Logic- 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 (correct) reasoning and bad (incorrect
reasoning). Logic being the science of correct reasoning, is indispensable in the field of law.
The efficiency of practicing depends on the quality of legal reasoning.
PURPOSES: 1. It probes into the fundamental concepts of argument, inference, truth, falsity
and validity; 2. 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.
LEGAL REASONING- Used when we apply laws, rules, and regulations to particular facts and
cases AND when we interpret constitutions and statutes, when we balance fundamental
principles and policies, and when we evaluate evidences, and make judgments to render legal
decisions. LEGAL REASONING is expressed through Arguments. It is with arguments that logic
is chiefly concerned.
ARGUMENT- A group of statements in which one statement is claimed to be true on the basis
of another statement/s. An argument is a group of statements but not all group of statements
are arguments.
CONCLUSION- The statement that is being claimed to be true.; PREMISE- The statement
that serves as the basis or support of the conclusion.
Arguments are categorized as either: logical/illogical, valid/invalid, sound/unsound
depending on the acceptability of the premises and the connection between the
premise and the conclusion.
2 BASIC ELEMENTS IN AN ARGUMENT:1. CONCLUSION; 2. PREMISES
INDICATORS (Words/ phrases that indicate the premise or conclusion of an argument)
1. CONCLUSION INDICATORS- therefore, so, thus, hence, etc.
2. PREMISE INDICATORS- because, since, for, inasmuch as, etc.
Argument - an attempt to show THAT something is the case. Reasons are intended to
provide grounds to justify a claim, to show that it is plausible or true. To provide reasons for
accepting a claim as true. Always has a conclusion and a premise. Without one, not an
argument
Explanation - an attempt to show WHY something is the case. Reasons are usually the
causes or factors that show how or why a thing came to exist. To offer an account of why
some event has occurred. NOT meant to prove or justify the truth of a particular claim. Given
by citing causes of the event to be explained.
Both give reasons. But, nature of reasons differ.
KEY QUESTION to distinguish arguments from explanations: Is it the speaker’s intent to
prove or establish that something is the case – that is, to provide reasons or evidence for
accepting claim as true? (THIS IS AN ARGUMENT); 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? (THIS IS AN EXPLANATION)
ARGUMENT vs UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS- Statements of belief or opinion are statements
about what a speaker or writer happens to believe, which can be true or false, rational/
irrational, but they are parts of arguments ONLY IF the speaker or writer claims that they
follow from/ support other claims.
UNSUPPORTED - Statements that has no premise (reason) given
ARGUMENT vs CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS
CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS - contains an IF-THEN relationship and are NOT arguments
because there is no claim that 1 statement is true because of the other statement.
2 BASIC COMPONENTS: 1. ANTECEDENT (IF-CLAUSE); 2. CONSEQUENT (THEN-CLAUSE)
 Essential Components of Legal Reasoning: 1. ISSUE (What is being argued?) Any
matter of controversy or uncertainty; A point in dispute, in doubt, in question, or simply up
for discussion or consideration. Always formulated in an interrogative sentence. Pertain to a
legal matter, not just any controversial question. Whole argument is directed by the issue at
hand. Meaning, relevance of the premises depends on the very issue the argument is
addressing. Whatever answer we give constitutes our position on the issue reflected in the
conclusion of our argument. Issue is different from a topic of conversation or argument
(plagiarism and internet libel are topics, not issues).
2. RULE (What legal rules govern the issue?). Cite a rule (statute/ ordinance) and apply it
to a set of facts, to argue a legal case. Richard Neumann stated that RULES have at least 3
parts: a. A set of elements, collectively called a TEST; b. A result that occurs when all elements
are present (and the test is satisfied); c. A causal term that determines whether the result is
mandatory, prohibitory, discretionary or declaratory.
Exception: present would defeat the result, even if all the elements are present
- Existing rule governing the issue should be SPECIFICALLY CITED.
- Even when a decision is based upon what is “fair”, because there is a rule that the
decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness.
- Rule can take the FORM of cases or principles that courts have already decided.
Reasoning here usually consists of arguing that the case under discussion is similar to
that prior case (stare decisis) or principle.
- On the part of the judges, they should be fully guided by the rules in order to render a
sound decision.
3. FACT (What are the facts that are relevant to the rule cited?). “Material facts” are facts
that fit the elements of the rule. Then the rule would be satisfied if the facts of the present
cased cover all the elements of the rule. Sound reasoning demands that facts should not be
one sided. Although certain facts can support and establish a particular legal claim, one must
consider the facts to be presented by defendant’s counsel and be able to demonstrate that
those facts fail to spare the defendant of the charges thrown at him.
4. ANALYSIS (How applicable are the facts to the said rule?) Show link between the rules
and the facts we presented to establish what we are claiming. Whether the material facts
truly fit the law; Requires taking into account the basis when one could say the act is reckless
or outrageous; If pattern of conduct and the plaintiff’s vulnerability is known to the defendant,
act is considered outrageous; Without intent of bringing emotional distress, a reckless disregard
for the likelihood of causing emotional distress is sufficient.
5. CONCLUSION (What is the implication of applying the rule to the given facts?). It is
the ultimate end of a legal argument. It is what the facts, rule, and analysis of the case
amount to.
Evaluating Legal Reasoning
2 GENERAL CRITERIA: distinguish correct from incorrect legal reasoning 1. TRUTH; 2. LOGIC
2 MAIN PROCESSES INVLOVED IN LEGAL REASONING:
PRESENTATION OF FACTS- which pertains to the question of truth. First process:
PRESENTATION OF TRUTH. Deals with the question: Are the premises provided in the
argument true or acceptable? Question points to TRUTH. It is necessary for the conclusion of a
legal argument to be grounded on factual basis, because if the premises that are meant to
establish the truth of the legal claim (conclusion) is QUESTIONABLE, the conclusion is
QUESTIONABLE. Disputes in court are not about laws but about matters of fact. Judges
decide what the facts are and what are not after weighing the pieces of evidence and
arguments of both sides. Only after the facts have been determined, can the legal rules (in the
form of statutes, principles, administrative regulations or jurisprudence) be applied to those
facts by the court. Therefore, determining what are the facts to be accepted - is a principal
objective when any case is tried in court. The legal reasoning that will prevail is that which is
grounded on truth or genuine facts.
INFERENCE (deriving legal claim or judgment from the given laws and facts). Which
pertains to the question of logic. Second process: INFERENCE. Deals with the question:
Is the reasoning of the argument correct or logical? Does the conclusion of the argument
logically follow its premises? Questions point to LOGIC. Premises of the argument must not
only be factual but the connection of the premises to the conclusion must be logically coherent,
that is, movement from the facts to the analysis and to the main claim must be valid. In
accepting the truth of a premise or evidence, one must consider its coherence to credible
sources of information and to the general set of facts already presented. One must also
consider whether the facts presented are clear and unambiguous or need more clarification.
Admissibility of factual evidence is a significant issue of legal reasoning. Judgments on the
relevance of the testimony, the credibility and expertise of the witnesses, and other matters
pertaining to the admissibility of evidence demand logical argumentation.
CHAPTER 2: FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN LEGAL REASONING
BURDEN OF PROOF- Duty of any party to present evidence to establish his claim or defense
by the amount of evidence required by law, which is preponderance of evidence in civil case.
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.
EVIDENCE- The means sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. Deemed admissible if it is relevant to the issue
and if not excluded by provision of law or by Rules of Court.
TESTIMONY- Generally confined to personal knowledge and therefore excludes hearsay.
EXPERT TESTIMONY- Statements made by individuals who are considered as experts in a
particular field.
ORDER OF EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS:
1. Direct examination by the proponent- Refers to the examination-in-chief of a witness by
the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue.
2. Cross-examination by the opponent-termination of the direct examination, the witness
may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct
examination with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and
freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse and to elicit all important facts bearing upon
the issue
3. Re-direct examination by the proponent- He may be re-examined by the party calling
him, to explain or supplement his answers given during the cross-examination.
4. Re-cross examination by the opponent- Adverse party may re-cross-examine the
witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination, and also on such other matters as
may be allowed by the court in its discretion.
*Please note that after the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded,
the witness cannot be recalled without leave of court. The Court will grant or withhold
leave of court, in the interest of justice may require.
DEPENDENCE ON PRECEDENTS “Stare decisis et non quieta movere”- The bedrock of
precedents. As embodied in Article 8 of the Civil Code, the doctrine of stare decisis expresses
that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system of the
Philippines.
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS- When a court has once laid down a principle, and apply it to
all future cases, where facts are substantially the same, regardless of whether the parties and
properties are the same, follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled.
Matters already decided on the merits cannot be subject of litigation again. This rule does not
elicit blind adherence to precedents. Based on the principle, once a question of law has been
examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.
CHAPTER 3- DEDUCTIVE REASONING- Employed when appellate courts would determine
whether the correct rules of law were properly applied to the given facts or whether the rules of
evidence were properly applied in establishing the facts.
INDUCTIVE REASONING- Employed when we want to determine the facts of the case and to
establish them through causal arguments, probability or scientific methods
2 KINDS OF ARGUMENTS:
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT- We reason deductively when our premises intend to guarantee the
truth of our conclusion. INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT- We reason inductively when our premises
are intended to provide good (but not conclusive) evidence for the truth of our conclusion.
DEDUCTION- Moves from general premises to particular conclusions.
INDUCTION- Moves from particular premises to general conclusions.
*What makes an argument deductive or inductive is NOT the pattern of particularity or
generality in the premises and conclusion. Rather, it is the type of support that the
premises are claimed to provide for the conclusion.
BASES: 1. Indicator words- a. Common deductive words: Certainly; Definitely;
Absolutely; Conclusively b. Common inductive words: Probably; Likely; Chances are
2. Content of the premises and conclusion of the argument (when no present indicators)
SYLLOGISMS- three-line argument that consists of exactly 2 premises and a conclusion.
SIGNIFICANCE OF SYLLOGISMS: Gottfried Leibniz called its invention “one of the most
beautiful, and one of the most important, made by the human mind.”
Cesare Beccaria advocated that “in every criminal case, a judge should come to a perfect
syllogism: the major premise should be the general law; the minor premise, the act, which does
or does not conform to the law; and the conclusion, acquittal or condemnation.”
VALID ARGUMENT- Conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises; the premises are
true, then the conclusion must be true or the truth of the premises guarantee the truth of the
conclusion; Conclusion must be true if the premises are true; No valid argument can have all
true premises and a false conclusion
INVALID ARGUMENT- Conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises
*Determination of the validity or invalidity of an argument is based on the relationship between
its premises and conclusion – that is, whether the conclusion follows necessarily from the
premises OR whether the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
If YES, then the argument is valid. If NO, then invalid.
NOTE: There is no VALID or INVALID arguments in INDUCTIVE arguments since inductive
arguments do not claim that their conclusion follows from the premises with strict necessity.
Therefore, all inductive arguments are technically invalid.
TYPES OF SYLLOGISMS: 1. Categorical- includes categorical statements alone; 2.
Hypothetical- includes both categorical and hypothetical syllogism
Categorical statement- A statement that directly asserts something or states a fact without
any conditions. Its subject is simply affirmed or denied by the predicate.
Hypothetical statement- A compound statement which contains a proposed or tentative
explanation. Consists of at least 2 clauses connected by conjunctions, adverbs, etc. Expresses
the relationship between the classes as well as our assent to it. The clauses are simple
statements which contain 1 subject and 1 predicate.
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM- Quality properties: the quality of statement may be affirmative
or negative. Quantity properties: the quantity of statement may be universal (when what is
being affirmed or denied of the subject term is its whole extension) or particular (when what is
being affirmed or denied of the subject is just a part of its extension).
QUANTITY OF A PREDICATE- Generally, predicate of an affirmative statement is
PARTICULAR. In exception, statements where subject and predicate are identical, predicate is
UNIVERSAL. Predicate of a negative statement is always UNIVERSAL.
PARTS OF A CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
3 KINDS OF TERMS IN CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM:
1. Minor term- subject of the conclusion (also called Subject Term)
2. Major term- predicate of the conclusion (also called Predicate Term)
3. Middle term- found in both premises and serves to mediate bet. the minor and the major
terms
3 KINDS OF STATEMENTS IN CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM:
1. Minor premise – contains Minor term
2. Major premise – contains Minor term
3. Conclusion – the statement the premises support
RULES FOR THE VALIDITY OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
Rule 1. The syllogism must not contain 2 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.
Rule 1. Syllogism must not contain 2 negative premises. When premises are both negative,
the MIDDLE TERM fails to serve its function of mediating between the major and minor terms.
Violation of this rule is called Fallacy of exclusive premises.
Rule 2. Three pairs of univocal terms. The terms must have exactly same meaning and used
exactly same way in each occurrence.
Equivocal term –has different meanings in its occurrences.
Univocal term – has same meaning in different occurrences.
Violation of this rule is called Fallacy of equivocation.
Rule 3. Middle term must be universal at least once.
GENERALLY, when the middle term is particular in both premises, it might stand for a
different portion of its extension in each occurrence and, thus, be equivalent to 2 terms, and,
therefore, fail to fulfill its function of uniting or separating the minor and major terms.
Violation of this rule is called Fallacy of particular middle.
EXCEPT, syllogism does not violate 3 rules EVEN IF middle term is particular in both
premises, but is quantified by “most” in both premises and the conclusion is quantified by
“some”, because the combine extension of the middle term is more than a universal.
Rule 4. Term in conclusion and premise must be universal.
Minor term is universal in the conclusion but particular in premise. Violation is Fallacy of illicit
minor.
Major term is universal in the conclusion but particular in premise. Violation is Fallacy of illicit
major.
Rationale, in deductive argument, the conclusion should not go beyond what the premises
state. Thus, conclusion must not be wider in extension that premises.
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM- A syllogism that contains a hypothetical statement as one of
its premises. 3 KINDS OF HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISMS: 1. Conditional syllogism; 2.
Disjunctive syllogism; 3. Conjunctive syllogism
Categorical syllogism- A syllogism in which the major premise is a conditional statement.
Conditional statement- Compound statement which asserts that 1 member (THEN clause) is
true in 1 condition that, the other member (IF clause) is true. IF Clause or its equivalent is the
ANTECEDENT. THEN Clause or its equivalent is the CONSEQUENT.
*Importance in the conditional statement is the SEQUENCE between the antecedent and the
consequent. That is, the truth of the consequent follows upon the fulfillment of the condition
stated in the antecedent. What matters is the relationship between antecedent and consequent.
RULES FOR CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISMS:
RULE 1. A conditional syllogism is invalid if minor premise denies antecedent. Invalid form is
called Fallacy of denying the antecedent.
RULE 2. The minor premise affirms consequent. Invalid form is called Fallacy of affirming the
consequent.
2 VALID FORMS OF CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISMS:
1. MODUS PONENS- when minor premise affirms the antecedent, conclusion must affirm the
consequent. 2. MODUS TOLLENS- when minor premise denied the consequent, conclusion
must deny the antecedent.
ENTHYMEMES- Kind of argument that is stated incompletely, part being “understood” or only
“in the mind”. POLYSYLLOGISMS- A series of syllogisms in which the conclusion of 1
syllogism supplies a premise of the next syllogism. Used because more than one logical step is
needed to reach the desired conclusion.
CHAPTER 4 – INDUCTIVE REASONING IN LAW TYPES OF INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT:
1. INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION- An argument that relies on characteristics of a sample
population to make a claim about the population as a whole. This claim is a general claim that
makes a statement about all, most or some members of a class, group, or set. Uses evidence
about a limited number of people or things of a certain type (the sample population), to make a
general claim about a larger group of people of that type (population as a whole).
2. ANALOGICAL ARGUMENTS- Depend upon an analogy or a similarity between two or more
things. Very useful in law particularly in deciding what rule to apply in a particular case and in
setting disputed factual questions.
Evaluating Inductive Generalizations
2 important questions:
1. Is the sample large enough?
2. Is the sample representative?
ANALOGY- A comparison of things based on similarities those things share. We find
analogies anywhere. A process of reasoning from the particular to particular. Makes one-to-
one comparisons that require no generalizations or reliance on universal rules.
Edward Levi, American authority on the role of analogy in the law, described analogical
reasoning as 3- step process.
3-step process: 1. establish similarities between two cases; 2. announce the rule of law
embedded in the first case; 3. apply the rule of law to the second case
Evaluating Analogical Arguments FALLACY OF FALSE ANALOGY
- Results from comparing 2 or more things that are not really comparable
- It is a matter of claiming that 2 things share a certain similarity on the basis of other
similarities, while overlooking important dissimilarities
CRITERIA TO DETERMINE IF AN ANALOGICAL ARGUMENT IS GOOD
1. RELEVANCE OF SIMILARITIES
2. RELEVANCE OF DISSIMILARITIES