Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Methods in reasoning
Logical organization of the legal language
DIFFERENT MEANINGS:
1. Intuitive result of direct observation
2. Abstractive result of your thinking / judgment
3. Contrary opposite side of the spectrum (happy sad)
4. Contradictory exact meaning of the opposite (true false)
1. Real use to identify what the thing really is; exact meaning / definite meaning
2. Stipulative a definition as a result of deliberately assigning a meaning
3. Precising makes the meaning scientific; totally eliminates biases
4. Persuasive seek to spare emotions or influence; strives to convince people
5. Theoretical express theological ; generalization about reality
Chapter 1
BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS
PROPOSITION building blocks of every argument which is something that may be asserted or
denied
- The British were at the gates of Hamburg and Bremen conjunction of two
propositions namely: The British were at the gates of Hamburg and The British
were at the gates of Bremen
INFERENCE refers to the process by which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed on the
basis of one or more other proposition accepted as the starting point of the process.
To determine whether an inference is correct, the logician will examine the propositions
with which that process begins and ends; and the relations between them. This cluster of
propositions constitutes an argument, and therefore, there is an argument corresponding
to every possible inference.
ARGUMENT any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others,
which are regarded as providing support or grounds for the truth of that one.
For an argument to be present, the cluster of propositions must have a structure (by
using premiss and conclusion
No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore any statement about
lifes origins should be considered as theory, not fact.
1. PARAPHRASE setting forth its propositions in clear language and logical order
Often assists our understanding of it because in doing so, we must bring to the
surface what is assumed in the argument but is not fully or explicitly stated
- To paraphrase:
1. Languages die.
2. The great plays of Aeschylus are in a language.
3. So the work of Aeschylus will eventually die.
4. Mathematical ideas do not die.
5. The great work of Archimedes was with mathematical ideas.
6. So the work of Archimedes will not die.
Therefore Archimedes will be remembered when Aeschylus is forgotten.
To paraphrase:
1. The more mitochondrial variation in a people the longer its evolutionary
history;
2. The greatest mitochondrial variations occurred in African people.
Therefore African people have had the longest evolutionary history.
To diagram
Premiss-indicators:
RHETORICAL a question may suggest or assume a premiss when the question is one whose
answer the author believes to be obvious or inescapable.
If there is no one who desires to be miserable, there is no one, Meno, who desires evil;
for what is misery but the desire and possession of evil?
Rowena B. Gallego Legal Techniques & Logic
Atty. Freedom Navidad Page | 5
The conclusions of arguments that depend on rhetorical questions are suspect. To avoid
responsibility for the forthright assertion of their premises, authors sometimes ask a
question whose answer is supposed to be obvious when that assumed answer actually
is dubious or even false.
UNSTATED PROPOSITIONS when one or more of its constituent propositions is not stated
but is assumed to be understood; assumed; presumed
If the Miranda decision is reversed, police will no longer be compelled to give those
warnings [of the right to remain silent, etc.]; and if they arent compelled to give them,
they wont give them. But because police interrogations take place out of public view, the
integrity of such interrogations can be safeguarded only if those Miranda warnings are
invariably given.
- The conclusion of their argument that those warnings must always be given and
that the Supreme Court should not reverse the Miranda decision did not need to
be stated in that context.
ENTHYMEMES arguments in everyday discourse often rely on some proposition that is not
stated.
Sometimes it may not be obvious just how one would formulate the proposition on which
the speaker relies, even though, once formulated, it is readily accepted.
If one doesnt believe that moral arguments make any difference, then one doesnt
believe in republican government.
- In this enthymeme, the unstated premise is the claim that believing in republican
government entails that one does believe that moral arguments make a difference
a claim that most of us would grant.
On the other hand, the unstated proposition on which an enthymeme relies may not be
obvious, but disputable and the absence of an explicit statement of that proposition
may serve to shield it from attack
This research [involving the use of embryonic stem cells] is illegal, for this reason: The
deliberate killing of a human embryo is an essential component of the contemplated
research.
- The stated premiss is true; if the embryo were not destroyed, research of that kind
would be impossible. But the conclusion that such research is illegal depends on
the unstated premiss that the killing of a human embryo is illegal a claim that is
very much in dispute.
A deductive argument is valid when, if its premisses are true, its conclusion must
be true
Is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premisses with absolute
necessity, this necessity not being a matter of degree and not depending in any
way on whatever else may be the case.
Valid if the claim that its premisses provide irrefutable grounds for the truth of
its conclusion, if it is a correct argument; conclusiveness of the relationship of
premiss and conclusion
Invalid if it is not correct, or that if the premisses when true fail to establish the
conclusion irrefutably; there are other basis for the conclusion
Examples:
If all humans are mortal and Socrates is human, we may conclude that
Socrates is mortal.
All traditional politicians are power brokers and some local executives are
traditional politicians. Then it follows that some local executives are power
brokers.
2. INDUCTIVE do not claim that their premises, even if true, support their conclusions
with certainty.
Is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premisses only with
probability, this probably being a matter of degree and dependent upon what else
may be the case
TRUTH is the attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is the case
ILLUSTRATIONS OF ARGUMENTS:
FALLACY is a type of argument that may seem to be correct, but proves on examination not
to be so; in a very general sense, it is any error in reasoning
GROUPS OF FALLACIES
1. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE when an argument relies on premisses that are not relevant
to its conclusion, and that therefore cannot possibly establish its truth; the premises of the
argument are simply not relevant to the conclusion.
Why are so many people attracted to the Pontiac Grand Prix? It could be
that so many people are attracted to the Grand Prix because so many
people are attracted to the Grand Prix! (bandwagon fallacy)
1.2 The Red Herring an informal fallacy committed when some distraction is used to
mislead and confuse; deliberately misleading trail
One legislator, apparently speaking to protect his corporate donors, entered the
debate with the irrelevant point that there is a serious need for the provision of
better advice to retired persons on the investment of their pensions. No doubt
there is. But one commentator absolutely observed, What does this have to do
with employers squandering their workers retirement?
At Duke University in 2006, three student athletes were indicted for rape; the
indictments were plainly unfounded and soon withdrawn. When the prosecutor
was charged with misconduct in office, feelings at the university grew intense.
One member of the Duke faculty, writing in the local newspaper, defended the
prosecutor and some other faculty members who had supported him. In the
course of this defense, she argued that the real social disaster in the Duke rape
case was that 18 percent of the American population lives below the poverty
line and that we do not have national health care or affordable childcare.
1.3 The Straw Man may view this fallacy as a variety of the red herring, because it also
introduces a distraction from the real dispute. In this case, however, the distraction is
In general, straw man often take the form of supposing that the position under
attack adopts the most extreme view possible that every act or policy of a
certain kind is to be rejected. Its premises are not relevant to the conclusion that
was originally proposed.
Often presents a genuine objection or criticism, and the objection may be sound,
but it is aimed at a new and irrelevant target.
Every fallacious argument presents some risk of this kind; the fallacy of the straw
man invites it with special force.
You say that the New Testament teaches that we are not under law, and that we
are saved by grace through faith alone. Therefore, what you teach is that we can
sin all we want after we are saved.
Ad Hominem arguments are fallacious (and often unfair to the adversary) because an
attack against some person is generally not relevant to the objective merits of the
argument that person has put forward.
- Who cares what you think about movies? You're just an ignorant American
who doesn't know anything about real culture.
1.5 Appeal to Force (Argument Ad Baculum) literally means appeal to the stick; when
careful reasoning is replaced with direct or insinuated threats in order to bring about
the acceptance of some conclusion; abandonment of reason.
1.6 Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi) when the premisses miss the point,
purporting to support one conclusion while in fact supporting or establishing another
It arises when the argument goes awry when, on close examination, there is a
disconnect between the premises and the conclusion.
Deliberate deception
One person emphasizes how important it is to increase funding for the public
schools. His opponent responds by insisting that a childs education involves
much more than schooling and gets underway long before her formal
schooling begins.
-
That assertion is entirely reasonable, of course, but it misses the point of
what was said earlier. One party presents an argument for P, to alleviate
the need for funds; his interlocutor counters with an irrelevant Q, about
the importance of preschool education.
Non sequitur (does not follow) an argument in which the conclusion simply
does not follow from the premises; most commonly applied when the failure of
the argument is obvious, when the gap between the premises and the conclusion
is painfully wide.
The prisoner pleaded guilty. He then said he had made a mistake, and the
judge allowed him to change his plea to not guilty. The case was tried. The
jury acquitted. Prisoner, said Mr. Justice Hawkins, a few minutes ago you
said you were a thief. Now the jury say you are a liar. Consequently, you are
discharged.
2.1 Appeal to Ignorance (Ad Ignorantiam) - The mistake that is committed when it is
argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false,
or that it is false because it has not been proved true.
Rowena B. Gallego Legal Techniques & Logic
Atty. Freedom Navidad Page | 13
Appeal to ignorance succeeds only when innocence must be assumed in the absence
of proof to the contrary; in other contexts, such an appeal is indeed an argument ad
ignoratiam.
No there isnt. There really isnt, but there is no evidence to the contrary, either.
The moon is not a perfect sphere, he replied, because there are surely crystal
mountains invisible! rising high from its surface. Because my theological
critics cannot prove the claim false, we cannot conclude that such mountains are
not there!
Our mistake becomes one of reasoning (a fallacy) when our conclusion is based on
the verdict of an authority who has no rational claim to expertise in that matter.
2.3 False Cause when one treats as the cause of a thing what is not really the cause of
that thing, often relying (as in the subtype post hoc ergo propter hoc) merely on the
close temporal succession of two events.
The sun would invariably reappear after an eclipse if the drums had been
beaten in the darkness.
Committed when one mistakenly argues against some proposal on the ground
that any change in a given direction is sure to lead to further changes in the
same direction and thus to grave consequences (fallacy of slippery slope)
The slippery slope is indeed a fallacy but the mere allegation that the fallacy
has been committed does not prove the argument in question faulty.
2.4 Hasty Generalization (converse accident) when one moves carelessly or too
quickly from one or a very few instances to a broad or universal claim.
Committed when we draw conclusions about all the persons or things in a given class
on the basis of our knowledge about only one of the members of that class.
3. FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION the mistaken arguments arise from reliance upon some
proposition that is assumed to be true, but is in fact false, or dubious, or without warrant;
arguments that depend on unwarranted leaps
3.1 Accident when one applies a generalization to an individual case that it does not
properly govern
3.2 Complex Question when a question is asked in such a way as to presuppose the
truth of some assumption buried in that question.
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your
wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or
have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.
Does the distinguish senator believe that the American public is really so
nave that they will endorse just any stopgap measure? it conceals several
unchallenged assumptions: that what is proposed is a stopgap measure, that
is inadequate, and that the American public would reject it.
3.3 Begging the Question (Petitio Principii) when one assumes in the premises of an
argument the truth of what one seeks to establish in the conclusion of that argument;
the conclusion of an argument is stated or assumed in one of the premises.
The arguments are circular every petitio is a circular argument but the circle that
has been constructed may be large and confusing, and thus the logical mistake goes
unseen.
To beg the question is not to raise the issue, but to assume the truth of the
conclusion sought.
Circular arguments are certainly fallacious, but the premises are not irrelevant to the
conclusions drawn. They are relevant; indeed, they prove the conclusion, but they do
so trivially they end where they began. A petition principia is always technically valid,
but always worthless.
There is no such thing as knowledge which cannot be carried into practice, for
such knowledge is really no knowledge at all.
4.1 Equivocation when the same word or phrase is used with two or more meanings,
deliberately or accidentally, in the formulation of an argument; misuse of relative terms,
which have different meanings in different contexts.
In this argument, there are two unrelated meanings of the word "bank":
A riverside: In this sense, the premiss is true but the argument is invalid,
so it's unsound.
4.2 Amphiboly - when one of the statements in an argument has more than one plausible
meaning, because of the loose or awkward way in which the words in that statement
have been combined. (arrangement of words)
The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when one is arguing from premises whose
formulations are ambiguous because of their grammatical construction.
The various arguments that emerge are plainly the outcome of the deliberate
manipulation of emphasis; the sentence can be used to achieve assorted fallacious
ambiguities.
I resent that letter. This sentence could mean either that one sent the letter
again, or that one has a feeling of resentment towards it
a. When one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of the parts of a whole to
the attributes of the whole itself.
Every ship is ready for battle, the whole fleet must be ready for battle.
b. When one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of the individual elements
or members of a collection to attributes of the collection or totality of those
elements. invalid inference that what may truly be predicated of a term
distributively may also be truly predicated of the term collectively.
A bus uses more gasoline than an automobile, all buses use more
gasoline than all automobiles.
The atomic bombs dropped during World War II did more damages
than did the ordinary bombs dropped but only distributively.
Should we not assume that just as the eye, hand, the foot, and in
general each part of the body clearly has its own proper function, so
man too has some function over and above the function of his parts?
4.5 Division simply the reverse of the fallacy of composition. This fallacy is committed:
a. When one argues fallaciously that what is true of a whole must also be true
of its parts.
Chapter 3
LANGUAGE and DEFINITIONS
1. Informative (or logical) without the intention to inform, we may express ourselves
using language.
We distinguish between facts a sentence formulates and facts about the speaker who
formulates them.
Some expressive discourse also has informative content, and may express attitudes
as well as beliefs.
4. Ceremonial words may combine expressive and other functions; proforma / template
FORMS OF LANGUAGE
Definiens symbol or group of symbols used to explain the meaning of the definiendum
KINDS OF DEFINITION
- May simply be convenient, one word may stand for many words in a message
- May protect secrecy, if the sender and the receiver are the only persons who
understand the stipulation
- May advance economy of expression
- In science, to mean what has been meant by a long sequence of familiar word,
thus saving time and increasing clarity
- a definition as a result of deliberately assigning a meaning
- It is used to assign a new meaning to a term, whether or not the term has already
got a meaning
OMG oh my gosh
murder the premeditated killing of a human being
2. Lexical or Real which report the meaning that the term already has (and hence can
be true or false). That report may be correct, or incorrect and therefore it is clear that a
lexical definition may be either true or false.
When the purpose of the definition is to explain that use, or to eliminate ambiguity, the
definition is lexical.
Real definition to indicate that the definiendum really does have the meaning
identified.
In essence, it may be true or false, in the sense that they may be true to actual usage, or
may fail to be true to it.
Ambiguous when it has more than one distinct meaning and the context does not
make clear which meaning is intended.
Vague when there are borderline cases to which the term might or might not apply.
Borderline cases can be resolved only by going beyond the report of normal usage with
the definition given.
It differs from stipulative definitions in that its definiendum is not a new term, but one
whose usage is known, although unhappily vague. In constructing a prcising definition,
therefore, we are not free to assign to the definiendum any meaning we please.
Obligation under the Civil Code, is the juridical necessity to give, to do or not
to do.
Marriage - is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a
woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and
family life.
Kinds of Definition
Marriage - is a special
contract of permanent
union between a man and
a woman entered into in
accordance with law for
the establishment of
conjugal and family life.
Chapter 5
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
Classical logic deals mainly with arguments based on the relations of classes of objects to one
another. By a class, we mean a collection of all objects that have some specified characteristic in
common. Everyone can see immediately that two classes can be related in at least the following three
ways:
1. All of one class may be included in all of another class. Thus, the class of all dogs is wholly
included (or wholly contained) in the class of all mammals.
2. Some, but not all, of the members of one class may be included in another class. Thus, the
class of all athletes is partially included (or partially contained) in the class of all females.
Categorical Proposition- is a part of deductive reasoning that contains two categorical terms,
the subject and the predicate, and affirms or denies the latter of the former.
The subject and the predicate are called the terms of the proposition. The subject is what the proposition
is about, while the predicate is what the proposition affirms or denies about the subject.
Such a proposition affirms that the relation of class inclusion holds between two classes
and says that the inclusion is complete, or universal.
This kind of proposition denies the relation of inclusion between the two terms, and denies it
universally.
3. Particular affirmative propositions (I propositions) this proposition does not affirm or deny
anything about that entire class
The proposition affirms that the relation of class inclusion holds, but does not affirm it of the
first class universally but only partially, that is, it is affirmed of some particular member, or
members, of the first class.
4. Particular negative propositions (O propositions) it does not affirm the inclusion of some
member or members of the first class in the second class, this is precisely what is denied.
S P
Categorical propositions can be categorized into four types on the basis of their quality, quantity, and
distribution. These four types are A, E, I and O. This is based on the Latin word affirmo (I affirm),
referring to affirmative propositions A and I, and nego (I deny), referring to the negative propositions E
and O.
Quality refers to whether the proposition affirms or denies the inclusion of a subject within the class
of the predicate. The two qualities are affirmative and negative.
Quantity refers to the amount of members of the subject class that are used in the proposition. If
the proposition refers to all members of the subject class, it is universal. If the proposition does not
employ all members of the subject class, it is particular.
Distribution refers to whether all or some members of a class are affected by a proposition. Both
subjects and predicates have distribution. If all members of a class are affected by a proposition, that
class is distributed, otherwise, it is undistributed.
Illustration:
Distribution
Name Statement Quantity Quality
Subject Predicate
A All S is P universal affirmative distributed undistributed
E No S is P universal negative distributed distributed
I Some S is P particular affirmative undistributed undistributed
O Some S is not P particular negative undistributed distributed
B. Contraries two propositions are said to be contraries if they cannot both be true; that is, if the
truth of one entails the falsity of the other. The traditional account held that universal propositions
having the same subject and predicate terms, but differing in quality, were contraries. A and E
propositions can be regarded as contraries.
*If either of these propositions is true, then the other must be false.
C. Subcontraries two propositions are said to be subcontraries if they cannot both be false,
although they both may be true. The traditional account held that particular propositions having the
same subject and predicate terms differing in quality were subcontraries. I and O propositions can
be regarded as subcontraries.
D. Subalternation whenever two propositions have the same subject and the same predicate
terms and agree in quality (both are affirmative or both are negative) but differ only in quantity, they
are called corresponding propositions. A proposition has a corresponding I proposition, and the E
proposition has a corresponding O proposition.
Square of Opposition
subalternation
contradictories
subaltern subaltern
(Some S is P.) I subcontraries O (Some S is not P)
A E I O
Immediate Inferences
CONVERTEND is used to refer to the premiss of an immediate inference by conversion, and the
conclusion of that inference is called the CONVERSE.
B. Obversion the subject term remains unchanged, and so does the quantity of the proposition
being obverted. To obvert a proposition, we change its quality and replace the predicate term by its
complement.
CLASS is the collection of all objects having a certain common attribute that we refer to as the
class-defining characteristic.
COMPLEMENT a collection of all things that do not belong the original class. The complement
of the class designated by the term S is then designated by the term non-S, and we may speak
of the term non-S being the complement of the term S. (winner nonwinner)
No umpires are partisans. E proposition, has its obverse the logically equivalent
All umpires are nonpartisans. A proposition
The term OBVERTEND is used to refer to the premiss of an immediate inference by obversion,
and the conclusion is called OBVERSE.
All members are voters. is the contrapositive of All nonvoters are nonmembers.
IMMEDIATE INFERENCES:
CONVERSION, OBVERSION, CONTRAPOSITION
VALID CONVERSION
CONVERTEND CONVERSE
OBVERSION
OBVERTEND OBVERSE
A: All S is P E: No S is non-P.
E: No S is P A: All S is non-P.
I: Some S is P. O: Some S is not non-P.
O: Some S is not P I: Some S is non-P.
CONTRAPOSITION
PREMISS CONTRAPOSITIVE
Mood : EIO
Figure:
MP PM MP PM
SM SM MS MS
-------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
SP SP SP S-P