Legal reasoning is an important tool in legal profession.

It aids courts in analyzing cases

and deciding on them. Moreover, it helps lawyers in presenting and arguing their cases in court.
As Evangelista and Aquino (2015) posited, legal reasoning is expressed through arguments. It is
the action of constructing thoughts into a valid argument (Anonymous, 2015). Legal reasoning is
divided into two patterns, namely: Deductive and Inductive reasoning.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning, or deduction, is a form of legal reasoning wherein the premises give
guarantee to the truth of conjecture (Surbhi, 2017). In addition, it utilizes available information,
facts, or premises to arrive to a conclusion (Ibid). In other words, deduction uses established
facts or theory to arrive to a conclusion. It is for this reason that deductive reasoning intend to
guarantee the certainty of the conclusion. For instance, deductive reasoning is used when
appellate courts would determine whether the correct rules of law were applied in establishing
the facts (Evangelista and Aquino, 2015).

Here are some examples of deductive reasoning:

A Filipino citizen who gives aid and comfort to a foreign enemy in times of war
committed treason; (major premise)

X, a Filipino citizen, gave aid and comfort to the Japanese forces during the Second
World War; (minor premise)

Therefore, X committed treason. (conclusion)

In the aforementioned example, the major premise states an established fact which is an
element in the crime of treason. The minor premise contains a supporting detail of the major
premise which is about X who fits that particular element of treason. It is evident in the
preceding two premises that X certainly committed treason. As manifested, the premises proved
the truth of the conclusion beyond any doubt.

In some statements, there are indicators that a deductive reasoning is used, such as (Ibid):

Certainly- which would mean “it is logical to conclude that”

Definitely- which would mean “this logically implies that”

Absolutely- which would mean “this entails that”

Conclusively- which would mean “it must be the case that”

It necessarily follows that- which would mean that the conclusion ought to follow the
premise with inevitability.

1|Page
 Here is an example of deductive reasoning with indicators:

In a presidential form of government, a president is both the head of state and

government;

In the Philippines, the president is both the head of the state and the government;

It necessarily follows that, the Philippines has a presidential form of government.

However, if there are no indicators present, it is important that one must determine
whether or not the conclusion intended to follow with strict necessity from the premises. This is
also the reason why the notion that deductive reasoning moves from general premises to specific
conclusions is not applicable always.

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning connotes the argument in which the premises give reason in support
of the probable truth of the conjecture (Surbhi, 2017). In seminal vein, inductive arguments are
arguments in which the premises are intended to provide support, but not conclusively, for the
conclusion (Evangelista and Aquino, 2015). In other words, inductive reasoning is manifested
when the conclusion, based on the premises, is probably true. Inductive reasoning is applicable
when there is no established law, or binding precedent, or clear statute to provide the major
premise of our legal argument (Ibid).

Here is an example of inductive reasoning:

Karl, a student in an Obligations and Contracts class, has good study habits and is always
attentive in class discussions;

He is a consistent dean’s lister and has never failed in any subject he has taken in law
school;

Hence, it is very probable that Karl will not fail in his Obligations and Contracts class.

Inductive reasoning is evident in the aforementioned example. Even though the premises
are strong, it cannot absolutely guarantee that Karl will not fail his Obligations and Contracts
class because there is still a remote possibility that he will fail the said subject. In the
aforementioned example, it can be inferred that in inductive reasoning, particular cases or
specific instances are examine in order to establish a causal relation with the conclusion.
Furthermore, it is also important to determine whether or not premises lead to the establishment
of a probable conclusion. Thus, the pattern specific premises to general conclusion is not the sole
basis of an inductive reasoning.

2|Page
 Here is another example of inductive reasoning that does not follow the specific to
general pattern:

All of J.K. Rowling’s previous books have been best sellers;

Therefore, her next book will probably be a best seller.

In the example above, the premise is a general statement while the conclusion is a
particular one. This is not the usual pattern of inductive reasoning but what makes it as such is
the degree of probability that the conclusion follow from the premise. Even though it is an
established fact that all of the books written by J.K. Rowling are best sellers, it cannot guarantee
that her next book will have the same result because there is still a remote possibility that her
next book will not be a best seller unlike her previous books.

Here are some common indicators of inductive reasoning (Ibid):

Probably- which would mean “one would expect that”

Likely- which would mean “it is plausible to oppose that”

Chances are- which would mean “it is reasonable to assume that”

However, when there are no indicators, it is important to determine whether or not the
conclusion follow a degree of probability from the premises.

3|Page