LEGAL LOGIC Premise – the statement that serves as the basis
or support of the conclusion
CHAPTER 1
LOGIC
Logic is the study of the principles and methods
of good reasoning. It is a science of reasoning
which aims to determine and laydown the
criteria of good (correct) reasoning and bad
(incorrect) reasoning.
Purpose:
It is by means of logic that we clarify our ideas,
assess the acceptability of the claims and
beliefs we encounter, defend and justify our
assertions and statements, and make rational
and sound decisions.
Its task does not merely describe how people
reason but to discover and make available
those criteria that can be used to test
arguments for correctness.
When to use legal reasoning?
Legal reasoning is what we use when we apply
laws, rules, and regulations to particular facts
and cases; it is what we use when we interpret
constitutions and statures, when we evaluate
evidences, and make judgments to render
legal decisions.
Importance:
Legal education should include the
understanding and analysis of the fundamental
principles and methodologies of legal
reasoning that will enable the law students to
discriminate between good and bad patterns
of legal argumentation.
LEGAL REASONING
Argument as an Expression of Reasoning
Argument:
- is a claim put forward and defended
with reasons
- Is a group of statement in which one
statement is claimed to be true on the
basis of another statement/s
Conclusion – the statement that is being
claimed to be true
Words or phrases that typically serve to the
indicate the premise or the conclusion:
Common conclusion indicators – therefore, so,
thus, hence
Common premise indicators – because, since,
for, inasmuch as
RECOGNIZING ARGUMENT
Explanation vs Argument
Explanation – is an attempt to show why
something is the case
Argument – is an attempt to show that
something is the case
*Unlike arguments, explanations are not meant
to prove or justify the truth of a particular claim.
Nature of Reasons:
Explanation – reasons are usually the causes or
factors that show how or why a thing came to
exist
Arguments – they are intended to provide
grounds to justify a claim, to show that it is
plausible or true.
*Typically, explanations are given by citing
causes of the event to be explained.
Argument – Is the speaker’s intent to prove or
establish that something is the case – that is, to
provide reasons or evidence for accepting a
claim as true
Explanation – Is it his/her intent to explain why
something is the case – that is, to offer an
account of why some event has occurred or
why something is the way it is
Arguments vs Unsupported Opinions
Unsupported Opinions – statements of belief or
opinion are statements about what a speaker
or writer happens to believe (no reason, no
premise given)
Arguments vs Conditional Statements
Conditional statement – contains an if-then
relationship
Two basic components:
1. Antecedent (if-clause)
2. Consequent (then-clause)
*Conditional statements are not arguments
because there is no claim that one statement is
true because of the other statement.
COMPONENTS OF LEGAL REASONING
Issue. Rule. Fact. Analysis. Conclusion
1. Issue
What is being argued?
An issue is any matter of controversy or
uncertainty; an issue is a point in dispute, in
doubt, in question, or simply up for discussion or
consideration.
*Always formulated in an interrogative
sentence.
*The relevance of the premises depends on the
very issue the argument is addressing.
*An issue is different from a topic
conversation or argumentation.
2. Rule
What legal rules govern the issue?
3 parts of rules (Richard Nuemann)
1. A set of elements, collectively called a
test
2. A result that occurs when all the
elements are present, and the test is thus
satisfied
3. A causal term that determines whether
the result is mandatory, prohibitory,
discretionary, or declaratory
*The rule can also take form of cases or
principles that courts have already decided.
(Stare Decisis)
3. Fact
What are the facts that are relevant to the rule
cited?
Material facts – these are the facts that fit the
elements of the rule
The rule would be satisfied if the facts if the
present case cover all the elements of the rule.
*Bad man model – the bad man only cares for
the consequences of the law, and what the
courts will do to him.
4. Analysis
How applicable are the facts to the said rule?
*This part is supposed to show the link between
the rules and the facts we presented to establish
what we are claiming in our argument.
*The concern here is whether the material facts
truly fit the law.
5. Conclusion
What is the implication of applying the rule to
the given facts?
*The ultimate end of a legal argument.
*It is what the facts, the rules and the analysis of
the case amount to.
of EVALUATING LEGAL REASONING
2 criteria to distinguish correct from incorrect:
1. Truth
2. Logic
2 main processes in legal reasoning:
1. Presentation of facts which pertains to
the question of truth
2. Inference (deriving a legal claim or
judgment from the given laws and facts)
which pertains to the question of logic.
First Process
- Are the premises provided in the
argument true or acceptable?
*It is necessary for the conclusion of a legal
argument to be grounded on factual basis, for
if the premises that are meant to establish the
truth of the legal claim (conclusion) is
questionable, the conclusion itself is
questionable.
Second Process
 - Is the reasoning of the argument correct
or logical?
- Does the conclusion of the argument
logically follow from its premises?
*The premises of the argument must not only be
factual but the connection of the premises to
the conclusion must be logically coherent, that
is , the movement from the facts, to the analysis,
and to the main claim must be valid.
In accepting the truth of a premise or evidence:
1. One must consider its coherence to
credible sources of information and
general set of facts already presented
2. One must also consider whether the
facts presented are clear and
unambiguous or need more clarification.
CHAPTER 2
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPRS IN LEGAL
REASONING
*Often used concepts and principles in
supporting an argument or position. These
concepts and principles are principally found
under the Rules of Court and highlighted in
numerous decisions of the Supreme Court.
BURDEN OF PROOF
- The duty of any party to present
evidence his claim or defense by the
amount of evidence required by law.
*Burden of proof lies upon him who asserts it, not
upon him who denies, since by the nature of
things, he who denies a fact cannot produce
any proof of it.
*Mere allegation is not evidence.
Equipoise Doctrine
- When the evidence of the parties are
even balanced or there is doubt on
which side the evidence preponderates,
the decision should be against the party
with the burden of proof.
- The burden of proof is upon the party
who alleges the truth of his claim or
defense or any fact in issue.
EVIDENCE
- The means sanctioned by the Rules of
Court of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter
of fact.
Best Evidence Rule
- Applies only when the content of such
document is the subject of the inquiry
Testimonial Evidence
- Where the issue is only as to whether such
document was actually executed, or
exists, or on the circumstances relevant
to or surrounding its execution
ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCE
*Evidence is deemed admissible if it is relevant
to the issue and more importantly if it is not
excluded by provision of law or by the Rules of
Court.
*Evidence must have such a relation to the fact
in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence
*Evidence to be believed must proceed not
only from the mouth of a credible witness but
must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of
conformity with the knowledge and common
experience of mankind
TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES
Testimony – generally confined to personal
knowledge and therefore excludes hearsay.
*Witness can only testify to those facts which he
knows of his personal knowledge which are
derived from his own perception, except
otherwise provided under the Rules of Court.
Hearsay Rule
- A witness may not testify as to what he
merely learned from others either
because he was told, or he read or
heard the same. Such testimony is
considered hearsay and may not be
received as proof of the truth.
EXPERT TESTIMONY
- Statements made by individuals who are
considered as experts in a particular field
*The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring
special knowledge, skill, experience or training
which he is shown to possess, may be received
in evidence.
EXAMINATION
Individual witness may be examined as follows:
1. Direct examination by the proponent
2. Cross-examination by the opponent
3. Re-direct examination by the proponent
4. Re-cross-examination by the proponent
The witness cannot be recalled without leave of
the court.
A witness may be impeached by the party
against whom he was called, by contradictory
evidence, by evidence that his general
reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad,
or by evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present
testimony but not by evidence of particular
wrongful acts, expect that it may be shown by
the examination of the witness, or the record of
the judgment, that he has been convicted of
an offense.
DEPENDENCE ON PRECEDENTS
Stare Decisis
- When a point has been settled by a
decision, it becomes precedent which
should be followed in subsequent cases
before the same court.
*For the interest of uniformity and certainty of
the law. This ensures not only the stability of the
judicial process but also strengthens our justice
system allowing for continuity.
*This rule does not elicit blind adherence to
precedents; Only upon showing that
circumstances attendant in a particular case
override the great benefits derived by our
judicial system from the doctrine of stare decisis,
can courts be justified in setting aside the same.
CHAPTER 3
DEDUCTIVE REASONING IN LAW
When appellate courts, for instance, would
determine whether the correct rules of law were
applied to the given facts or whether the rules
of law were applied in establishing the facts,
they employ deductive reasoning.
We are reasoning deductively when our
premises intend to guarantee the truth or our
conclusion while we reason inductively when
our premises are intended to provide good (but
not conclusive) evidence for the truth of our
conclusion. They differ in the amount of support
they provide.
Deductive Reasoning
- Conclusions of these arguments are
established by the premises with
absolute certainty
Inductive Reasoning
- Simply claim that their conclusions are
likely or probable given the premises
offered.
SYLLOGISMS
- Is a three-line argument that is an
argument that consists of exactly two
premises and a conclusion
Perfect Syllogism:
- Major premise should be the general law
- Minor premise, the act, which does or
does not conform to the law
- Conclusion, acquittal or condemnation
What do we mean by valid and invalid
arguments?
All deductive arguments claim implicitly or
explicitly that their conclusions follow
necessarily from their premises. However, some
deductive arguments have conclusions which
do not follow necessarily from their premises.
These arguments are invalid deductive
arguments. A valid deductive argument in
which the conclusion really does follow
necessarily from the premises.
*No valid argument can have all true premises QUANTITY OF THE PREDICATE
and a false conclusion
2 Rules
*What determines the validity or invalidity of the
1. Predicate of an affirmative statement is
argument is not the truth or falsity of its premises
generally particular. However, in
or conclusion but the relationship between its
statements where the subject and the
premises and conclusion that is, whether the
predicate are identical, the predicate is
conclusion follows necessarily from the premises
universal.
or put another way, whether the premises
2. The predicate of a negative statement is
guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
always universal.

PARTS OF A CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

TYPES OF SYLLOGISMS
- A deductive argument consisting of
Categorical Syllogism three categorical statements that
together contain exactly three terms,
Hypothetical Syllogism
each of which occurs in exactly twoo of
Categorical syllogism is a syllogism composed the constituent statements.
of categorical statements alone.
3 Kind of Terms:
Hypothetical syllogism includes both
Minor term (S) – the subject of the conclusion
categorical and hypothetical statements.
(subject term)
Categorical statement
Major term (Predicate) – the predicate of the
- Is a statement that directly asserts conclusion (predicate term)
something or states a fact without any
Middle term (M) – the term found in both
conditions. Its subject is simple affirmed
premises and serves to mediate between the
or denied by the predicate.
minor and the major terms
Hypothetical statement
3 Kinds of Statements
- Is a compound statement which
Minor premise – the premise which contains the
contains a proposed or tentative
minor term
explanation. A compound statement
consists of at least two clauses Major premise – the premise which contains the
connected by conjunctions, adverbs, major term
etc, which express the relationship
Conclusion – the statement the premises
between the classes as well as our assent
support
to it. The clauses are simple statement or
statements that contain one subject and
one predicate.
Example:
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
MP (major premise)
Properties of a Categorical Statement
SM (minor premise)
- Quality
o Affirmative SP (conclusion)
o Negative
- Quantity
o Universal PM (major premise)
o Particular SM (minor premise)

SP (conclusion)
RULES FOR THE VALIDITY OF CATEGORICAL Modus Tollens
SYLLOGISMS
A>C
Rules 1. The syllogism must not contain two
~C
negative premises. (Fallacy of Exclusive
Premises) ~A
Rule 2. There must be three pairs of univocal Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent
term. (Fallacy of Equivocation)
A>C
Rule 3. The middle term must be universal at
least once. (Fallacy of Particular Middle) ~A

Rule 4. If the term in the conclusion is universal, ~C

the same term in the premise must also be Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent
universal. (Fallacy of Illicit Minor or Major)
A>C

C
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISMS
A
- Is a syllogism that contains a hypothetical
statement as one of its premises

CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISMS ENTHYMEMES

- A syllogisms in which the major premise is
a conditional statement
Conditional Statement
- A compound statement which asserts
that one member (the then clause) is
true on condition that the other member
(the if clause) is true.
A – for the antecedent
- Not all parts of the syllogism are
expressed; This kind of argument that is
stated incompletely, part being
“understood” or only “in the mind”
POLYSYLLOGISMS
- Is a series of syllogisms in which the
conclusion of one syllogism supplies a
premise of the next syllogism

C – for the consequent

~ - for the negation of the statement

> - for “implies”

- - for “therefore”

RULES FOR CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISMS

2 Valid Forms

Modus Ponens
A>C

A
C