There are those who say that the law is persuasion not logic that the art of the lawyer is the art of rhetoric and oratory not the art of logic and demonstration. But what these people really mean is that persuasion is the appeal to human emotions and the manipulation of human emotions and if one looks beneath the surface what they truly mean is that persuasion is the art of manipulating human stupidity.brNot so says this book. This essay takes a more idealistic inspired ethical approach to the practice of law. According to the author the art of being a lawyer is the art of being able to prove your case but proof in this sense should be understood in its logical and mathematical sense in the same way that a mathematician proves a conclusion or a logician proves a deduction.brThe basic idea of this thesis is that each law defines a set of elements which must be met in order for a party to be entitled to a certain desired outcome and if a set of facts exists which satisfies all necessary and sufficient conditions of that set of legal elements then the party or parties are entitled to that outcome. This is true whether the desired outcome is a victory at court a decision from a regulator an increase in bargaining leverage in contract negotiations or any benefit that the law is entitled to provide. The practice of law then consists of having and using the ability to prove sets of facts using the methods of empirical science math and logic and of the ability to prove sets of legal elements by applying logic to legal texts and to legislative contexts.brA set of facts either exists or else it does not and this is objective not subjective and the law either states an element or a set of elements or it does not and this too is objective not subjective. In counterargument it might be said that facts exist but the point of view with respect to those facts is subjective and that legal texts exist but the intent and meaning of the legislators is subjective and that these subject