If a security system is never triggered, can one conclude that it has been effective? Is the failure of a system more telling than its lack of use? Can the negation of a fact be used to prove its existence and the validity of a theoretical construct? Can one argue, See — X did not occur; therefore Y must have occurred? In terms of pure propositional logic and its internal system of validity, one can conclude that certain logical constructs are on their face invalid and contain fallacies.
This was one of Wittgenstein’s points concerning human language games: the very self-contained artifice of the universe of meaning possesses no reflective correspondence to the physical world; and, in today’s parallel universe of the Internet, Facebook, Twitter, emails, etc., the technological artifice which encapsulates so much of our lives only serves to exponentially magnify such lack of corresponding significance.
In making legal arguments in an OPM Disability Retirement application, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is often important to understand the context within which the legal argument is being made. One never knows whether, and to what extent, any particular legal argument is effective; and sometimes all that can be made is the pretext of the argument, and to leave the substantive impact for future application.
For example, does the fact that a person has received a “proposed removal” have the same impact as one who has in fact been removed for his or her medical inability to perform one’s job? Or, similarly, does a person who receives a VA rating determination of “unemployability” have the same impact as one who is allocated with a 90% disability rating, arrived at through various lesser ratings and combinations thereof?
The effectiveness of any argument will depend upon the level of persuasion employed; the level of persuasion will be contingent upon the validity of the sequential connections of often independent logical statements; and the force of a conclusion will be determined by the strength of its weakest link. If an argument of negation must be employed, take care to do so by linking it to an undeniable fact.
Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire
Filed under: Theory and Practice: Tips and Strategies for a Successful Application | Tagged: accepting opm disability clients all across america, affirmative approach for OPM disability retirement, attorney representing federal employees, attorney representing federal workers for disability throughout the united states, case disability retirement and legal arguments on your behalf, CSRS disability retirement federal attorney, effective federal disability claim statement, efficacy and limitation of legal argumentation in opm disability claims, efficient legal argumentation in cases of opm disability retirement claims, fallacious arguments in federal disability retirement applications, federal disability law and legal argumentation, federal disability law blog, FERS disability retirement, how to file an effective federal disability retirement application, integrity in legal arguments used on behalf of injured postal workers, law firm representing clients in opm disability law all across america, lawyer federal retirement disability, legal & foundational argument, legal argument to support your opm medical incapacity case, legal argumentation and facts on the federal disability retirement application, logical argumentation in federal disability retirement, making rational arguments along with sound medical evidence, nationwide representation of federal employees, objectivity and legal arguments in a fers disability claim, OPM disability retirement, owcp disability retirement, postal service disability retirement, postal workers injury attorney, representing federal employees from any us government agency, studying your opm claim and using appropriate legal arguments, the applicant's and the agency's legal arguments over opm disability, the federal disability retirement attorney's weapon: effective arguments from past case laws, the qualities of an effective legal argumentation of opm disability law, using legal argumentation in an appropriate and effective way, USPS disability retirement, writing an effective opm application memoranda | Leave a comment »