Legal Technique and Logic PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

PROPOSITION refers to the meaning of a sentence that makes a claim; that is a statement;
that can be either true or false.
It is usually expressed by declarative sentences
THE OBVIOUS REASON?
They are good for declaring that things are so or not so
EXAMPLE: Our current President has thick hair.
AND NOT: I really find Presidents with thick hair so cute.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARGUMENT - is an example of reasoning in which one or more propositions (or statements) are
offered as support, justification, grounds, reasons, or evidence for another proposition.
It is not a quarrel or dispute, but an example of reasoning in which one or more propositions
are offered
PREMISES - They simply are the supporting statements which aim to make the conclusion
ACCEPTABLE.
CONCLUSION expresses or affirms the MAIN POINT of the argument
PREMISES endeavors to JUSTIFY the point made in the conclusion
EXAMPLE: One night, I woke up with a realization that my boyfriend is a tadpole. You see, tadpoles
can swim and my boyfriend is a magnificent swimmer.
The POINT of the argument is the claim, MY BOYFRIEND IS A TADPOLE.
This is the CONCLUSION of the argument.
We should just all accept my claim that MY BOYFRIEND IS A TADPOLE because my argument
provides for two reasons or justifications:
1.) Tadpoles can swim, and
2.) My boyfriend is a magnificent swimmer.
These two reasons, justifying why the conclusion should be accepted, are the PREMISES of the
argument.


Legal Technique and Logic PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

Arguments are usually presented in their bare forms (i.e their structure) AFTER the premises
and conclusion are identified.
WHY? So we could better understand the arguments, especially how the premises provide
support to the conclusion
WHY AGAIN? To know better why we should accept or deny the conclusion of the argument
One night, I woke up with a realization that my boyfriend is a tadpole. You see, tadpoles can
swim and my boyfriend is a magnificent swimmer.
The structure is:
PREMISE1 (P1) - All tadpoles can swim.
PREMISE2 (P2) My boyfriend can swim (a magnificent swimmer in fact)
________________________________________
CONCLUSION (C) My boyfriend is a tadpole.
P stands for premise
C for conclusion
P is usually accompanied by a number signifying the order of the premises in the argument
while C is always presented after the premises. Presenting the structure this way will make the
task of evaluating the validity or soundness of arguments much easier.
EXAMPLE is INVALID. It is not only INVALID, - it is also not SOUND.
(of course it is not the ability to swim that necessarily makes him a tadpole, but a lot more other
essential attributes.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Legal Technique and Logic PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

EXAMPLE: Because we want to strengthen, not abolish, the law that deters would-be-criminals from
committing crimes because we want to protect the defenseless and the innocent, not the criminals
because no one wants to waver in bringing back the peace and security in our communitys streets
and because the only way to deter would-be rapists, would-be murderers and many other would-be
brutal criminals is to invoke the penalty of death ladies and gentlemen, the death penalty law, must
therefore, never I repeat, never, be abolished.
PREMISE INDICATORS
Since
Because
For
As
Inasmuch as
For the reason that
First,
CONCLUSION INDICATORS
Therefore
Hence
Thus
I conclude that
So
Consequently
It follows that
One may infer that
One may conclude that



Legal Technique and Logic PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

P1 Because we want to strengthen, not abolish, the law that deters would-be-criminals from
committing crimes P2 Because we want to protect the defenseless and the innocent, not
the criminals P3 Because no one wants to waver in bringing back the peace and security in
our communitys streets and P4 Because the only way to deter would-be rapists, would-be
murderers and many other would-be brutal criminals is to invoke the penalty of death C
ladies and gentlemen, the death penalty law, must therefore, never I repeat, never, be
abolished.
THE BARE FORM
P1 We want to strengthen, not abolish, the law that deters would-be-criminals from committing
crimes;
P2 We want to protect the defenseless and the innocent, not the criminals;
P3 We want to bring back the peace and security in our communitys streets;
P4 The only way to deter would-be rapists, would-be-murderers and many other would-be-brutal
criminals is to invoke the penalty o death,
_____________________________________________________________
C The death penalty, must never be abolished
LIMITATIONS OF INDICATORS
Sometimes premise or conclusion indicators may be present in a sentence but they do not really
indicate that the sentence is a proposition (hence, not a premise or a conclusion.)
EXPLANATIONS
My classmate is absent today because of severe diarrhea compounded with severe
dysmenorrhea.
Im feeling so in love today because my seatmate is so pretty.
THESE ARE NOT ARGUMENTS, BUT MERE EXPLANATIONS. ARGUMENTS JUSTIFY WHY
SOMETHING SHOULD BE ACCEPTED.
COGITO, ERGO, SUM
I can doubt everything, except the fact that I think when I doubt. When I think, I, as the thinker, must
necessarily exist. I think, I exist. Descartes


Legal Technique and Logic PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
I can doubt everything, except the fact that I think when I doubt. When I think, I, as the
thinker, must necessarily exist. I think, I exist.
I exist because when I doubt, I necessarily think.
I exist because I think it is necessary for me to exist.
THE CONCLUSION? I exist.
It is impossible for thinking to occur without a thinker, doubting without a doubter.
IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO EVALUATE IF SOMETHING HAS BEEN CLAIMED, OR IF SOMETHING
HAS BEEN OFFERED TO BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE OR FALSE RATHER THAN RELY TOO MUCH ON
INDICATORS.
Propositions are expressed by sentences, but sentences are not the same with propositions
(there could be more than one propositions in a sentence.
There could be a proposition without an argument, but there is no argument without
propositions.
It is the function which a proposition serves in an argument that determines whether it is a
premise or a conclusion. If the proposition provides support to another proposition, then that
proposition is a premise. The proposition that receives the support of the premise is the
conclusion.
For something to be considered an argument, it should contain at least three propositions (at
least one conclusion and two premises).
For a proposition to be considered a conclusion, it should have other supporting propositions as
its premises.
For a proposition to be considered a premise, it should provide support to other propositions as
its conclusion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Legal Technique and Logic PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

INFERENCE is the reasoning process
NATURE OF REASONING: Logic is the science of correct thinking. It starts with ideas and terms
and leads to the formation of judgment and proposition. Using judgment (not verbally
expressed) and proposition (expressed) it proceeds to the intellectual activity called the
reasoning process of INFERENCE.
INFERENCE any process by which the mind proceeds from one or more propositions to other
propositions seen to be implied in the former.
It signifies the operation by which the mind gets new knowledge by drawing out the implications
of what it already knows.
NOTION OF INFERENCE
This is the process in which from a sequence of propositions, we arrive at a CONCLUSION. The
mind proceeds from one proposition to other propositions.
It is the mental process of comparing two concepts with a common third term in order to
establish agreement or disagreement with each other.
PARTS OF AN INFERENCE
The word INFERENCE is applied to a series of propositions so arranged that one, called the
CONSEQUENT flows with logical necessity from one or more others, called the ANTECEDENT.
ANTECEDENT that which goes before (antecedo)
CONSEQUENT that which follows after or that which is inferred by the antecedent
(consequor)
The Relation of the Antecedent and the Consequent
- The truth of the antecedent entails the truth of the consequent.
- The falsity of the consequent entails the falsity of the antecedent.
In other words:
If the antecedent is true, the consequent is true. If the consequent is false, the antecedent is
false.
If the antecedent is false, the consequent is doubtful. If the consequent is true, the antecedent
is doubtful.


Legal Technique and Logic PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

CONSEQUENCE SEQUENCE
Known as the heart of the inference
The connection by virtue of which the consequent flows with logical necessity from the
antecedent.
Usually signified by the terms:
- Therefore
- Hence
- For this reason
- Consequently
- Thus
- Accordingly
- So
ANTECEDENT refers to the PREMISES and the CONSEQUENT refers to the CONCLUSION.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal Technique and Logic PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

EXAMPLE
Crimes are evil acts. But murder is a crime. Therefore, murder is an evil act.
Crimes are evil acts. ANTECEDENT
But murder is a crime. Crime appears twice. Common third term. Sequential relation.
Therefore murder is an evil act. CONSEQUENT
Crimes are evil acts. But murder is a crime. Therefore, murder is an evil act.
There are three terms:
CRIMES appears twice in the premises. This term establishes a sequential relation between
the two premises.
EVIL ACTS
MURDER
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KINDS OF INFERENCE
Inference is either Immediate or Mediate.
IMMEDIATE INFERENCE A short-cut way of reasoning process passing directly from one
proposition, without the aid of a second proposition or a third term, to a new proposition but
not a new truth.
Crimes are evil acts. Therefore, crimes are evil acts.
Consists in passing directly, without the intermediacy of a middle term or a second
proposition, from one proposition to a new proposition that is a partial or complete
reformulation of the very same truth expressed in the original proposition.
Strictly speaking, it does not involve the advancement of knowledge because the consequent
is only the reformulation f the truth expressed in the antecedent.
Dogs are animals; Therefore some animals are dogs.



Legal Technique and Logic PREMISES, INFERENCE and CONCLUSIONS, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

MEDIATE INFERENCE A process of reasoning whereby the mind passes from two
propositions which are called premises to a new proposition called CONCLUSION, through the
mediation of a common third term called the MIDDLE TERM. The mind then arrives at a new
truth.
It draws a conclusion from two propositions and does involve an advancement in knowledge.
This reasoning process or inference is called a SYLLOGISM.
STRUCTURE OF SYLLOGISM
Consists of three declarative sentences; TWO PREMISES and ONE CONCLUSION.
Crimes are evil acts. But murder is a crime. Therefore, murder is an evil act.
Every animal is mortal; but every dog is an animal.; therefore, every dog is mortal.
SYNOPSIS
IMMEDIATE INFERENCE
- Passes from one preposition;
- without medium;
- to a new proposition but not to a new truth
MEDIATE INFERENCE
- Passes from two propositions;
- through a medium;
- not only to a new proposition but also to a new truth

--------------------------------------------------------------- -END--------------------------------------------------------------------