SARACHO, NICOLE R.

15-5017
Legal Technique and Logic
To win in a court, you must master the elements of legal
logic- the ultimate tool of persuasion in the courtroom 1
One of the primary weapons of an effective lawyer is their
ability to construct persuasive and credible Arguments. It will
be effectively used if one understands and is well versed in
the principles of Logic and Legal Reasoning.
Logic is the study of principles and methods of good
reasoning. It is a science of reasoning which aims to
determine and lay down the criteria of good and bad
reasoning.2 The purpose of logic is to probe into the
fundamental concepts of argument, interference, truth, and
falsity. By the help of logic, ideas will be clarified, criticize the
credibility of different arguments to be encountered, defend
and justify different arguments and most importantly make
rational and sound decisions.

1 Aldisert, Ruggero J., Logic for Lawyers: A Guide to Clear Thinking. (NITA, 2001).
2 Aquino, David and Evangelista, Francis, Legal Logic. (Central Book Supply Inc., 2015).

Logic is primarily used to criticize whether an argument is

credible or not. It is an indispensable tool in the field of law.
Logic helps lawyers to reason effectively. The quality of a
lawyers argument is primarily dependent on the adeptness of
his legal reasoning. Legal Reasoning is primarily used in
making judgments and rendering legal decision by applying
the laws, rules, and regulations to particular facts and cases. It
is also used to interpret constitutions and statutes, analyze
fundamental principles and policies and evaluate evidences. 3
By applying the elements and fundamental principles of legal
reasoning, a lawyers legal judgments and decisions will shift
from mere subjective preference to objective rationale. A
subjective preference is an argument mainly based on a
persons emotion. Their view is more experiential, which tends
to be more empathetic and based on instinct. A subjective
preference tends to be more biased and untruthful, which
makes their arguments not based on the whole picture of the
facts. On the other hand, an objective perception is an
argument mainly based on a rational and unemotional point of

3 Supra at 2.

view. By having an objective perception, they make their

arguments by looking into the whole picture then use laws to
make a sound argument. An objective person is a good
negotiator. An objective rationale decisions and judgments
can better serve the rule of law. Legal Reasoning helps
lawyers to criticize whether a legal argumentation is effective
or not.
Legal Reasoning helps lawyers to create sound reasoning and
valid argumentation in order to justify a claim, defend a theory,
criticize the strength of evidences and render judicious
decision.
In order to have an effective and powerful legal reasoning,
one should have credible and sound arguments. An argument
is a claim put forward and defended with reasons. It is a group
of statements in which one statement is claimed to be true on
the basis of another statement/s. The one being claimed to be
true is called the conclusion. The basis or support of the
conclusion is called the premise. A lawyer is making an
argument on the moment he/she attempts to prove, justify or
defend a particular claim by correcting it to one or more

claims. A lawyer speaking in arguments helps him avoid

making merely assumptions and claims. They support their
assumptions and claims by providing justification, reasons or
premises for the claim.

Hence, a lawyer being adept in

arguing is more persuasive and convincing. Being able to

argue effectively is a lawyers most important weapon in the
court or in his practice.
However, lawyers should be careful in making their
arguments. They should not conclude that once they argue,
they could already persuade people. Not all arguments are
credible

and

acceptable.

In

Logic,

arguments

are

characterized categorized as either: (1) Logical or illogical; (2)

Valid or invalid; (3) Sound or unsound. The quality of ones
arguments depends on the reasonableness of the premises
and the connection and relationship between the premise and
the conclusion.
For lawyers to craft convincing and persuasive arguments,
he/she should be skilled in determining the logic and
soundness of arguments. They should be able to criticize and
analyze the structure and content of arguments as a whole in

relation with the issues and problems raised. A lawyer should

with the chief claim of the argument, be able to recognize the
bases and premises to support the claim and what are the
crucial assumptions inferred in ones reasoning. In this, we
can infer that a lawyer should be familiar with the two basic
elements in an argument, which are the conclusion and the
premises. There are indicators to identify which is a premise
and conclusion. The commonly used indicators of a premise
are: (1) Because; (2) Since; (3) For; (4) In as much as and other
similar subordination conjunctions. On the other hand, the
commonly used indicators of a conclusion are: (1)Therefore;
(2) So; (3) Thus; (4) Hence and other similar conjunctive
adverb. However, it must be noted that these indicators are
does not always mean that what follows is the premise or the
conclusion and sometimes not all arguments are composed of
these indicators.
In reading passages, especially if it is long and complex it
is helpful to underline or highlight indicator words. It helps
one to have a landmark that will help one recognize the

crucial relationships of support within the passage to its

argumentative structure.
Example No. 1: Abortion should not be legalized even
in cases of rape and incest because it is not morally
permissible to kill an innocent child due to someone elses
fault.4
In Example No.1, the word because introduces the premise
that supports the arguers position against abortion.
Example No. 2: MMDAs campaign to get rid of
sidewalk vendors is right. The proliferation of these
sidewalk vendors slows down the movement of vehicles
causing heavy traffic.5
Studying the passage, it can be inferred that the first
sentence is the conclusion and the second sentence being
the premise. The second statement supports the first
statements assertion. In this passage, it can be noticed
that there are no indicators used.
It must be taken into consideration that not all group
of statements are arguments. One should not mistake an
4 Supra at 2.
5 Supra at 2.

argument with an explanation. The latter is an attempt to

show why something is the case while the former is an
attempt to show that something is the case. These two
shall

be

distinguished

because

unlike

arguments,

explanations are not meant to prove or justify the truth of a

particular

claim.

Although

both

arguments

and

conclusions give reasons, the nature of these reasons

differs. In the latter, these reasons are usually the causes
or factors that show how or why a thing came to exist. The
formers reasons provide grounds to justify a claim, to
show that it is plausible or true.6
Statement No.1: Hubert Webb and company were
acquitted by the Supreme Court because the court found
inherent inconsistencies in the evidences provided by the
prosecution.7
Statement No.2: Any law that prohibits people from
expressing their view is unconstitutional because our
Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech. 8

6 Supra at 2.
7 Supra at 2.
8 Supra at 2.

In the following statements, one is an explanation while the

other is an argument. The first statement is an explanation
because it explains why Hubert Webb is acquitted. It explains
the why. It does not prove or dispute a particular claim. It cited
the cause of event to be explained. It explained that Hubert
Webb and company were acquitted due to the event that the
court found inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the
prosecution.The second statement is an argument because it
provided grounds to justify a claim. The phrase Constitution
guarantees the freedom of speech is used to justify the claim
that Any law that prohibits people from expressing their view is
unconstitutional.
To sum it up to distinguish arguments from explanations,
the key is to know if the speakers intent is to prove or establish
that something is the case- that is, to provide reasons or
evidence for accepting acclaim as true OR it is the speakers
intent to explain why something is the case- that is, to offer an
account f why some event has occurred or why something the
way it is. If the question is the former, the statement or passage

is an argument. If it is the latter, then the statement or passage is

a statement.9
Another thing to be considered is to distinguish Arguments from
an Unsupported Opinion. The latter shows the speakers stance
or belief. Such statements can be true or false, rational or
irrational. They form part of an argument in the instance that
they follow from or support, other claims. For an unsupported
opinion to be considered as an argument, it shall give basis or
evidence to support such opinion. One example is the passage:
I agree with the proposed Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Act being discussed at present in a bicameral conference
committee of the Congress. Republic Act 9344 must be
amended. The minimum age of criminal liability must be lowered
from 15 to 12. This passage is an unsupported opinion. It did not
provide for a basis or premise as to why the speaker wanted to
amend Republic Act 9344.
Similarly, Arguments

are

also

often

confused

with

conditional statements. A statement is conditional if it contains

an if-then relationship. There are two components in a

9 Supra at 2.

conditional statement. First is the antecedent (if clause). Second

is the consequent (then clause). It shall not be considered as an
argument because there is no basis to prove that the statement
is true due to the other statement. For example:
If the Philippines adopt a parliamentary government,
then we will not elect a President anymore.10
In this example, it can be noticed that no part of the
sentence seems to be true. It just merely shows the outcome of
something if one event happened. In conditional statements, no
premise is asserted, no inferences are made, and no conclusion
is claimed to be true. Hence, there is no argument.
In studying Legal Reasoning, it must be noted that it
follows a similar pattern in proving, justifying and defending a
claim. There are essential components that must be present in a
legal argument for it to be credible. The first is the issue of the
argument.

The

purpose of

legal

reasoning

and

making

arguments is to solve a particular issue. An issue is any matter

of controversy or uncertainty, a point in dispute, in doubt in
question or simply up for discussion or consideration. It is

10 Supra at 2.

always formulated in an interrogative sentence. 11 In law, an issue

is either political or justiciable. An argument is based solely on
the issue at hand. The argument address the issue. The
argument becomes credible if it directly answers the issue with
basis.
The second component of legal reasoning is the Rule. To
be able to argue effective and convincingly, one must be able to
cite a rule or law as a basis and apply it to the case at hand or
helps solve or settle the issue being raised. A rule can also take
form in cases that has been decided by the courts and principles
that can be derived therefrom. The reasoning here consists of
arguments that the case under discussion is similar to that prior
case (stare decisis) or pricnciple.12
According to Richard Neumann, rules have at least three
components. First, a set of elements, collectively a test. Second,
a result that occurs when all the elements are present. Third, a
causal term that determines whether the result is mandatory,
prohibitory, discretionary or declaratory. It must be taken into
consideration that in some rules, the governing body gives an
11
12 Supra at 2.

exception that the present of which would defeat the result even
if the elements were complete. It is noteworthy to take in mind
that the existing rule governing the issue should be specifically
cited. Judges, in deciding an issue is guided by rules in order to
render a sound decision.
Another essential component is the Fact. The fact should
be complete but only material and relevant facts are to be
considered. Facts should fit the elements of the rule. One could
make a credible rule if the facts would cover the elements of a
rule. In order to make sound reasoning, the facts should not be
one sided. One should be able to determine the facts the
prosecution will present and the one the defendant would
present. One should be able to refute the in order to have a
greater chance to win a case.
The last component of Legal Reasoning is Analysis. One
must be able to criticize or determine if the rule that will be
applied is fit to the facts at hand.
The last thing to be discussed and the most important is
how to distinguish credible reasoning from bad reasoning.
There are two essential criteria to ascertain this. The first is the

TRUTH and the second is LOGIC. In ascertaining the truth, legal

reasoning is involved. Legal Reasoning helps in establishing
whether the facts are credible and by ascertaining such, will
help the court in rendering sound decisions. The second criteria,
is inference. It criticizes whether or not the idea is logical. The
argument is criticized and probed to know whether the
reasoning is in line with the argument. It shows whether the
argument answers the issue presented. The connection of the
premises must not only be factual but the connection of the
premises to the conclusion must be logically coherent. The
facts, the analysis and main claim must all in all be valid. 13
To sum it up, it clearly shows that Law and Logic are
clearly intertwined. One cannot deviate from logic in answering
legal questions. Arguments made by lawyer require logic in
order to be convincing and credible in the eyes of the judge.

13 Supra at 2.