LOGIC AS APPLIED TO THE STUDY OF LAW, ARGUMENT, CONCLUSION AND PREMISES, EXAMPLES AND

ILLUSTRATIONS

A. Logic as applied to study of Law

LOGIC as defined;

● It is the study of the principles and methods of good reasoning.

● It is by means of logic that we clarify our ideas, assess the acceptability if claims and beliefs we
encounter, defend and justify our assertions and statements and make rational and sound
decisions.

● Logic is the study of how we ought to reason if our goal is to discover the truth.

● Logic differs from psychology. Logic prescribes how we ought to reason; whereas psychology is
primarily concern with how people reason.

Logic as applied to Law

Law is of vital importance to society, promoting justice and stability, and affecting many people in
important aspects of their lives- both in private and public aspects. The mere fact that law is part of
society makes then logic particularly relevant to the law.

• The influence of logic upon law arises from one fundamental fact, that laws are not self-
applicable and that a rule of law isolated from a world of fact is no more than a speculative
ghost.

• Logic, being the science of correct and sound reasoning, is indispensable in the field of law.

B. ARGUMENTS

● Concrete expression of logical reasoning.

● Group of STATEMENTS, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for
or reason to believe, one of the others (Conclusion).

STATEMENT

Sentence that is either true or false, in other words, typically a declarative sentence or a sentence
component that could stand a declarative sentence.

ARGUMENT

GOOD ARGUMENT- Premises really do support the conclusion.

BAD ARGUMENT- Premises claimed to support conclusion but actually do not.

Unlike statements, many sentences cannot be said to be true or false like:

● QUESTION
 ● PROPOSAL

● SUGGESTION

● COMMAND

● EXCLAMATION

Related to the concepts of argument and statement are of those of INTERFERENCE or PREPOSITION.

INTERFERENCE- can be used interchangeably with the argument

● Reasoning process expressed by an argument

PREPOSITION- can interchangeably used as a statement.

● meaning or information content of a statement

Recognizing Arguments

● Not all passages contain arguments

-A passage contains an argument if it purports to prove something.

Argument = Premise/s + Conclusion

What is Premise?

- It is a proposition that is used to support a claim.

- a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.

- "if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true”.

- A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or support for the conclusion.
There can be one or many premises in a single argument. A conclusion is a statement in an
argument that indicates of what the arguer is trying to convince the reader/listener. What is the
argument trying to prove?

What is Conclusion?

- It is the proposition supported by the premise/s.

- Logical result of the relationship between the premises.

INDICATOR WORDS

IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF AN ARGUMENT:

the Premise and the Conclusion

1. The evidence presented by the prosecution was obtained through wiretapping. However, it is
unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication,
to tap any wire or cable to secretly overhear, interrupt or record such communication.
Therefore, such evidence will not be admissible in this particular judicial investigation.

2. MMDA's campaign to get rid of sidewalk vendors is right . The proliferation of these sidewalk
vendors slows down the movement of vehicles causing heavy traffic.

DISTINGUISHING ARGUMENT FROM EXPLANATION

KEY QUESTIONS:

1. Is the speaker's intent to PROVE OR JUSTIFY that something is the case?; or

2. Is the speaker's intent to EXPLAIN WHY or HOW something is the case?

EXAMPLES:

A. ARGUMENT:

Any law that prohibits people from expressing their views is unconstitutional because our Constitution
guarantees the freedom of speech.
B. EXPLANATION:

Hubert Webb and company were acquitted by the Supreme Court because the court found inherent
inconsistencies in the evidences provided by the prosecution.

Argument vs. Unsupported Opinion

“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.”

“I believe that the current anti-bullying campaigns aimed at today’s adolescents are useless and will only
create a future society that is full of wimps.”

“Anti-bullying campaigns targeting today’s adolescents may create a future society that is unprepared to
cope with conflict. In support to this idea noted psychologist Peter Smith explains that while reports of
bullying decrease with age, the frequency of bullying remains the same across age groups. He attributes
this decline in reported bullying incidents to the fact that older victims have developed valuable coping
mechanisms to help deal with bullying.”

Argument vs. Conditional Statements

“If the Philippines adopts a parliamentary government, then we will not elect a President anymore.”

“We will not elect a President anymore because the Philippines adopted a parliamentary
government.”

ARGUMENT AND IT’S KIND

ARGUMENT:

-Statements which try to prove something as true (or false). (Vergara, 2018)

• A claim put forward and defended with reasons. (Evangelista and Aquino, 2015)

• These statements that have evidentiary nature in them that qualify them as arguments.

Example of Argument

The RTC also ruled that treachery attended the killing of the victim for the prosecution’s
evidence shows that accused-appellant suddenly and unexpectedly appeared and shot the victim who
did not sense any danger upon him.
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING INDUCTIVE 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 facts.
Employed when we want to determine the
facts of the case and to establish them through
causal arguments, probability or scientific
methods.

KINDS OF ARGUMENT

-DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT (support lang by reason)

-We reason deductively when our premises intend to guarantee the truth of our conclusion.

-Conclusion is supported by premises conclusive.

EXAMPLE:

All misdemeanors are criminal offenses;

Driving under the influence of alcohol is a misdemeanor;

Hence, driving under the influence of alcohol is a criminal offense.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT (maglalagay ka ng good evidence)

- We reason inductively when our premises are intended to provide good (but not
conclusive) evidence for the truth of our conclusion.

- Premises provide some support for its conclusion.

EXAMPLE:

- Harry Potter, a student in a Legal Logic 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; and

- Therefore, it is very probable that Harry will not fail in his Legal Logic class.

Deduction – moves from general premises to particular conclusions.

INDICATORS

DEDUCTIVE INDUCTIVE

Certainly Probably
Definitely Likely
Absolutely Chances are
Conclusively One would expect that
It is logical to conclude that It is plausible to suppose that
This logically implies that It is reasonable to assume that
This entails that
It must be the case that

GROUP 3

What is Hypothetical syllogism?

are short, two premise deductive arguments, in which at least one of the premise is a conditional, and
two part of Hypothetical Syllogism also appears in the other premise.

TWO PARTS OF HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

1. Antecedent - Clause that begins with “ IF”

2. Consequent – Clause that begins with “THEN”

EXAMPLE:

If law is important, Then people should study it.

TWO PREMISE AND ONE CONCLUSION

Major Premise Minor Premise

- Is always the hypothetical proposition. -The most important hypothetical syllogism.

-Minor premise must either affirm the

antecedent or deny the consequent

VALID SYLLOGISM

• In order for a syllogism to be VALID, the MINOR PREMISE must either

 AFFIRM THE ANTECEDENT or DENY THE CONSEQUENT.

• Major Premise – if the law is important, then people should study it.

• Minor Premise – Law is important.

• Conclusion- Therefore, people should study it.

Did the Minor premise affirm the antecedent?

ANSWER: YES. THE ANTECEDENT IS AFFIRMED.

If law is important, then people should study it.

• People should not study it.

• Therefore, law is not important.

Did the minor premise deny the Consequent?

• ANSWER: YES. The Consequent is denied.

If law is important, then people should study it.

• Law is not important.

• Therefore, people should not study it.

IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER!

• The minor premise must either:

Affirm the antecedent or

Deny the consequent.

Rhetorical And Enthymemes

Rhetorical Argument

Is basically a persuasive argument that uses one or a combination of its three distinct "appeals": Ethos,
Pathos, and Logos. An argument that makes use of Ethos appeals to the character of the speaker. An
argument that makes use of Pathos appeals to emotion. Lastly, an argument that makes use of Logos
appeals to reason. In general, a Rhetorical Argument may make use of one or a combination of any of
the appeals.

ETHOS

To use Ethos is to appeal to the character of the speaker. That is, a claim may be argued and may be
supported through a reference to the reputation, character or authority of the speaker.

Example

• I will never steal from the cash register because I have been employee of the month for three
consecutive months now. As far as our colleagues know, I am a kind and religious person who
has been very helpful to my fellow employees in this restaurant. It does not make sense to
accuse me of stealing the money.

PATHOS

• To use Pathos is to appeal to the emotions of the reader or the audience. The primary goal is to
persuade the reader or the audience through the use of key words or language that appeal to
the feelings of a person.

Example

 John will never steal from the cash register. If he did, he will be fired from work and will be sent to jail.
Who will now finance the needs of his family? His wife does not have a job. He has three little kids who
need the guidance of a loving father. Without John by their side, they will grow fatherless and, God
knows, they may turn into homeless kids. John should not be suspected of committing the crime.
LOGOS

To use Logos is to use reason to persuade or to make an argument. Typically, it makes use of deductive
or inductive arguments to prove a point

EXAMPLE

(Logos using a deductive argument)

Chris was alone in the office at 8 o'clock in the evening. The crime took place at around 30
minutes past 8PM. Therefore, there is reason to become suspicious that Chris stole the money
from the cash register.

(Logos using an inductive argument)

Chris has a previous theft record in the city police. He said the other day that he barely had any
money left in his bank account and that he had no money to buy food. The security cameras also
reveal that he was inside the store premises the night the crime took place. Therefore, there is
reason to become suspicious that Chris stole the money from the cash register.

Enthymemes

An argument that can be founded on a syllogism although not all parts of the syllogism are expressed.
This Kind of argument is stated incompletely, part being “understood”, or “only in the Mind”. It is an
argument in which one premise is not explicitly stated.

THE ENTHYMEME

-MORE COMMON FORMS OF SYLLOGISTIC ARGUMENTATION

-MOST COMMON TYPE AND USED MOST OFTEN IN EVERYDAY LIFE

-SYLLOGISM IN WHICH ONE PROPOSITION IS MISSING OR OMITTED (PREMISE OR CONCLUSION)

-CONTAINS ONLY TWO PROPOSITION AND THIRD IS IMPLIED

Illustration

Every artist is imaginative.

But, Raphael Sanzio is an artist.

Ergo, he is imaginative.
ORDERS OF ENTHYMEME

1. WHEN MAJOR PREMISE IS OMITTED

VARIATION:

Raphael Sanzio is an artist.

For this reason, Raphael Sanzio is imaginative.

2. WHEN MINOR PREMISE IS OMITTED

VARIATION:

Raphael Sanzio is imaginative.

Because, every artist is imaginative.

3. WHEN CONCLUSION IS OMITTED

VARIATION:

Raphael Sanzio is an artist.

And, every artist is imaginative.

RECONSTRUCTING ENTHYMEME

1. Identify the expressed propositions

-Hints are the ‘premise indicators’ and ‘conclusion indicator.

-To distinguish major from minor, use the conclusion
-If premise contains the subject of the conclusion, it is the minor premise.
-If premise contains the predicate of the conclusion,
it is the major premise.

2. Identify the terms: major, minor and middle terms

-Cancel the two terms that are similar and combine the remaining terms to form the
implied proposition.
3. After reconstructing, analyze its validity based on the rules on constructing an argument.
4. Enthymemes can also be hypothetical and not only categorical.

ANY QUESTION? CLARIFICATION? VIOLENT REACTION?

IF NONE, LET’S PROCEED TO YOUR ASSESSMENT 

Instructions:

There will be two questions about what we have discussed. The first person who will raise her hand by
clicking the hand icon in your screen will be the one who will answer the question. The one who will get
the correct answer will receive P10 load for the first question while for the second question will receive
P20 load. Hwaiting!

1. DIFFERENTIATE RHETORICAL FROM ENTHYMEME

2. WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED FROM THE DISCUSSION?

COMPOUND PROPOSITIONS

Four Types of Compound Propositions:

1. NEGATIVE PROPOSITION
2. CONJUNCTIVE PROPOSITION
3. DISJUNCTIVE PROPOSITION
4. CONDITIONAL PROPOSITION

1. NEGATIVE PROPOSITION

Example:

Balatong and Labong cannot appeal their conviction in case Ludong accepts his conviction for homicide.

“Balatong and Labong cannot appeal their conviction in case Ludong accepts his conviction for homicide”

is the negation of “Balatong and Labong can appeal their conviction in case Ludong accepts his
conviction for homicide”

“Balatong and Labong can appeal their conviction in case Ludong accepts his conviction for homicide”

is the negand of “Balatong and Labong cannot appeal their conviction in case Ludong accepts his
conviction for homicide”

2. CONJUNCTIVE PROPOSITION

Example:

Dominique was accused of committing a violation of the Human Security Act.

He was detained incommunicado and subjected to water torture.

“Dominique was accused of committing a violation of the Human Security Act. He was detained
incommunicado and subjected to water torture.” is the conjunction of

“He was detained incommunicado” and “subjected to water torture”

3. DISJUNCTIVE PROPOSITION

Example:

The issue may be determined in a direct proceeding to attack the paternity or legitimacy of the child.

“The issue may be determined in a direct proceeding to attack the paternity or legitimacy of the child.” is
the disjunction of

“The issue may be determined in a direct proceeding to attack the paternity of the child” and

“The issue may be determined in a direct proceeding to attack the legitimacy of the child.”

4. CONDITIONAL PROPOSITION

Example:

If leave is denied, then that is the time

I will present defense evidence.

Conditional

“If leave is denied, then that is the time I will present defense evidence.”

Antecedent consequent
GROUP 3

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et
dolore magna aliqua. Pretium nibh ipsum consequat nisl vel pretium.

Formal Fallacies

In written or oral argument, “formal fallacies are arguments that are defective because of their form,
without regard to content.”

A. Fallacies in Categorical Syllogism

B. Fallacies in Hypothetical Syllogism
C. Fallacies in Disjunctive Syllogism

A. Fallacies in Categorical Syllogism

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. All attorneys went to law school. All physicians went to medical school. Therefore, all
attorneys went to medical school.

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 judges wear robes. The late Muhammad Ali wore robes. Therefore, Muhammad Ali was
a judge.”

The Fallacy of the Illicit Process of the Major

Term and Minor Term

a. Illicit Major

• 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. The major term is distributed in the conclusion,
but not in the major premise”

E.g. All prosecutors are lawyers. No public defenders are prosecutors. Therefore, no public defenders
are lawyers

b. Illicit Minor

• Minor term in the minor premise is undistributed by is distributed in the conclusion.

E.g. All lawyers are intelligent, and all intelligent people are professional. Therefore, all professional
people are lawyers.

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 plaintiffs are defendants. No defendants are guilty. Therefore, some plaintiffs are guilty.

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.

e.g. All judges are lawyers. All lawyers are intelligent. Therefore, no judge is intelligent.

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.

e.g. All robbers are criminals. All criminals should be sentenced to jail. Therefore, some robbers
should be sentenced to jail.

INFERENCE

The logical derivation of conclusions from given information or premises by any acceptable form
of reasoning.

An inference is the process of reasoning from what we think is true to what else is true.   An inference
can be logical or illogical.   Important is that an inference is synonymous with the reasoning of
an argument.

A logical reasoning is a valid argument.

A illogical reasoning is an invalid argument.

Examples of INFERENCE

PREMISE

Today, no one can beat Greenhills Tiangge Center prices on the new Apple iPhone.

 (inference)  

CONCLUSION
So, the lowest price for the new Apple iPhone is only at a Greenhills Tiangge Center. 

KINDS OF INFERENCE

1. DEDUCTIVE INFERENCE

a form of inference in which, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions.
 EXAMPLE:

All insects have exactly six legs. Spiders have eight legs. Therefore, spiders are not insects.

Blue litmus paper turns red in the presence of acid. The blue litmus paper turned red after I dropped
some liquid on it. Therefore, the liquid is acidic.

2. INDUCTIVE INFERENCE

an inference that leads to a rule or principle or general conclusion, based on observation of a sample
or on observation of a case or instance. 

a logical approach where you start with an observation and expand into a general conclusion or
theory.

EXAMPLE:

"The sample of marbles we drew from the jar had 40% black ones and 60% red ones, thus we
conclude that the entire population of marbles in that jar is 40% black and 60% red." 

"Every time we have put chemical X into acid, the mixture has turned red. Thus we conclude that
chemical X turns acids red."

Identify which of the following inference will make the argument logical.

Now can save up to 30% off on all the new arrival merchandise at H-Zone.

A. All the merchandise at H-Zone is 30% off.

B. About 30% of the new arrival merchandise at H-Zone is on sale.

C. At least one item of new merchandise at H-Zone is 30% off.

D. A replica of the Under Armour football Jersey warn by Colt Brennan at the 2007 Sugar Bowl,
normally $75, is now only $52.50, 30% off.

Now can save up to 30% off on all the new arrival merchandise at H-Zone.

C. At least one item of new merchandise at H-Zone is 30% off.

The ''up to'' means that something has to be on sale, but the range is 0% to 30%, and only one
item needs to be 30% off.
PROPOSITION

A declarative sentence that is either true or false or both.

A proposition cannot be neither true or false.

Always expressed with the help of a sentence.

-a sentence is only a vehicle of a Proposition.

Some types of sentence are not propositions at all.

Sentences may be assertive, interrogative, and imperative.

Only the assertive types are proposition.

Propositions are stated using sentences.

However, all sentences are not propositions:

EXAMPLE:

1. Snakes are poisonous. 

2. Some students are intelligent. 

3. How old are you? 

4. May God bless you!

 5. What a car

Vote for me. 

Difference between a SENTENCE and a PROPOSITION:

 • 1. Propositions must be meaningful (meaningful in logical sense) sentences. 

• 2. Propositions must have a subject, a predicate and a word joining the two,

• a sentence need not. 

• 3. All propositions are either true or false, but sentences may or may not be. 

• 4. Propositions are units of Logic, sentences are units of Grammar.

PROPOSITION:

Unit of thought or logic -Primary thing of proposition is its Meaning and implication.

SENTENCE:

Unit of grammar

-Primary thing of a sentence is its Grammatical form.

4 types of proposition:

1. Universal Affirmative

2. Universal Negative

3. Particular Affirmative

4. Particular Negative
15 Common Logical Fallacies

1) The Straw Man Fallacy (gamit ng argument na similar pero magkaiba)

This fallacy occurs when your opponent over-simplifies or misrepresents your argument (i.e., setting up
a "straw man") to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of fully addressing your actual argument,
speakers relying on this fallacy present a superficially similar -- but ultimately not equal -- version of your
real stance, helping them create the illusion of easily defeating you.

Example:

John: I think we should hire someone to redesign our website.

Lola: You're saying we should throw our money away on external resources instead of building up our
in-house design team? That's going to hurt our company in the long run.

2) The Bandwagon Fallacy (since maraming naniniwala)

Just because a significant population of people believe a proposition is true, doesn't automatically make
it true. Popularity alone is not enough to validate an argument, though it's often used as a standalone
justification of validity. Arguments in this style don't take into account whether or not the population
validating the argument is actually qualified to do so, or if contrary evidence exists.

While most of us expect to see bandwagon arguments in advertising (e.g., "three out of four people
think X brand toothpaste cleans teeth best"), this fallacy can easily sneak it's way into everyday meetings
and conversations.

Example:

The majority of people believe advertisers should spend more money on billboards, so billboards are
objectively the best form of advertisement.

3) The Appeal to Authority Fallacy (kasi sabi ng may authority)

While appeals to authority are by no means always fallacious, they can quickly become dangerous when
you rely too heavily on the opinion of a single person -- especially if that person is attempting to validate
something outside of their expertise.

Getting an authority figure to back your proposition can be a powerful addition to an existing argument,
but it can't be the pillar your entire argument rests on. Just because someone in a position of power
believes something to be true, doesn't make it true.

Example:

Despite the fact that our Q4 numbers are much lower than usual, we should push forward using the
same strategy because our CEO Barbara says this is the best approach.

4) The False Dilemma Fallacy (chose between 2 options only)

This common fallacy misleads by presenting complex issues in terms of two inherently opposed sides.
Instead of acknowledging that most (if not all) issues can be thought of on a spectrum of possibilities
and stances, the false dilemma fallacy asserts that there are only two mutually exclusive outcomes.

This fallacy is particularly problematic because it can lend false credence to extreme stances, ignoring
opportunities for compromise or chances to re-frame the issue in a new way.

Example:

We can either agree with Barbara's plan, or just let the project fail. There is no other option.

5) The Hasty Generalization Fallacy (ipag generalize ka agad su idea)

This fallacy occurs when someone draws expansive conclusions based on inadequate or insufficient
evidence. In other words, they jump to conclusions about the validity of a proposition with some -- but
not enough -- evidence to back it up, and overlook potential counterarguments.

Example:

Two members of my team have become more engaged employees after taking public speaking classes.
That proves we should have mandatory public speaking classes for the whole company to improve
employee engagement.

6) The Slothful Induction Fallacy (isipin nalang coincidence)

Slothful induction is the exact inverse of the hasty generalization fallacy above. This fallacy occurs when
sufficient logical evidence strongly indicates a particular conclusion is true, but someone fails to
acknowledge it, instead attributing the outcome to coincidence or something unrelated entirely.

Example:

Even though every project Brad has managed in the last two years has run way behind schedule, I still
think we can chalk it up to unfortunate circumstances, not his project management skills.

7) The Correlation/Causation Fallacy (ipag attribute ka ko changes a isang bagay to the cause)

If two things appear to be correlated, this doesn't necessarily indicate that one of those things irrefutably
caused the other thing. This might seem like an obvious fallacy to spot, but it can be challenging to catch
in practice -- particularly when you really want to find a correlation between two points of data to prove
your point.

Example:

Our blog views were down in April. We also changed the color of our blog header in April. This means
that changing the color of the blog header led to less views in April.

8) The Anecdotal Evidence Fallacy (maniwala sa isang evidence lang taz general lang)

In place of logical evidence, this fallacy substitutes examples from someone's personal experience.
Arguments that rely heavily on anecdotal evidence tend to overlook the fact that one (possibly isolated)
example can't stand alone as definitive proof of a greater premise.

Example:

One of our clients doubled their conversions after changing all their landing page text to bright red.
Therefore, changing all text to red is a proven way to double conversions.

9) The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (pumili lang ng isa)

This fallacy gets its colorful name from an anecdote about a Texan who fires his gun at a barn wall, and
then proceeds to paint a target around the closest cluster of bullet holes. He then points at the bullet-
riddled target as evidence of his expert marksmanship.

Speakers who rely on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy tend to cherry-pick data clusters based on a
predetermined conclusion. Instead of letting a full spectrum of evidence lead them to a logical
conclusion, they find patterns and correlations in support of their goals, and ignore evidence that
contradicts them or suggests the clusters weren't actually statistically significant.

Example:

Lisa sold her first startup to an influential tech company, so she must be a successful entrepreneur. (She
ignores the fact that four of her startups have failed since then.)

10) The Middle Ground Fallacy (compromise lang in the middle)

This fallacy assumes that a compromise between two extreme conflicting points is always true.
Arguments of this style ignore the possibility that one or both of the extremes could be completely true
or false -- rendering any form of compromise between the two invalid as well.

Example:

Lola thinks the best way to improve conversions is to redesign the entire company website, but John is
firmly against making any changes to the website. Therefore, the best approach is to redesign some
portions of the website.

11) The Burden of Proof Fallacy (since walang nag bigay ng proof about the fact then kabaliktaran)

If a person claims that X is true, it is their responsibility to provide evidence in support of that assertion.
It is invalid to claim that X is true until someone else can prove that X is not true. Similarly, it is also
invalid to claim that X is true because it's impossible to prove that X is false.

In other words, just because there is no evidence presented against something, that doesn't
automatically make that thing true.

Example:

Barbara believes the marketing agency's office is haunted, since no one has ever proven that it isn't
haunted.

12) The Personal Incredulity Fallacy

If you have difficulty understanding how or why something is true, that doesn't automatically mean the
thing in question is false. A personal or collective lack of understanding isn't enough to render a claim
invalid.
Example:

I don't understand how redesigning our website resulted in more conversions, so there must have been
another factor at play.

13) The "No True Scotsman" Fallacy

Often used to protect assertions that rely on universal generalizations (like "all Marketers love pie") this
fallacy inaccurately deflects counterexamples to a claim by changing the positioning or conditions of the
original claim to exclude the counterexample.

In other words, instead of acknowledging that a counterexample to their original claim exists, the
speaker ammends the terms of the claim. In the example below, when Barabara presents a valid
counterexample to John's claim, John changes the terms of his claim to exclude Barbara's
counterexample.

Example:

John: No marketer would ever put two call-to-actions on a single landing page.

Barbara: Lola, a marketer, actually found great success putting two call-to-actions on a single landing
page for our last campaign.

John: Well, no true marketer would put two call-to-actions on a single landing page, so Lola must not be
a true marketer.

14) The Tu quoque Fallacy

The tu quoque fallacy (Latin for "you also") is an invalid attempt to discredit an opponent by answering
criticism with criticism -- but never actually presenting a counterargument to the original disputed claim.

In the example below, Lola makes a claim. Instead of presenting evidence against Lola's claim, John
levels a claim against Lola. This attack doesn't actually help John succeed in proving Lola wrong, since he
doesn't address her original claim in any capacity.

Example:
Lola: I don't think John would be a good fit to manage this project, because he doesn't have a lot of
experience with project management.

John: But you don't have a lot of experience in project management either!

15) The Fallacy Fallacy

Here's something vital to keep in mind when sniffing out fallacies: just because someone's argument
relies on a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean that their claim is inherently untrue.

Making a fallacy-riddled claim doesn't automatically invalidate the premise of the argument -- it just
means the argument doesn't actually validate their premise. In other words, their argument sucks, but
they aren't necessarily wrong.

Example:

John's argument in favor of redesigning the company website clearly relied heavily on cherry-picked
statistics in support of his claim, so Lola decided that redesigning the website must not be a good
decision.

RED HERRING FALLACY

• A fallacy where a legal or factual issue that is irrelevant and used to divert attention away from the
main issues of a case.

• Is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument or
distracts you from the real issue.

EXAMPLE: A driver who was speeding argue that he should not get a ticket because there are worse
crimes being committed that should occupy the police.

Defending layoffs - "Unfortunately, we have to lay off 5% of the workforce. It's important for us to note
that the product we create is exceptionally flawless and we thank our manufacturing department for
that.
STRAW MAN FALLACY

• Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented

version of the position of the argument.

• Logical Form: Person 1 makes claim Y.

Person 2 restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted way).

Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim. Therefore, claim Y is false

• Person 1: I think pollution from humans contributes to climate change.

• Person 2: So, you think humans are directly responsible for extreme weather, like hurricanes, and have
caused the droughts in the southwestern U.S.? If that’s the case, maybe we just need to go to the
southwest and perform a “rain dance

THE APPEAL TO FORCE FALLACY ( AGRUMENTUM AD BACULUM)

• This fallacy consist in persuading others to accept a position by using threat or pressure instead of
presenting evidence for one’s view. The strength of this fallacy lies on the fear that it creates to people
which leads them to agree with the argument.

• This fallacy does not follow any legitimate reasoning, but simply attempts to “persuade” by punishing,
or threatening to punish, the addressee. It’s not only dishonest and unfair, but it’s also improbable that
it really succeeds in convincing anyone; even though the listener might seemingly believe the arguer, it
is not likely that he or she really takes their conclusion as true – they only show compliance because
they fear the consequences of not doing so

THE APPEAL TO FORCE FALLACY (AGRUMENTUM AD BACULUM)

• When force, coercion, or even a threat of force is used in place of a reason in an attempt to justify a
conclusion.

• Logical Form: If you don’t accept X as true, I will hurt you.

THE APPEAL TO FORCE FALLACY EXAMPLE:

• Employer: “I need you to work overtime each day this week.”

• Employee: “I can’t do that; that’s not even what we agreed upon.”

• Employer: “Well, if you don’t wanna cooperate, I can always find someone to replace you.
THE APPEAL TO FORCE FALLACY EXAMPLE:

• Cabinet secretary to a congressman: “The President wants the Congress to pass this bill. I think you
have to support it. Of course, you don’t want to reduce your Priority Development Assistance Fund
which will finance your infrastructure projects in your town.

IRRELEVANT CONCLUSION FALLACY (IGNORATIO ELENCHI)

• It is the fallacy committed when an argument proves or attempts to prove a different conclusion from
what was supposed to be the point of the proof either through intentional or inadvertent irrelevancy.
Specifically, it is proving a statement which is not the contradictory of the conclusion of the argument
one is attempting to refute.

• It is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid and sound,
but (whose conclusion) fails to address the issue in question

EXAMPLE: • Grizzly bears can't be dangerous to humans, because they look so cute.

•The house across the street is for sale. The owners must have lost all their money gambling

EXAMPLE: • Children need attention and working parents don’t have time to give that attention,
therefore mothers should stay at home

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE

 Are the most commonly encountered in everyday language wherein the premises of the
argument are simply irrelevant to the conclusion.

 ARGUMENT AD HOMINEM

 A fallacious attack not against a conclusion, but AGAINST A PERSON WHO ASSERTS OR DEFENDS
IT.

 Example:

Student: Hey, Professor Sarah, we shouldn't have to read this book by Fred. Everyone knows he used
cocaine.

A. ABUSIVE B. CIRCUMSTANTIAL
AGAINST THE CHARACTER

• Reputation

• Personality

• Personal shortcoming

• Critic

• Other people of doing the same thing

 ARGUMENT AD POPULUM

 The passions of the speaker are used to convince listeners that some beliefs are true, as the
speaker plays with the emotions of the listeners.

 Example:

Commercial Advertising, Political Nature of Speeches

 APPEAL TO PITY

 Fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his
opponent's feelings of pity or guilt. The emotions appealed to are that of generosity and mercy.

 Example:

The story of a youth who killed his parents and when confronted with overwhelming proof of guilt, his
attorney pleads for leniency on the grounds that he is now an orphan.

FALLACY OF PRESUMPTION
LEGAL TECHNIQUES AND LOGIC SECTION 2

FALLACY OF PRESUMPTION

• Complex Question

• False Cause

• Begging the Question

• Accident and Converse Accident

WHAT IS FALLACY OF COMPLEX QUESTION

• This consists of asking question in which some presumption are buried in that question.

A FALLACY?

• i.e. Suppose a Prosecutor would ask:

• “Were you and your brother went to the

mall with the victim and gave him the drug?”

• Always remember: “a single question but contemplates more than one question”

“WERE YOU AND YOUR BROTHER WENT TO THE MALL WITH THE VICTIM AND GAVE HIM THE DRUG?”

• What is being asked here are:

• If the respondent went to the mall with the victim

• If the respondent gave the drug to the victim

• If the respondent’s brother went to the mall with the victim

• If the respondent’s brother gave the drug to the victim

FALLACY OF ACCIDENT

• Presumes the applicability of a generalization to individual/specific cases that it does not

properly govern

• “from generalization”

FALLACY OF CONVERSE ACCIDENT

• Presumes what is true of a particular case is true of the great run of case

• “to generalization”

FALLACY OF ACCIDENT

• Freedom of speech is a constitutional guaranteed right.Therefore, Leo should not be arrested

for his speech that incited the riot last week.

FALLACY OF CONVERSE ACCIDENT

• A survey of the members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and their families showed
that more than 85% of them favor the proposal to have a separate independent government in
Mindanao. These survey results clearly show that majority of Filipino Muslims supports the said
proposal.

False cause..
➜ The fallacy of false cause occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends
on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist.

➜ Treats as the cause of a thing that is not really its cause.

4. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

➜ “After This, Therefore Because of This”

- 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).

Example:

1. B comes after A (post hoc). Therefore (ergo), B comes because of A (propter hoc).

2. Every time Jim wears red, he passes an exam.

( Generally, superstitious beliefs are examples of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. )

Non Causa Pro Causa

- “Not The Cause For The Cause”

- 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.

Example:
1. Event C happened immediately prior to Event E. Therefore, C caused E.

2. Most rapists read pornography when they were teenagers. Therefore, pornography causes
violence toward women.

Example:

Aisha : Do you think officer White of the high

way patrol will give us a ticket today?

Hanie : Stop asking that. Every time you ask

that, he’s given us a ticket.

Aisha : If he wants us to be a better driver, he should stop giving us tickets.

Hanie : Well, I can agree with that but, I know how I can improve.

Aisha : How?

Hanie : I’m going to buy a textbook on safe driving. Everybody I know who buys a textbook, they
improve.

BEGGING THE QUESTION..

(PETITIO PRINCIPII)

➜ -some arguments are designed to persuade people by means of the wording of one of its premises.
There are the arguments that are said to beg the question.

- Even though the conclusion is clearly not justified by the premises, the listener is, in effect, “begged” to
accept it. Somehow there appears to be evidential support, but what seems to be an evidence is actually
a form of the conclusion in disguise.

This has different types:

1. Arguing in Circle

This type of begging-the-question fallacy states or “assumes as a premise the very thing that should be
proven in the
conclusion. The circular argument make use of its conclusion to serve as its premise.”

Example:

The following conversation illustrates this :

Mals : This person has committed bribery. Faids : What reason do you have that will convince me that
your claim is true?

Mals : Because he tried to influence a public official by giving money.

2. Question-Begging Language

-This fallacy consists in “ discussing an issue by means of language that assumes a position of the very
question at issue, in such a way as to direct the listener to that same conclusion.”

-It prematurely assumes that a matter that is or maybe at issue has already been settled. In such cases,
the listener is subtly being “begged” to infer a particular conclusion, although no good reasons are
presented for doing so.

Example:

Prosecutor to witness:

“Would you tell us, Mrs. Diaz, about the nature of your relationship with that rapist, Mr. Sanchez?”

3. Leading Question

This fallacy consists in directing the respondent to give a particular answer to a question at issue by the
manner in which the question is asked. A leading question usually involves asking only one question.

Example:

Consider the lawyer who leads her client in the following manner:

“You were outside the country when the crime was committed, weren’t you?”
FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY

WHAT IS FALLACY OF AMBIGUITY?

A fallacy of ambiguity is a flaw of logic, where the meaning of a statement is not entirely clear. This
can create statements which are both compelling and incorrect, either by accident or by design.

Unfortunate phrasing is often responsible

for unintentional humor.

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY

1. Equivocation

2. Amphiboly

3. Improper Accent 4.Vicious Abstraction

5. Composition

6. Division

EQUIVOCATION

It consists in leading an opponent to an unwarranted conclusion by using a term in its different senses
and making it appear to have only one meaning.

In a good argument, the words or phrases used must retain the same meanings throughout the
argument, unless we specify that we are shifting from one meaning of a word to another.

Example:

Doing homework can be a real headache sometimes.Taking ibuprofen gets rid of my headaches. So,
taking ibuprofen is a great way to get rid of my homework.
Analysis: This is an example of equivocation, as the word headache changes meaning. In the first
instance, it is used metaphorically, while in the second instance, it is used literally.

EXAMPLE:

Congressmen can create or abolish laws.

The law of supply and demand is law.

Therefore, congressmen can abolish the law of supply and

demand.

2. AMPHIBOLY

This fallacy consists in presenting a claim or argument whose meaning can be interpreted in two or
more ways due to its grammatical construction.

“The landlord kicked the tenant out of the apartment”

EXAMPLE:

I give the bequeath the sum of Php 500,000 to my nieces Angeline Ramos and Rose Perez. The loot and
the car were listed as stolen by the Manila Police District.

An amphibolous statement may be true in one interpretation and false in another. When it is stated as
premise with the interpretation that makes it true, and a conclusion is drawn from it on interpretation
that makes it false, then the fallacy of amphiboly has been committed.

The loot and the car were listed as stolen by the Manila Police District.

SOME OF THE MOST TYPICAL GRAMMATICAL ERRORS THAT RENDER A CLAIM AMBIGUOUS ARE:
Unclear pronoun reference

• The defendant never argues with his father when he is drunk.

Elliptical construction, where words are omitted but supposedly understood

• John likes logic more than his wife.

Unclear modifier

• Going up the stage, the crowd applauded the newly elected President.

Careless use of only

• The company will accept male applicants only from Monday to Wednesday

CHR lawyers give poor free legal advice.

Mayors can’t stop gambling.

Police help dog bite victim.

3. IMPROPER ACCENT

This fallacy consists in misleading people by placing improper emphasis on a word, phrase or particular
aspect of an issue or claim.

“President to Declare Martial Law”

The fallacy of accent also includes the distortion produced by pulling a quoted passage out of context,
putting it in another context , and then drawing a conclusion that is not drawn in the original context.

This politician is really bent on amending the Constitution in order to extent his term of

office. On one occasion he said: “There is a need to revise some provisions in the Constitution.”

EXAMPLE:
In My Cousin Vinny, a police officer asks the character Bill, “When did you shoot the clerk?” Bill replies in
surprise, “I shot the clerk? I shot the clerk? The Police officer later reads Bill’s statement as a confession
in court:“Then he said,‘I shot the clerk. I shot the clerk.”

Analysis:The Police officer commits the fallacy of accent by taking Bill’s question out of

context, stripping it of its tone, and turning it into an admission of guilt.

Fallacy of Ambiguity

Vicious Abstraction

• A fallacy consists in misleading the people by using vague or abstract terms.

• It occurs when vague words are misused.

• Vague words are misused when these words are vey significant in the premises used to establish
a conclusion.

• In a semantic context- it comes with two forms:

1. Quoting out of context, which distorts the statements’ meaning; and

2. Misquotation, where paraphrasing omits or alters vital details.

Example:

1. 'Money is the root of all evil.’

“For the love of money is the root of all of evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred

from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” 1 timothy 6:10

How to deal with this

kind of Fallacy? •
First, we need to sense if our opponent isattempting to support a particular claim with a

statement containing a vague word.

Lastly, we must challenge the acceptability of the premises on the grounds that you cannot assess the
evidential value of the support as long as the meaning of the vague terms remains unspecified.

Composition

• Consist in wrongly inferring that what holds true of the individuals automatically holds true of
the group made up of those individuals.

Examples:

1. Because a lawyer earns more than a secretary, therefore all lawyers earn more than all
secretaries.

2. Although college students may enroll in no more than six different classes each semester, it is
also true that college students enroll in hundreds of different subjects each semester.

3. Roger Federer and Martina Hingis are two of the best tennis players in the world, so

if these two Swiss players team up, they’d make the best mixed doubles team.

Division

• Consists in wrongly assuming that what is true in general is true in particular.

• It is the reverse of the fallacy of composition.

• Rather than assuming that a characteristic of the parts is therefore a

characteristic of the whole is therefore a characteristic of each of the parts.

Example:

1. To argue that, since PNP is one of the most corrupt agencies of the government, therefore these
three policemen cannot be trusted, is to commit the fallacy of division.

Did you know?

The Philippine Bar Examination is the professional licensure examination for lawyers in the country. It is
arguably the most difficult licensure exam in the Philippines and is exclusively administered by the
Supreme Court of the Philippines through the Supreme Court Bar Examination Committee.
Under 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has the only sole authority to
promulgate the rules concerning the admission to the practice of law.

Chapter III

The Question

“In law the right answer usually depends on putting the right question.”

—Frankfurter, J.

PART I.

Nature of Bar Questions

The QUESTION

Bar questions are both subjective and scientific in nature.

The ‘question’ is the elemental component of the Bar Examination.

Bar questions ought to be ‘entry level’ in difficulty.

Entry-level bar questions designed to test a bar taker who is fresh from graduation and who has
potential to become a lawyer.

“The top may flunk the bar. The ordinary can top the bar.”

PART II.

Spotting the Core Issue

Spotting the core issue is like identifying what causes a fever.

Failure to identify the core issue of the question will often lead to unresponsive or irrelevant answers.

It matters not how numerous the legal provisions and jurisprudence that an examinee pours on his
answer. What matters are those that nail the core issue.

2 Important issue:

1. Immediate Issue

2. Core Issue

The most crucial part in the reading of a bar question is to spot the core issue.

Case 1.
While Congress has not yet commenced its first regular session, President Diego on July 7, 2016
extended an appointment to Col. Gasti as Brigadier General of the Philippine Army, which Col. Gasti
accepted. After the opening of the first regular session of Congress, President Diego appointed Col.
Guzila as Brigadier General of the Philippine Army on August 2, 2016. The appointment of Col. Guzila
was confirmed by the Commission of Appointments on September 30, 2016 while Col. Gasti’s
appointment was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments only on October 15, 2016. As of
October 30, 2016, who between Gasti and Guzila enjoys seniority in length of service as Brigadier
General? Why?

IMMEDIATE ISSUE:

Who between the two has longer service as Brigadier General reckoned from the date of their first day
of service in their new positions?

CORE ISSUE:

When do ad interim and regular appointments take effect?

Case 2.

AA borrowed money from BB in the amount of Php500,000 for this AA executed a promissory note in
favor of BB for the same amount. Despite several demands, AA failed to pay. In an action for collection
of Php500,000, BB alleged in this complaint the entire text of the promissory note executed by AA and
attached a copy thereof as exhibit. AA filed an unverified answer to the complaint and alleged that the
signature on the promissory note is not his. Hence, the complaint of BB has not basis. After pre-trial, BB
moved for judgment on the pleadings. Should the court grant the motion?

IMMEDIATE ISSUE:

Whether the motion for judment on the pleadings should be granted or denied.

CORE ISSUE:

How to contest an actionable document.

PART III.

Key to spotting the core ISSUE

• To gain familiarity with legal provisions and jurisprudence and their application in various ways
depending on the factual setting of each case.

PART I.

Proper Introduction of the Responsive ANSWER

The QUESTION The ANSWER

The immediate question sets the tone that the immediate answer must harmonize with to be responsive

● English grammar and usage plays a vital role.

● It avoids verbosity.

● It prefers active voice over passive voice.

● It chooses legal terms appropriately.

Illustrations

After they got married, Nikki discovered that Christian was having an affair with another woman. But
Nikki decided to give it a try and lived with him for two

(2) years. After two (2) years, Nikki filed an action for legal separation on the ground of Christian’s sexual
infidelity. Will the action prosper? Explain. (2012 BAR)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 Nikki’s action will not prosper on account at condonation. Although the action for legal separation
has not yet prescribed, the prescriptive period being five years, the decision of Nikki to live with
Christian after discovering his affair amounts to condonation of such act. However, if such affair is still
continuing, Nikki's action would prosper because the action will surely be within (5) years from the
commission of the latest act of sexual infidelity. Every act or sexual liaison is a ground for legal
separation.

QUESTIONS PROPER INTRODUCTION OF

ANSWER
Rule on her(Paulyn) defense. Paulyn’s defense is meritorious.
Rule on the petition. The petition should be granted.
Rule on his contentions. Mario’s contentions lack merit.
Resolve the motion with reasons. The motion should be denied.
Resolve the objection with reasons. The objection should be
overruled/sustained.
As judge, will you grant the petition? The petition should be granted.
Did Charlie commit any crime? Yes. He committed an impossible crime.
Is Baldo’s contention correct? Baldo’s contention is bereft of merit.
May the action prosper? The action may not prosper on the
ground of improper venue.
Resolve the motion to quash with The motion to quash should be
reasons. denied.
 QUESTIONS PROPER INTRODUCTION OF ANSWER
As the RTC judge who granted Gina’s The OSG’s notice of appeal should be
petition, will you give due course to the given due course.
OSG’s Notice
of Appeal? Explain.
Was the court’s issuance of the writ of The court’s issuance of the writ of
execution proper? Explain. execution is not proper.
Are Gaudencio’s defenses tenable? Gaudencio’s defenses are untenable.
Explain.
What will your advice be? Explain. My advice to the client will
be… I will advise my client
that…
Who is legally entitled to receive the Ciriaco is legally entitled to receive the
insurance insurance proceeds….
proceeds? Explain.
How should the case be decided? The case should be decided in favor of
AA. The case should be decided
against AA.
What are the (2) elements of the The (2) elements of the Archipelago
Archipelago doctrine? doctrine are:
Enumerate the requisites of… The requisites of …are the following:
Define constituent power. Constituent power is…
Constituent power is defined as…
Part IV.

❖Aside from knowing and remembering the laws, one important weapon that bar candidates have to
bring with them during the bar exams is knowing how to answer questions in a categorical, brief and
fully responsive manner. It is not enough that you know the answer to the bar question. You have to
know how to properly express it.

CHAPTER IV

Answering Format/Style