LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC finding justice principle & apply each case

to the facts by
A. Basics of logic and its application to legal subsuming
thinking and legal argument Function of Provide all Find
Doctrine practitioners w/ differences&
Deductive Reasoning a guideline for similarities in
based on the act of proving a conclusion by handling & decided cases
means of two other propositions. deciding on to extract
reasoning in which a conclusion is compelled specific future specific rules
by known facts cases by from decided
syllogism developing basic cases
rules
Syllogism Appointment of Appoint young Selected &
powerful tool because of its rigid flexibility Judges highly skilled but appointed only
inexperienced from among
Three Parts:
graduates experienced
a. Major Premise: states a broad and
practicing
generally applicable truth.
lawyers
b. Minor Premise: states a specific and
Procedural Focus on Adversarial
usually more narrowly applicable truth.
settlement of the
c. Conclusion: drawn from the two
dispute
premises that offers a new insight that
is known to be true based on the
premises.
Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege
Principle: What is true of the
there is no crime when there is no law
universal is true of the particular.
punishing it
Inductive Reasoning
Precedent
anthitesis of deductive
basic ingredient of the common law
specific conclusions are generalized to
narrow rule that emerges from a specific fact
general conclusions
situation
multiple particular to general
Principle: The world is sufficiently regular Stare Decisis
to permit the discovery of general rules. stare decisis et non quieta movere
things that are settles should not be
B. Civil Law Tradition vs. Common Law Tradition
disturbed
Civil Law Tradition
II. Legal Thinking
the law is almost entirely codified, highly
systemized and structured and that it relies A. Moral, Aesthetic and Legal reasoning
on broad, general principles, without
necessarily setting out the details. 1. Moral reasoning and Moral deliberation
basis of private law; quantified
appear for the most part in reported usually Moral Relativism
judgments rendered by higher courts. nobody is objectively right or wrong
culture- based
Common Law Tradition
known for its jurisprudence, for a system of Moral Subjectvism
legal precepts that emerge from court our own mental activity is the only
decisions unquestionable fact of our own experience.
Differences Utilitarianism
CIVIL LAW COMMON LAW achieving greatest happiness for the general
Sources of Codified Judge-made
welfare
Law case law
Principle of Bound to codes Subject to these Duty Theory or Deontologism
precedent & & reason two principles
moral duty
stare decisis
Method of legal Develop Dominated on duty ethics, place the emphasis on adhering
thinking & abstract focusing on to ethical principles or duties
 postulate the existence of moral absolutes
that make an action moral
Virtue Ethics
focuses on how to live
how to develop a good character
Divine Command Theory
different divine authorities
2. Aesthetic Reasoning
judgments about beauty and art
rely on conceptual frameworks that integrate
fact and value
Principles:
a. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they have a
meaning or teach something true.
identifies value in art that fulfills a cultural or
social function by teaching that non-art cannot
provide.
e.g. More happens in one episode of
teleserye than what happens to me in one
year.
b. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they express
the values of the culture they arise in, or the artists
who make them.
value in art that fulfills cultural or social function.
e.g. Homers Iliad makes a warriors
value vivid.
c. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they can lead
to social change.
social change is an improvement
e.g. Noli Me Tangere & El Filibusterismo
d. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they give their
audience pleasure.
contributes to our happiness, connecting value
with a thjng s ability to produce a type of
psychological experience, aesthetic hedonism.
e.g. Fifty Shades of Grey
e. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they give their
audience certain emotions.
emotions are not daily occurrences
e.g. The Lincoln Memorial is awesome.
f. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they produce a
special nonemotional experience that comes only
from art, such as autonomy, or, the willing
suspension of disbelief.
comes down to the production of a certain
subjective state
e.g. Ansel Adams photo of Yosemite
Valley are breathtaking.
g. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they possess
a special aesthetic(formal) property, such as beauty,
unity, or organization.
the art object is valuable for itself
e.g. Monets waterlilies series of oil
paintings beautifully displaying his
obsession with color and design
h. Objects are aesthetically valuable because of
features that no reasons can determine and no
argument can establish.
moral subjectivism; an object is aesthetically
valuable if someone values it
e.g. She loves the look of her antique
bathtub.
3. Legal Reasoning
addresses itself both to the foundation of law
in general and to the interpretation of specific
laws.
Resembles moral reasoning
Note: Both involve value judgments, though
the commands of law come with clear social
enforcement behind them
Legal Principles:
a. Legal Moralism
position that the law should prohibit anything
immoral
e.g. prostitution should be illegal
because it is immoral
b. Harm Principle
the law should only prohibit activities that harm
others
e.g. prostitution would be outlawed
because those engaging in it could
spread diseases to their unwary partners
c. Legal Paternalism
we stop people from behaving a certain way for
their own good
prohibits harm to himself/ herself
e.g. laws that limit the hours in which bars
may open
d. Offense Principle
gives a society the right to ban activities that are
generally found offensive
e.g. Spitting in the streets in Singapore
Legal interpretation thus addresses itself to
issues of vagueness
Many important legal arguments involve an
appeal to precedent, in which one uses an
established judicial decision to interpret a
new case
Based on the desire for consistency, the
similar treatment of similar situations.
III. The Language of Logic

A. Basic Expressions of Logic IV. Introduction to Deductive Reasoning and

Inductive Reasoning
Case Method Study
study the decisions of the Court because the A. Deductive Reasoning
justices interpret the law
study of the logical method and principles Two propositions which imply the third
which is used to make decisions proposition, the conclusion, are called
premises. The broad proposition that forms
Socratic Method the starting point of deduction is called the
dialectical method of teaching major premise; the second proposition is
called the minor premise. The major premise
Logical Thought represents the all; the minor premise,
same as reflective thinking something or someone included in the all.
works without emotion
B. Inductive Reasoning
works by comparison, yes or no, either/ or.
Seeks conclusion, decision between two In law, as in general logic, there are
opposing choices fundamental differences between the two
Process that requires some attention to be types of reasoning:
directed to each step of the process
Deductive Reasoning Inductive Reasoning
Reflective Thinking The connection between The connection between
refers to processes of analyzing and making a given piece of given pieces of information
judgments about what has happened information and another and another piece inferred
piece of information from them is not a logically
Proposition concluded from it is a necessary connection.
refers to the content or meaning of a necessary connection.
meaningful declarative sentence A deductive argument is An inductive argument is
includes having the quality or property of one whose conclusion is one whose conclusion is
being either true or false claimed to follow from claimed to follow from its
its premises with premises only with
Term absolute necessity. If probability and not
part of speech representing something, but the premises are valid, absolute necessity. All that
which is not true or false in its own right the conclusion is valid. If is represented is that the
e.g. man, mortal the conclusion is valid, conclusion is more
the premises are valid. probable than not. Its
Inference premises do not provide
conclusion inferred from the data conclusive support for the
conclusion; they provide
Implication only some support for it.
the data implies the conclusion In a valid deductive In a valid inductive
argument, if the argument, the conclusion
premises are true, the is not necessarily an
Conclusion
conclusion must be true. absolute truth; by
* it offers a new insight that is known to be true
induction, we reach a
based on the premises.
conclusion that is only
more probably true than
B. Conclusion Testing
not.
a conclusion can be true only when
Moves by inference Moves from the particular
(1) the other proposition are true
from the general to the general (universal)
(2) these propositions imply the conclusion
(universal) ultimately to (induced generalization by
not all means of persuasion are based on
the particular. enumeration of instances),
reflective thinking or formal logic
or from the particular to
some forms of persuasion are not qualify i.e.
the particular (analogy).
rhetoric
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 certain relevant
resemblances and differences between the
case at bar and another single case or a
relatively small group of cases.
V. Deductive Reasoning
A. 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. MAJOR TERM: predicate of the major
premise and the conclusion.
b. MINOR TERM: predicate of minor
premise and the conclusion
c. MIDDLE TERM: includes in both
premises but not in the conclusion
2. Premises
a. MAJOR PREMISE: states a broad and
generally applicable truth
b. MINOR PREMISE: states a specific and
usually more narrowly applicable truth
3. Quantity of Propositions or Terms
I. Propositions:
a. UNIVERSAL: broad or general
b. PARTICULAR: narrow or specific
II. Terms
a. DISTRIBUTED: broad or general
b. UNDISTRIBUTED: narrow or specific
4. Relationship of Classes
a. CONTAINMENT: every member of one
class is said to be a member of another class
b. NO RELATIONSHIP: no member of one
class is said to be a member of a second
class
c. PARTIAL CONTAINMENT: Some, but
perhaps not all, members of one class are
all said to be members of another class
d. PARTIAL NON- CONTAINMENT: Some,
but perhaps not all, members of one class
are said not to be members of another class
STANDARD FORMS OF CATEGORICAL
PROPOSITIONS
A: Universal Affirmative
E: Universal Negative
I: Particular Affirmative
O: Particular Negative
PROPOSITIO SUBJECT PREDICATE
N
A D U
E D D
I U U
O U D
Case: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 227
N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916) include Chief
Judge Bartletts dissenting opinion
Enthymeme
an informally stated syllogism with an unstated
presumption that must be true for the premises to
lead the conclusion
a. unstated premise
b. unstated conclusion
Case: Leliefield v Johnson
Polysyllogism
string of any number of propositions forming
together a sequence of syllogisms such that the
conclusion of each syllogism, together with the next
proposition, is a premise for the next, and so on.
a. Prosyllogism: the conclusion of
which is used as a premise of another
syllogism except the last
b. Episyllogism: one of the premise of
which is the conclusion of a preceding
syllogism; validity deals only with
form.
e.g. It is raining.
If we go out while it is raining
we will get wet.
Therefore, if we go out we will
get wet.
If we go out we will get wet.
If we get wet, we will get cold.
Therefore, if we go out we will
get cold.
SIX RULES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
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.
Cases:
Morales Development Co., Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-26572, 28 March
1969
Tavora v. Gavina, G.R. No. L-1257, 30 October
1947, including Resolution dated 11 December
1947
VI. INDUCTIVE REASONING
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.
Cases:
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 227 N.Y.
382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916)
Nielson and Co., Inc. v. Lepanto
Consolidated Mining Co., G.R. No. L-21601,
17 December 1966
VIII. Formal Fallacies
A. Fallacies in Categorical Syllogism
1. The Fallacy of Four Terms (Quaternio
Terminorum)
Logical quadruped argument has more
than three terms
When it consists of four terms rather than
three because one of the terms is used with
two different meanings.
If a term is used in more than one sense, it
also violates Rule One; it also constitutes the
material fallacy of equivocation (infra).
E.g. A ruler is twelve inches long. King Juan
Carlos of Spain is a ruler. Therefore, King
Juan Carlos of Spain is twelve inches long.
2. 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 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.
E.g. All priests are men. Joey is a man. Joey
is a priest
3. The Fallacy of the Illicit Process of the Major
Term and Minor Term
a. Illicit Major
o Major term in the major premise is
undistributed but it 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
o E.g. All poets have a creative
imagination. No poets are good
business people. Therefore, no good
business people have a creative
imagination.
b. Illicit Minor
o Minor term in the minor premise is
undistributed by is distributed in the
conclusion.
o E.g. No Negroes are white. Some
men are Negroes. Therefore, no
men are white.
Case: Suga, et al. v. Lacson, et al., G.R. No. L-
26055, 29 April 1968
4. The Fallacy of Negative Premises/ Exclusive
Premises
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.
e.g. No dogs are cold-blooded. No cold-
blooded things are capable of barking.
Therefore, no dogs are capable of barking.
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.
B. 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.
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
iii. e.g. If A, then B. A. Therefore, B.
Fallacy of affirming the
consequent
b. 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
iii. e.g If the dogs are noisy then there
are intruders in the compound.
There are no intruders in the
compound. Therefore, the dogs are
not noisy.
Fallacy of denying the antecedent
C. Fallacies in Disjunctive Syllogism
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; not
mutually exclusive of one another
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; mutually exclusive
Fallacies:
1. Fallacy of Missing Disjunct-
failure to include all possibilities or
alternatives in the major premise;
e.g. the jury will either convict or
acquit.
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
IX. 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
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
e.g. Pacquiao said: support the
RH bill
Lawyers who use too much references,
Case:
Neill, J., dissenting, Cresap v. Pacific Inland
Navigation Co., 478 P.2d 223, 228 78 Wash.2d
563 (1970) when the support of the law is not
significant per se, its effect is only rhetorical.
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 (conduct of an unbecoming of a judge,
attacking the law school the lawyer attended) ;
Sy, et al. v. Fineza, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1808, 15
October 2003 (judge settlement fee bakla)
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)
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.
Deception; using hearsay evidence
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
B. 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.
3. False cause
Treats as the cause of a thing something that
is not really its cause
a. No causa pro causa
o 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
o Event C happened immediately prior
to Event E. Therefore, C caused E.
b. Post hoc ergo propter hoc
o 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
o 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.
E.g. when a sick person is treated by a witch
doctor or a faith healer then becomes better,
superstitious people conclude that the spell
or prayer was effective
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
E.g. Have you stopped beating your wife?
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
Case: Viray, et al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 92481, 9 November 1990
7. Tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy)
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 Mistakenly impute the attributes of a part of a
equitable defense of in pari delicto whole to the whole itself
See:Article 13(4), Revised Penal Code stereotyping
(mitigating circumstance of sufficient
provocation or threat of the offended party 4. Division
which immediately preceded the act Mistakenly argue that attributes of a whole
Case:Bercero v. Capitol Development must also be present in each part of that
Corporation, G.R. No. 154765, 29 March whole
2007 (in pari delicto; you should come to
court in clean hands) 5. Vicious Abstraction
Removal of a statement from its context,
thereby changing the meaning of an
B. Linguistic Fallacies argument
1. Equivocation
Confuse several meanings of a word or 6. Argumentum ad nauseum
phrase in the context of an argument; allow Unnecessarily long brief or a windbag oral
the meaning of a term to shift between the argument where the advocate seeks to
premises of the argument and the conclusion sustain his position by repetition piled upon
repetition rather than by succinct, effective
2. Amphibology proof or logical development
Ambiguity comes from the grammatical
structure; the double meaning lies not in the
word but in the syntax or grammatical
construction of a sentence
Arise in an argument where meaning is
muddled by slovenly syntax bad grammar,
poor punctuation, dangling participles,
misplaced modifiers
3. Composition