examination and also on matters allowed by the court.

STARE DECISIS IT NON MOVERE

- A rule where when a point has been proven by evidence, it becomes a precedent which
should be followed in subsequent cases before the same court.
- A doctrine which states that when a court laid down a principle of law as applicable to
a certain state of facts, it would adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases
in which the facts are substantially the same.

Chapter 3 – Deductive Reasoning in Law

DEDUCTIVE REASONING – refers to the kind of reasoning where there is a determination

whether the correct rules of law were applied to the given facts or whether the rules of evidence
were properly applied in establishing the facts.

INDUCTIVE REASONING – refers to the kind of reasoning where there is a determination of

the facts of the case and to establish them through casual arguments, probability or scientific
methods.

SYLLOGISMS – is a three-line argument ̶ that is, an argument that consists of exactly two
premises and a conclusion.

Types of Syllogisms
a. Categorical Syllogism – is a syllogism composed of categorical statements alone.
- It is a statement that directly asserts something or states a fact without any conditions;
its subject is simply affirmed or denied by the predicate.
b. Hypothetical syllogism – is a compound statement which contains a proposed or tentative
explanation.

Categorical Syllogisms
Quality: the quality of the statements may be affirmative or negative.
a. Affirmative – absence of qualifiers in the statement.
b. Negative – a statement that has the terms “no”, “not”, “none”, and “never”.
Quantity: the quantity of the statement is either universal or particular.
a. Universal – when what is being affirmed or denied of the subject term is its whole
extension.
b. Particular – when what is being affirmed or denied of the subject is just a part of its
extension.

Quantity of the Predicate

Two rules that must be observed:
a. The predicate of an affirmative statement is generally particular.
b. The predicate of a negative statement is always universal.

https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/logic.docx?token=AWw_bICNx…c2pFKiNFP6NURYAJBO8CCAwgXRLMhLDjQRgnAN094PZG-h3g 22/01/2019, 4\17 PM

Page 1 of 4
 Parts of a Categorical Syllogism- it consists of three categorical statements that together contain
exactly three terms, each of which occurs in exactly two of the constituent statements.
​
Three kinds of terms in a categorical syllogisms:
a. Minor term (S) – the subject of the conclusion which is also called the subject term.
b. Major term (P) – the predicate of the conclusion which is also called the predicate
term.
c. Middle term (M) – the term found in both premises and serves to mediate between the
minor and the major terms.
Three kinds of statements in a categorical syllogisms:
a. Minor premise – the premise which contains the minor term.
b. Major premise – the premise which contains the minor term.
c. Conclusion – the statement the premise support.

Rules for the Validity of Categorical Syllogisms

​Rule 1 - The syllogisms must not contain two negative premises.
​Rule 2 - There must be three pairs of univocal terms.
​Rule 3 – The middle term must be universal at least once.
​Rule 4 – If the term in the conclusion is universal, the same term in the premise must also
be universal.

Hypothetical Syllogisms
​There are three kinds of hypothetical syllogisms:
a. Conditional syllogisms – is a syllogism in which the major premise is a conditional
statement. It is a compound statement which asserts that one member (the then
clause) is true on condition that the other member (the if clause) is true.
b. Disjunctive syllogism
c. Conjunctive syllogism
Rules for Conditional Syllogisms
​Two valid forms:
a. Modus Ponens –when the minor premise affirms the antecedent, the
conclusion must affirm the consequent.
b. Modus Tollens –when the minor premise denies the consequent, the
conclusion must deny the antecedent.
c. Fallacy of denying the antecedent – an invalid form where a conditional
syllogism is invalid if the minor premise denies the antecedent.
d.Fallacy of affirming the consequent – an invalid form where the minor
premise affirms the consequent.
Enthymemes – a kind of argument that stated incompletely, part being “understood” or only “in
the mind”.

Polysyllogisms – is a seried of syllogisms in which the conclusion of one syllogism supplies a

premise of the next syllogisms.

https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/logic.docx?token=AWw_bICNx…c2pFKiNFP6NURYAJBO8CCAwgXRLMhLDjQRgnAN094PZG-h3g 22/01/2019, 4\17 PM

Page 2 of 4
 Chapter 4 – Inductive Reasoning in Law

Inductive Generalization – is an argument that relies on the characteristics of a sample

population to make a claim about thye population as a whole. It is a general claim that makes a
statement about all, most, or some members of a class, group, or set.

Analogical Arguments
Analogy – is a comparison of things based on similarities those things share.

Evaluating Analogical Arguments

Fallacy of Analogy – a fallacy that results from comparing two (or more) things that are not
really comparable. It is a matter of claiming that two things share a certain similarity on the basis
of other similarities, while overlooking important dissimilarities.

Chapter 5 – Fallacies in Legal Reasoning

Fallacy – it is not a false belief but a mistake or error in thinking and reasoning.

Two kinds of fallacies:

a. Formal – those that may be identified through mere inspectionof the form and structure of
an argument.
b. Informal – are those that can be detected only through analysis of the content of the
argument.

Fallacy of Ambiguity
1. Equivocation – a fallacy that consists in leading an opponent to an unwarranted
conclusion by using a term in its different senses and making it appear to have only one
meaning.
2. Amphiboly – a fallacy that consists in presenting a claim or argument whose meaning can
be interpreted in two or more ways due to its grammatical construction.
3. Improper Accent – a fallacy that consists in misleading people by placing improper
emphasis on a word, phrase or particular aspect of an issue.
4. Vicious Abstraction – this fallacy consists in misleading the people by using vague or
abstract terms. This fallacy occurs when vague words are misused.
5. Composition – this fallacy consists in wrongly inferring that what holds true of the
individuals automatically holds true of the group made up of those individuals.
6. Division – this fallacy consists in wrongly assuming that what is true in general is true in
particular. This is reverse fallacy of composition.

Fallacies of Ambiguity
1. Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack) – this fallacy ignores the issue by focusing
on certain personal characteristics of an opponent. This fallacy is of two kinds:
a. Abusive Argumentum ad Hominem – this fallacy attacks the argument based on
the arguer’s reputation, personality or some personal shortcoming.

https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/logic.docx?token=AWw_bICNx…c2pFKiNFP6NURYAJBO8CCAwgXRLMhLDjQRgnAN094PZG-h3g 22/01/2019, 4\17 PM

Page 3 of 4
https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/logic.docx?token=AWw_bICNx…c2pFKiNFP6NURYAJBO8CCAwgXRLMhLDjQRgnAN094PZG-h3g 22/01/2019, 4\17 PM
Page 4 of 4