 🌊
Answer
매끄럽 — 매끄럽다 means smooth.
J. 구조적 완결성을 해치는 부분은 중간 논증의 ＿＿＿＿이다.
The part that undermines structural completeness is the omission of intermediate reasoning. 🧩
Answer
누락 — 누락 means omission.
📚
Vocabulary Box
  • 쟁점 → issue
  • 결론 → conclusion
  • 설명 → explanation
  • 구조적 완결성 → structural completeness
  • 반례 검토 → review of counterexamples
  • 논증 → argumentation
  • 판결문 → written judgment
  • 사실관계 → facts/factual relationship
  • 법리 → legal doctrine
  • 필수 논증 단계 → essential reasoning step
  • 타당성 → validity
  • 법적 원칙 → legal principle
  • 구체적 사실 → specific fact
  • 논리적 비약 → logical leap
  • 전제 → premise
  • 숨은 전제 → hidden premise
  • 누락 → omission
Tip 💡 Completeness is about whether the reasoning chain has all necessary links, not whether the conclusion sounds attractive.

Exercise 3 — Consistency Patrol 🧭

A. 비슷한 사건에 같은 기준을 적용해야 판단 기준의 ＿＿＿＿이 유지된다.
The consistency of the judgment standard is maintained when the same standard is applied to similar cases. ⚖️
Answer
일관성 — 판단 기준의 일관성 is a key legal-analysis phrase.
B. 예외를 인정하려면 그 이유를 ＿＿＿＿해야 한다.
To recognize an exception, the reason must be explained. 📝
Answer
설명 — Unexplained exceptions harm consistency.
C. 정의가 중간에 바뀌면 논리적 일관성이 ＿＿＿＿진다.
If the definition changes midway, logical consistency becomes unstable. 🧭
Answer
흔들려 — 흔들리다 means to become unstable.
D. 그 해석은 기존 판례와 일관된 ＿＿＿＿을 보인다.
That interpretation shows a legal interpretation consistent with existing precedent. 📚
Answer
법 해석 — 일관된 법 해석 means consistent legal interpretation.
E. 서로 다른 기준을 쓰면 결론의 신뢰성이 ＿＿＿＿된다.
If different standards are used, the reliability of the conclusion is weakened. 🧯
Answer
약화 — Inconsistency weakens reliability.
F. 동일한 개념을 끝까지 같은 의미로 ＿＿＿＿해야 한다.
The same concept should be maintained with the same meaning to the end. 🧠
Answer
유지 — Consistency requires maintaining definitions.
G. 그 주장은 전제와 결론이 충돌해 일관성이 ＿＿＿＿하다.
The claim has weak consistency because the premise and conclusion clash. 💥
Answer
약 — 일관성이 약하다 is natural.
H. 판단 기준이 계속 바뀌면 논증의 안정성이 ＿＿＿＿진다.
If the judgment standard keeps changing, the stability of the argument decreases. 📉
Answer
떨어 — 떨어지다 describes a drop in stability.
I. 기준 변경은 충분한 이유가 있을 때만 ＿＿＿＿될 수 있다.
A standard change can be justified only when there is a sufficient reason. 🧾
Answer
정당화 — 정당화되다 means to be justified.
J. 이 논증은 용어 사용이 일관되어 이해가 ＿＿＿＿다.
This argument is easy to understand because its terminology is consistent. 💡
Answer
쉽 — 이해가 쉽다 means easy to understand.
📚
Vocabulary Box
  • 비슷한 사건 → similar case
  • 같은 기준 → same standard
  • 판단 기준 → judgment standard
  • 일관성 → consistency
  • 예외 → exception
  • 정의 → definition
  • 논리적 일관성 → logical consistency
  • 기존 판례 → existing precedent
  • 법 해석 → legal interpretation
  • 결론 → conclusion
  • 신뢰성 → reliability
  • 동일한 개념 → same concept
  • 전제 → premise
  • 안정성 → stability
  • 기준 변경 → standard change
  • 용어 사용 → terminology use
Tip 💡 일관성 is not repetition. It is stable logic, stable standards, and stable meanings.

Exercise 4 — Precision Collocations ⚖️

A. 법리적 근거를 ＿＿＿＿하다.
to present a legal basis 🧾
Answer
제시 — 근거를 제시하다 means to present a basis.
B. 구조적 완결성을 ＿＿＿＿하다.
to secure structural completeness 🏛️
Answer
확보 — 완결성을 확보하다 is natural and formal.
C. 논리적 일관성을 ＿＿＿＿하다.
to maintain logical consistency 🧭
Answer
유지 — 일관성을 유지하다 is the standard collocation.
D. 판단 기준을 ＿＿＿＿하다.
to apply a judgment standard ⚖️
Answer
적용 — 기준을 적용하다 means to apply a standard.
E. 논증의 흐름을 ＿＿＿＿하다.
to organize the flow of argument 🌊
Answer
정리 — 흐름을 정리하다 means to organize the flow.
F. 법적 원칙을 ＿＿＿＿하다.
to interpret a legal principle 📜
Answer
해석 — 원칙을 해석하다 means to interpret a principle.
G. 반례를 ＿＿＿＿하다.
to review a counterexample 🔍
Answer
검토 — 반례를 검토하다 means to review a counterexample.
H. 주장의 타당성을 ＿＿＿＿하다.
to evaluate the validity of a claim 🧠
Answer
평가 — 타당성을 평가하다 means to evaluate validity.
I. 법리적 근거를 ＿＿＿＿하다.
to supplement a legal basis 🧱
Answer
보완 — 보완하다 adds what is missing.
J. 논리적 비약을 ＿＿＿＿하다.
to avoid a logical leap 🦘
Answer
피 — 피하다 means to avoid.
📚
Vocabulary Box
  • 법리적 근거 → legal basis
  • 구조적 완결성 → structural completeness
  • 논리적 일관성 → logical consistency
  • 판단 기준 → judgment standard
  • 논증의 흐름 → flow of argument
  • 법적 원칙 → legal principle
  • 반례 → counterexample
  • 주장의 타당성 → validity of a claim
  • 논리적 비약 → logical leap
  • 제시하다 → to present
  • 확보하다 → to secure
  • 유지하다 → to maintain
  • 적용하다 → to apply
  • 정리하다 → to organize
  • 해석하다 → to interpret
  • 검토하다 → to review
  • 평가하다 → to evaluate
  • 보완하다 → to supplement
  • 피하다 → to avoid
Tip 💡 Advanced vocabulary sounds natural when the noun and predicate are a familiar pair.

Exercise 5 — Mixed Mastery + Pitfall Patrol 🛡️

A. ❌ 법리적 근거가 맛있다 → ✅ 법리적 근거가 ＿＿＿＿하다.
Fix the predicate: the legal basis is weak. 🍲
Answer
빈약 — Do not use sensory adjectives with 근거. Use evaluation adjectives like 빈약하다, 명확하다, or 충분하다.
B. ❌ 설득력과 완결성은 같다 → ✅ 설득력과 완결성은 ＿＿＿＿다.
Fix the idea: persuasive force and completeness are different. 🧩
Answer
다르 — An argument can be persuasive but structurally incomplete.
C. ❌ 일관성은 반복이다 → ✅ 일관성은 같은 기준을 유지하는 ＿＿＿＿이다.
Fix the definition: consistency is the quality of maintaining the same standard. 🧭
Answer
성질 — 성질 means quality/characteristic.
D. ❌ 결론만 쓰면 충분하다 → ✅ 법리와 사실관계를 연결하는 ＿＿＿＿이 필요하다.
Fix the reasoning: argumentation connecting doctrine and facts is necessary. 🔗
Answer
논증 — Conclusions need reasoning, not just confidence.
E. ❌ 기준을 바꿔도 설명은 필요 없다 → ✅ 기준 변경에는 충분한 ＿＿＿＿이 필요하다.
Fix the consistency problem: a standard change needs sufficient explanation. 📝
Answer
설명 — Unexplained standard changes harm consistency.
F. 그 판결은 전제와 결론이 충돌해 타당성이 ＿＿＿＿되었다.
The judgment’s validity was weakened because the premise and conclusion clashed. 💥
Answer
약화 — 약화되다 means to be weakened.
G. 반례를 무시하면 논증의 완결성이 ＿＿＿＿될 수 있다.
If counterexamples are ignored, the completeness of the argument may be limited. 🚧
Answer
제한 — 제한되다 means to be limited.
H. 법적 원칙 없이 결론으로 바로 가면 논리적 ＿＿＿＿이 생긴다.
If one goes straight to the conclusion without legal principle, a logical leap occurs. 🦘
Answer
비약 — This is the classic missing-step problem.
I. 같은 용어를 다른 의미로 쓰면 독자의 이해가 ＿＿＿＿워진다.
If the same term is used with different meanings, the reader’s understanding becomes difficult. 🌀
Answer
어려 — Changing meanings midway damages clarity and consistency.
J. 좋은 법적 논증은 근거, 연결성, 일관성, 완결성을 모두 ＿＿＿＿다.
A good legal argument has basis, connectedness, consistency, and completeness. 🏛️
Answer
갖춘 — 갖추다 means to possess or be equipped with.
📚
Vocabulary Box
  • 법리적 근거 → legal basis
  • 설득력 → persuasive force
  • 완결성 → completeness
  • 일관성 → consistency
  • 반복 → repetition
  • 같은 기준 → same standard
  • 성질 → quality/characteristic
  • 법리 → legal doctrine
  • 사실관계 → facts/factual relationship
  • 논증 → argumentation
  • 기준 변경 → standard change
  • 전제 → premise
  • 결론 → conclusion
  • 타당성 → validity
  • 반례 → counterexample
  • 논리적 비약 → logical leap
  • 용어 → term
  • 근거 → basis
  • 연결성 → connectedness
Tip 💡 Pitfall patrol rule: name the weakness precisely — weak basis, missing reasoning, inconsistent standard, or incomplete structure.
🎉 Excellent work. You can now evaluate legal arguments with sharper Korean: not just “good” or “bad,” but 근거가 명확한지 (whether the basis is clear), 논증이 연결되는지 (whether the reasoning connects), 일관성이 유지되는지 (whether consistency is maintained), and 구조적 완결성을 갖추는지 (whether structural completeness is present). ⚖️✨