I.

Introduction
A.

Basics of logic and its application to legal thinking and legal argument

Thinking like a lawyer employing logic to construct arguments.

Socratic method form of inquiry and debate between individuals with

opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate
ideas.

Components of inductive reasoning and their role in creating legal rules,

precept and principle.
o A form of logic in which big, general principled are divined from
observing the outcomes of many small events.
o You reason from multiple particulars to the general.
o IR is logic of probabilities and generalities, not certainties.
o Vital tool because the ability to shape persuasive legal arguments
when no clear precedent exists is often what separates a star attorney
from your run-of-the-mill ambulance chaser.

Components of deductive reasoning, rules of deductive syllogism, and

avoidance of fallacies.
o Driving force behind most judicial opinions.
o Deduction is reasoning in which a conclusion is compelled by known
facts.
o Syllogism a label logicians attach to any argument in which a
conclusion is inferred from two premises.
o What is true of the universal is true of the particular.

B.

Civil Law Tradition v. Common Law Tradition

1.
Definitions and differences
Civil Law Tradition

the law is almost entirely codified, highly systemized and structured and that it relies on broad,
general principles, without necessarily setting out the details.

basis of private law; quantified

appear for the most part in reported usually judgments rendered by higher courts.
Common Law Tradition

known for its jurisprudence, for a system of legal precepts that emerge from court decisions
Differences
CIVIL LAW

COMMON LAW

Sources of Law

Codified

Judge-made case law

Principle of precedent & stare

decisis

Bound to codes & reason

Subject to these two principles

Method of legal thinking &

finding justice

Develop abstract principle &

apply to the facts by subsuming

Dominated on focusing on each

case

Function of Doctrine

Provide all practitioners w/ a

guideline for handling &
deciding on specific future cases
by developing basic rules

Find differences& similarities in

decided cases to extract specific
rules from decided cases

Appointment of Judges

Appoint young highly skilled but

inexperienced graduates

Selected & appointed only from

among experienced practicing
lawyers

Procedural

Focus on settlement of the

Adversarial

|2
dispute

C.

II.

2.

Is the Philippine legal system a civil law or common law system? MIXED

Common law crimes

Doctrine of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege

there is no crime when there is no law punishing it

Exercise of the power of judicial review

3.

Reasoning and the Common Law Tradition

a.
Adjudication of specific cases
b.
Universal acceptance derives from longevity, publication of judicial
opinion, and conclusions reached by a publicly expressed reasoning
process (rules of logic)
c.
Fundamental characteristics of common law tradition
d.
Doctrine of precedent or stare decisis (stare decisis et non quieta
movere) things that are settled should not be disturbed.

The Role of Logic

1.
Case law stands or falls on the reasons articulated to justify it
2.
Formation of principles in case law emerges from the process of inductive
generalization
3.
Value Judgments scale of justice is seemed balanced because we believed
that it is based on laws.

Legal Thinking
A.

Moral, Aesthetic and Legal Reasoning

1.

Moral reasoning and moral deliberation a thinking process with the intention
of establishing value judgment by determining whether an idea is right,
wrong, good, or bad.
a.
Moral relativism judgment is based on the particular standpoint.
b.
Utilitarianism greatest happiness theory
c.
Duty theory or deontologism what is ethical/good
d.
Divine command theory GOD
e.
Virtue ethics how to be

2.

Aesthetic reasoning judgment about beauty and art, rely on conceptual

frameworks that integrate facts and values.
AESTHETIC PRINCIPLE
a. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they have a meaning or teach
something true.
b. If they express the value of the culture they arise in or the artists who
made them.
c. If they can lead to social change.
d. If it address the audiences pleasure.
e. If it gives audience certain emotions that are valued.
f. If it produce a special non-emotional experience that comes only from art.
g. Because of features that no reason can determine, and no argument can
establish the aesthetic value or valueless.

3.

Legal reasoning tells us what we ought to do.

Similarities between moral and legal claims: they are both often
prescriptive (they tell us what we should do); both play a role in
guiding our conduct

Moral offenses; crimes listed in our penal code that also are offenses
against morality; exceptions

Grounds for justification of laws

|3
a.

B.

III.

IV.

Legal moralism position that the law should prohibit anything

immoral.
b.
Harm principle law should only prohibit activities that harm
others.
c.
Legal paternalism goes beyond the harm principle in also
justifying laws that keep people from harming themselves.
d.
Offense principle gives the society the right to ban activities
that are generally found offensive.
Appeal to precedent uses an established judicial decision to interpret
a new case.

Elements of Legal Thinking

a. Case Method Study study the decision of the court; study the logical methods
and principles which are used to make decision.
b. Socratic Method form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing
viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking
and to illuminate ideas.
c. Logical Thought works without emotions; works by comparison, yes or no,
either/or.
d. Reflective Thinking is a part of the critical thinking process referring specifically
to the process of analyzing and making judgments about what had happened.
e. Legal Thinking

The Language of Logic

A.

Basic expressions in logic

1. Proposition the content or meaning of a meaningful declarative sentence; the
pattern of symbols, marks, or sound that make up a meaningful declarative
sentence; having the quality or property of being either true or false.
2. Term part of speech representing something, but which is not true or false in its
own right.
3. Inference conclusion is inferred from the data ; Implication data implies the
conclusion.
4. Argument a discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of and
against a proposition.
5. Conclusion a statement that purports to follow from another or others by
means of an argument.
6. Premise a proposition upon which a argument is based or from which a
conclusion is drawn.
7. Deductive Reasoning method of applying a general rule in specific situations of
which conclusions can be drawn.
8. Inductive Reasoning form of logical reasoning specific conclusions are
generalized to general conclusions.
9. Belief accepted as true.

B.

Conclusion testing
a conclusion can be true only when the other propositions are true and these
propositions imply the conclusions.
not all means of persuasion are based on reflective thinking or formal logic; some
forms of persuasion do not qualify.

Introduction to Deductive Reasoning and Inductive Reasoning

A.

Deductive Reasoning

Two propositions which imply the third proposition, the conclusion, are called premises.
The broad proposition that forms the starting point of deduction is called the major
premise; the second proposition is called the minor premise. The major premise
represents the all; the minor premise, something or someone included in the all.

B.

Inductive Reasoning

|4

In law, as in general logic, there are fundamental differences between the two types of
reasoning:

Deductive Reasoning
The connection between a given piece of
information and another piece of information
concluded from it is a necessary connection.
A deductive argument is one whose
conclusion is claimed to follow from its
premises with absolute necessity. If the
premises are valid, the conclusion is valid. If
the conclusion is valid, the premises are
valid.
In a valid deductive argument, if the
premises are true, the conclusion must be
true.
Moves by inference from the general
(universal) ultimately to the particular.

V.

Inductive Reasoning
The connection between given pieces of
information and another piece inferred from
them is not a logically necessary connection.
An inductive argument is one whose
conclusion is claimed to follow from its
premises only with probability and not
absolute necessity. All that is represented is
that the conclusion is more probable than
not. Its premises do not provide conclusive
support for the conclusion; they provide only
some support for it.
In a valid inductive argument, the conclusion
is not necessarily an absolute truth; by
induction, we reach a conclusion that is only
more probably true than not.
Moves from the particular to the general
(universal)
(induced
generalization
by
enumeration of instances), or from the
particular to the particular (analogy).

The core of the difference lies in the strength of the claim that is made about the
premises and its conclusion.
1.

Inductive Generalization

Formulating a generalization in the law enumerating a series of tight

holdings of cases (legal rules) to create a generalized legal precept
(legal principle) is at best a logic of probabilities.

2.

Analogy

Pursuant to the method of analogy, the courts do not generalize from a

series of holdings, but proceed from certain relevant resemblances and
differences between the case at bar and another single case or a
relatively small group of cases.

Deductive Reasoning
A.

Categorical Syllogism

Categorical syllogism: deductive argument which consists of three categorical

propositions, consisting exactly three terms, in which each of the three terms
occurs in exactly two of the propositions.
1.

Terms
a.
b.
c.

Major Term
Minor Term
Middle Term

2.

Premises
a.
Major Premise
b.
Minor Premise
c.
Conclusion

3.

Quantity of Propositions or Terms

a.
Propositions:
i.
Broad or general universal
ii.
Narrow or specific particular

|5
b.

3.

B.

Identifying unstated premises

Identifying unstated conclusions

Polysyllogism string of any number of proposition forming together a sequence of

syllogism such that the conclusion of each syllogism.

VI.

Categorical Propositions and Classes

a. Relationship of Classes
i. Containment; Every member of one class is said to be a member of
another class. Universal Affirmative
ii. No relationship; No member of one class is said to be a member of
a second class. Universal Negative
iii. Partial Containment; Some, but perhaps not all, members of one
class are said to be members of another class. Particular
Affirmative
iv. Partial Non-Containment; Some, but perhaps not all, members of
one class are said not to be members of another class. Particular
Negative
b. Standard Forms of Categorical Proposition
A: Universal Affirmative Proposition
E: Universal Negative Proposition
I: Particular Affirmative Proposition
O: Particular Negative Proposition
c. Categorical Propositions: Quality and Quantity
Quality: Affirmative or Negative
Quantity:
Universal (All, no) or Particular (some)
d. Categorical Propositions: Distributions
A: Universal Affirmative Proposition D-U
E: Universal Negative Proposition D-D
I: Particular Affirmative Proposition U-U
O: Particular Negative Proposition U-D

Enthymeme
1.
2.

C.

Terms:
i.
Broad or general distributed
ii.
Narrow or specific undistributed

Prosyllogism - conclusion
Episyllogism - premise

D.

Premises: Validity and Soundness

The validity of a syllogism and the soundness of the arguments structure deal only
with relations between the premises. Validity deals only with form. It has absolutely
nothing to do with content. Arguments, therefore, may be logically valid, yet
absolutely nonsensical. There is a distinction between the validity of a syllogism
and the truth of its contents.

E.

Six Rules of the Categorical Syllogism (CS)

1. A valid CS must contain exactly three terms, each of which is used in the same
sense throughout the argument.
2. In a valid CS, the middle term must be distributed in at least one premise.
3. In a valid CS, no term can be distributed in the conclusion which is not distributed
in the premise.
4. No CS is valid which has two negative premises.
5. If either premise of a valid CS is negative, the conclusion must be negative.
6. No valid CS with a particular conclusion can have two universal premises.

Inductive Reasoning

|6

Critical in the common-law tradition; undergirds the doctrine of precedent: like things
must be treated alike

A.

Inductive Generalization (induction by enumeration)

Underlies the development of the common law; from many specific case
holdings, a generalized proposition is reached.

B.

Analogy

Does not seek proof of an identity of one thing with another, but only a
comparison of resemblances.

Unlike the technique of enumeration, analogy does not depend upon the
quantity of instances, but upon the quality of resemblances between things.

In the law, points of unlikeness are as important as likeness in the cases

examined.
Criteria in the appraisal of analogical arguments:
1.
The acceptability of the analogy will vary proportionally with the number of
circumstances that have been analyzed.
2.
The acceptability will depend upon the number of positive resemblances
(similarities) and negative resemblances (dissimilarities).
3.
The acceptability will be influenced by the relevance of the purported
analogies. An argument based on a single relevant analogy connected with a
single instance will be more cogent than one which points out a dozen
irrelevant resemblances.

VII.

Introduction to Fallacies

A.
B.

VIII.

In ordinary usage, fallacy can be used to describe a false or erroneous idea; in the law,
it refers to the logical form or content of a syllogism.
Fallacies are dangerous because they are false conclusions or interpretations resulting
from thinking processes that claim or appear to be valid, but fail to conform to the
requirements of logic.
Formal Fallacy argument whose conclusion could be false even if all its premises are
true; can be detected by examining the form or structure of the argument
Informal Fallacy any other argument that does not properly establish the supported
conclusion; an argument contains an informal fallacy when at least one of its premises
is not true, or when the rules of inference are not properly respected

Formal Fallacies
A.

Fallacies in Categorical Syllogism

1.

The Fallacy of Four Terms (Quaternio Terminorum)

Logical quadruped argument has more than three terms

When an argument has in effect two middle terms, it lacks any

basis of comparison for its minor and major terms, so that it is
impossible to draw a legitimate conclusion.

If a term is used in more than one sense, it also violates Rule One; it
also constitutes the material fallacy of equivocation (infra). The
use of an ambiguous term in more than one of its senses amounts to
the use of two distinct terms.
Example:

2.

A ruler is twelve inches long.

King Juan Carlos of Spain is a ruler.
Therefore, King Juan Carlos of Spain is twelve inches long.

The Fallacy of Undistributed Middle

In order to effectively establish the presence of a genuine connection

between the major and minor terms, the premises of a syllogism must

|7
provide some information about the entire class designated by the
middle term. If the middle term were undistributed in both premises,
then the two portions of the designated class of which they speak
might be completely unrelated to each other.

3.

The Fallacy of the Illicit Process of the Major Term and Minor Term
a.

Illicit Major

Major term in the major premise is undistributed but is

distributed in the conclusion; the term is applied to all
members of a class in the conclusion even though it was
limited to some members of the class in the major premise.
Example:

All poets have a creative imagination.

No poets are good business people.
:. No good business people have
imagination.

b.

creative

Illicit Minor

Minor term in the minor premise is undistributed by is

distributed in the conclusion.
Example:

All men are intelligent.

Some animals are men.
:. All animals are intelligent

4.

The Fallacy of Negative Premises/Exclusive Premises

The purpose of the middle term in an argument is to tie the major and
minor terms together in such a way that an inference can be drawn,
but negative propositions state that the terms of the propositions are
exclusive of one another. In an argument consisting of two negative
propositions, the middle term is excluded from both the major term
and the minor term, and thus there is no connection between the two
and no inference can be drawn.

5.

The Fallacy of Particular Premises (Drawing an affirmative conclusion

from a negative premise, or drawing a negative conclusion from an
affirmative premise)

An affirmative proposition asserts that one class is included in some

way in another class, but a negative proposition that asserts exclusion
cannot imply anything about inclusion. For this reason an argument
with a negative proposition cannot have an affirmative conclusion.

6.

Existential Fallacy

Because we do not assume the existential import of universal

propositions, they cannot be used as premises to establish the
existential import that is part of any particular proposition.

Example:

B.

All fragrant things are flowers.

All roses are flowers.
:. Some roses are fragrant.

Fallacies in Hypothetical Syllogism

Hypothetical Syllogism this does not directly assert the existence of a fact;
instead, it contains a condition, if, unless, granted, supposing, etc.

|8

Hypothetical proposition conditional if-then statement; compound

proposition in that every such proposition consists of two component
propositions:
a.
Antecedent component proposition following if
b.
Consequent component proposition following then

Forms and fallacies:

a.
Modus ponens valid if and only if:
i.
the categorical premise affirms the antecedent of the
conditional premise; and
ii.
the conclusion affirms the consequent of the
conditional premise

Fallacy of affirming the consequent

P
Q
P
:. Q
b.

C.

Fallacies in Disjunctive Syllogism

IX.

Modus tollens valid if and only if:

i.
the categorical premise denies the consequent of the
conditional premise; and
ii.
the conclusion denies the antecedent of the conditional
premise
Fallacy of denying the antecedent
P
Q
-Q
:. -P

Disjunctive Syllogism one premise takes the form of a disjunctive proposition

and the other premise and the conclusion are categorical propositions which
either deny or affirm part of the disjunctive proposition
Moods of disjunctive syllogism:
1.
Mood Which By Denying Affirms this does not assume that the
disjunction asserts two mutually exclusive disjuncts; the disjunctive
proposition is not taken to affirm categorically that only one disjunct is
true; it says only that at least one disjunct is true, leaving open the
possibility that both may be true
2.
Mood Which By Affirming Denies this assumes that the disjunction
asserts two mutually exclusive disjuncts; the disjunctive proposition is
taken to affirm categorically that only one disjunct is true
Fallacies:
1.
Fallacy of Missing Disjuncts failure to include all possibilities or
alternatives in the major premise
2.
Fallacy of Nonexclusivity applies only to the second mood; occurs
whenever one assumes that affirming one disjunct shows the other to
be false, when in fact it is possible for both to be true

Informal Fallacies
A.

Fallacies of Irrelevance and Distraction

1.

Fallacy of Irrelevant Evidence (Ignoratio elenchi) or Fallacy of Missing

the Point

Purports to establish a particular conclusion but is instead directed to

proving another conclusion

2.

Fallacies of Distraction

|9

Shift attention from reasoned argument to other things that are

irrelevant, irrational and often emotional

a.

Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad misericordiam)

Evades the pertinent issues and makes a purely emotional

appeal

Not a fallacy when relevant to the decision, e.g. equity cases

and discretionary sentencing; however, if the question under
consideration is a factual issue, an appeal to pity is irrelevant,
and deflects attention away from the facts.

b.

Appeal to Prestige (Argumentum ad verecundiam) or Appeal to

Inappropriate Authority

Appeal to authority or prestige of parties having no legitimate

claim to authority in the matter at hand

Use of pedantic words and phrases, references, quotations,

length, detail and specificity
Case:
Neill, J., dissenting, Cresap v. Pacific Inland Navigation Co., 478 P.2d
223, 228 78 Wash.2d 563 (1970)

c.

Appeal to Ridicule (Argumentum ad hominem)

Shifts an argument from the point being discussed (ad rem) to

irrelevant personal characteristics of an opponent, and makes
the opponent the issue

However, ad hominem may be allowed in the use of evidence

of both bad character and bias for the purpose of attacking a
witness credibility. Another proper use is in receiving expert
witness testimony.
See:
Rules of Court:
Sec. 20 Rule 130 (Witnesses; their qualifications)
Sec. 51 Rule 130 (Character evidence not generally
admissible; exceptions)
Sec. 11 Rule 132 (Impeachment of adverse partys witness)
Sec. 14 Rule 132 (Evidence of good character of witnesses)
Cases:
Melvin v. Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119, 30 June 2008
Sy, et al. v. Fineza, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1808, 15 October 2003

d.

Appeal to the Masses (Argumentum ad populum)

Departs from the question under discussion and attempts to

win assent to a proposition by making an appeal to the feelings
and prejudices of the multitude

Approaches:
a.
Bandwagon Approach - Everybody is doing it.
b.
Patriotic Approach - "Draping oneself in the flag.
c.
Snob Approach - All the best people are doing it.

5.

Appeal to the Ages or Tradition (Argumentum ad antiquitam)

Holds that determinations and customs of our fathers and

forbears must not be changed

6.

Appeal to Novelty, Modernity or Youth (Argumentum ad

novitatem)

|10

B.

Claims that an idea or proposal is superior exclusively because

it is new and modern

7.

Appeal to Terror (Argumentum ad terrorem)

Appeal to fear of exaggerated consequences in the event an

adversarys argument prevails

8.

Argument from Force (Argumentum ad baculum)

Substitutes veiled threats for logical persuasion or asserts

something must be the case because thats just the way
things are

9.

Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad ignoratiam)

Argues 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

Exception: meeting ones burden of proof in a trial

See:
Sec. 2 Rules 133 Rules of Court (Proof beyond reasonable
doubt)

10.

Straw Man Argument

Includes any lame attempt to prove an argument by

overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of
the opposing side

11.

Fallacy of Stacking the Deck

The speaker stacks the deck in his favor by ignoring

examples that disprove the point, and listing only those
examples that support her case. This fallacy is closely related
to hasty generalization, but the term usually implies deliberate
deception rather than an accidental logical error.

12.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (Argumentum ad speculum)

Trying to prove something in the real world by using imaginary

examples alone, or asserting that, if hypothetically X had
occurred, Y would have been the result.

13.

Genetic Fallacy

Claims that an idea, product, or person must be untrustworthy

because of its racial, geographic, or ethnic origin

Fallacies of Context and Content

1.

Overzealous Application of a General Rule / Fallacy of Accident (Dicto

simpliciter)

Applies a generalization to an individual case that it does not

necessarily govern; the mistake often lies in failing to recognize that
there may be exceptions to a general rule

2.

Hasty Generalization / Fallacy of Selected Instances

Occurs when we construct a general rule from an inadequate number

of incidents; results from enumerating instances without obtaining a
representative number to establish an inductive generalization
Fallacy of Statistical Simplicity

The probability of a sampling error tends to diminish as the size of

the sample increases. But size alone is no protection.

|11

3.

False cause

Treats as the cause of a thing something that is not really its cause
a.
No causa pro causa

Mistakes what is not the cause of a given effect as the real

cause; the events could be so correlated because they were
both caused by a third, unexamined event, although neither
caused the other
b.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

The suggested inference that one event is the cause of another

simply because the first occurs earlier than the other; more
prevalent in the law

B comes after A (post hoc). Therefore (ergo), B comes because

of A (propter hoc).

4.

Irrelevant Conclusion (Non sequitur) or Fallacy of the Consequent

Argument that contains a conclusion that does not necessarily follow

from the premises or any antecedent statement offered in its support

The difference between the post hoc and the non sequitur fallacies is
that the post hoc fallacy lacks a causal connection; the non sequitur
fallacy lacks a logical connection.

5.

Compound (complex) questions

Arises when: (1) two or more questions are asked at once, and a single
answer is required; (2) a question is phrased as to beg another
question; (3) the question makes a false presumption or (4) the
assertion frames a complex question but demands a simple answer.
See:

Relevant rules on Evidence, e.g. laying the basis or predicate for

questions in the examination of witnesses

6.

Circular Argument / Begging the question (Petition principii)

Assumes the truth of what one seeks to prove in the effort to prove it;
the conclusion lies buried in the premises used to reached that
conclusion

7.

Tu quoque

A charge of wrongdoing is answered by a rationalization that others

have sinned, or might have sinned.

Yet, in the law, tu quoque arguments can sometimes be used as an

effective defense, e.g. in matters of provocation, in the equitable
defense of in pari delicto

See:
Article 13(4), Revised Penal Code (mitigating circumstance of sufficient
provocation or threat of the offended party which immediately preceded the
act)
C.

Linguistic Fallacies
1.
Equivocation

Confuse several meanings of a word or phrase in the context of an

argument; allow the meaning of a term to shift between the premises
of the argument and the conclusion
2.

Amphibology

Ambiguity comes from the grammatical structure; the double meaning

lies not in the word but in the syntax or grammatical construction of a
sentence

|12

Arise in an argument where meaning is muddled by slovenly syntax

bad grammar, poor punctuation, dangling participles, misplaced
modifiers

3.

Composition

Mistakenly impute the attributes of a part of a whole to the whole itself

4.

Division

Mistakenly argue that attributes of a whole must also be present in

each part of that whole

5.

Vicious Abstraction

Removal of a statement from its context, thereby changing the

meaning of an argument

6.

Argumentum ad nauseum

Unnecessarily long brief or a windbag oral argument where the

advocate seeks to sustain his position by repetition piled upon
repetition rather than by succinct, effective proof or logical
development