LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC (ATTY.

RAMIREZ)
MIDTERM EXAM COVERAGE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. What Logic is

• Comes from Greek word “logos” which literally means “word” or “speech.”

• It also means “a plea,” “reason” or “discourse.”

• “principle of order and knowledge”

• “the science and art of correct thinking”

• “branch of Philosophy”

• is the study of principles and methods of good reasoning.

• Reasoning- is an argument in which certain things being laid down, something

other than necessary comes about through them. Aristotle

1.2. The Role of Logic in Law

• Legal knowledge is formed by the rules on logic.

• Legal knowledge is the product of legal reasoning.

• Legal Reasoning is a vital tool we use in interpreting constitutions, statutes, and

regulations, in balancing fundamental principles and policies, in adopting and
modifying legal rules, in applying those rules to cases, in evaluating evidence,
and in making ultimate decisions.
• Legal Reasoning – what we use when we apply laws, rules and regulations to
particular facts and cases
• Student’s tool for law studies.

• Lawyer’s tool for law practice.

• The bedrock of all legal knowledge.

1.3. Factors in Case Analysis

1.3.1. Parties/ Relevant Relations

 • Must have locus standi on the case

1.3.2. Issues

• Are the points of contentions of a legal problem.

• Any matter of controversy or uncertainty; an issue is a point in dispute,

in doubt, in question, or simply up for discussion or consideration

1.3.3. Rules

• Existing laws, rules and regulations applicable on the case

• One must be able to cite a rule, statute or ordinance and apply it to a

set of facts.
• Rules have 3 parts:
a. Set of elements, collectively called a test
b. Result that occurs when all elements are present
c. Causal term that determines whether a result is mandatory,
prohibitory, discretionary or declaratory
• example: Crime under RPC Book 2

1.3.4. Key Facts

• Refer to the factual content of a legal problem.

• We look for material facts, which fit the elements of the rule.

1.3.5. Theories

• Same with rules, applicable legal theories can also be invoked to further
strengthen the legal argument

1.3.6. Analysis

• supposed to show the link between the rules and the facts we presented
to establish what we are claiming in our argument.

1.3.7. Conclusion

• The decisions of the courts in the resolution of such legal problem. • The
ultimate end of a legal argument. It is what the facts, rules and analysis of
the case amount to.
2. Fundamental Concepts in Legal Reasoning
2.1. Burden of proof (RULE 131 as amended)

• Burden of proof and burden of evidence. – Burden of proof is the duty of

a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish
his or her claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
Burden of proof never shifts.
• Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to present evidence sufficient
to establish or rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case. Burden
of evidence may shift from one party to the other in the course of the
proceedings, depending on the exigencies of the case. (1a)

2.2. Equipoise doctrine

• The equipoise rule provides that where the evidence in a criminal case is
evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the
scales in favor of the accused.
• The rule which states that when the evidence of the prosecution and the
defense are so evenly balanced the appreciation of such evidence calls
for tilting of the scales in favor of the accused.
• The evidence of the prosecution must be heavier to overcome the
presumption of innocence of the accused. The constitutional basis of the
rule is Bill of Rights which finds expressions in Sec. 1, par. (a), Rule 115 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. To be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

2.3. Evidence

• RULE 128

• Section 1. Evidence defined. — Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of

ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)
• RULE 133 WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

• Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. –In civil cases, the party having
the burden of proof must establish his or her case by a preponderance of evidence. In
determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues
involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the
witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of
knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they
testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of
 interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear
upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. (1a)
• Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. –In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an
acquittal, unless his or her guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of
error,
produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (2a)
• Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. –An extrajudicial
confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3)
• Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. – Circumstantial evidence is sufficient
for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one [(1)] circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. Inferences cannot be based on other inferences. (4a)
• Section 5. Weight to be given opinion of expert witness, how determined. –In any case
where the opinion of an expert witness is received in evidence, the court has a wide
latitude of discretion in determining the weight to be given to such opinion, and for that
purpose may consider the following:
(a) Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient facts or data;
(b) Whether it is the product of reliable principles and methods;
(c) Whether the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of
the case; and
(d) Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to make such determination. (n) •
Section 6. Substantial evidence. – In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial
bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion. (5)
• Section 7. Power of the court to stop further evidence. –The court may stop the
introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is
already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to
be additionally persuasive. This power shall be exercised with caution. (6a)
• Section 8. Evidence on motion. – When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record,
the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective
parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral
 testimony or depositions. (7)

2.4. Best evidence rule (RULE 130 as amended)

• The Court's ruling in Lorenzana v. Lelina is instructive: The best evidence rule
requires that when the subject of inquiry is (sic) the contents of a document, no
evidence is admissible other than the original document itself except in the
instances mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court.
• Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. – When the subject
of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other
record, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself, except
in the following cases:
(a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against
whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable
notice, or the original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or
procedures;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which
cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of the whole;
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office; and
(e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue. (3a)
• Section 4. Original of document. –
(a) An “original” of a document is the document itself or any counterpart
intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An
“original” of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data
is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable
by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an “original.”
(b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the
original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including
enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by
chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately
reproduce the original.
c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless
(1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or
(2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate
in lieu of the original. (4a)

2.5. Testimony of the witnesses

2.5.1. Expert Testimony (RULE 130 as amended)

 • Section 17. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. —
When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be
deciphered, or the language is not understood by the court, the evidence of
persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand the language, is
admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language. (16)
• Section 48. Learned treatises. — A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a
subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth
of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in
the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or
pamphlet is recognized in his or her profession or calling as expert in the subject.
(46a)
• Section 52. Opinion of expert witness. — The opinion of a witness on a matter
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training or education which he
or she shown to possess, may be received in evidence. (49a)

2.5.2. Examination of Witnesses (RULE 132 as amended)

• Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. – The examination of witnesses
presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or
affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for
a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally. (1)
• Section 2. Proceedings to be recorded. – The entire proceedings of a trial or
hearing, including the questions propounded to a witness and his or her answers
thereto, and the statements made by the judge or any of the parties, counsel, or
witnesses with reference to the case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand
or stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable by the court. A
transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer,
steno typist or recorder and certified as correct by him or her, shall be deemed
prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings. (2a)
• Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. – A witness must answer questions,
although his or her answer may tend to establish a claim against him or her.
However, it is the right of a witness:
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from
harsh or insulting demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require; (3) Not to be
examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue; (4) Not to give an
answer which will tend to subject him or her to a penalty for an offense unless
otherwise provided by law; or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his or her reputation,
unless it be to the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue
would be presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his or her
 previous final conviction for an offense. (3a)
• Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness. – The order in which
an individual witness may be examined is as follows:
(a) Direct examination by the proponent;
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(d) Re-cross[-]examination by the opponent. (4)
• Section 5. Direct examination. – Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a
witness by the party presenting him or her on the facts relevant to the issue.
(5a)
• Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. – Upon the termination of
the direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party
on any relevant matter, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his or her
accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and
to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (6a)
• Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent. – After the cross
examination of the witness has been concluded, he or she may be re-examined by
the party calling him or her to explain or supplement his or her answers given during
the cross-examination. On re-direct examination, questions on matters
not dealt with during the cross-examination may be allowed by the court in its
discretion. (7a)
• Section 8. Re-cross[-]examination. – Upon the conclusion of the re-direct
examination, the adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters
stated in his or her re-direct examination, and also on such other matters as may
be allowed by the court in its discretion. (8a)
• Section 9. Recalling witness. – After the examination of a witness by both sides has
been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The
court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice may
require. (9)
• Section 10. Leading and misleading questions. – A question which suggests to the
witness the answer which the examining party desires is a leading question. It is
not allowed, except:
(a) On cross-examination;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a
witness who is ignorant, a child of tender years, is of feeble mind, or a deaf-
mute; (d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing
 agent of a public or private corporation[,] or of a partnership or association
which is an adverse party.
A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by
the witness, or contrary to that which he or she has previously stated. It is not
allowed. (10a)
• Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party’s witness. – A witness may be
impeached by the party against whom he or she was called, by contradictory
evidence, by evidence that his or her general reputation for truth, honesty, or
integrity is bad, or by evidence that he or she has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his or her present testimony, but not by evidence
of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of
the witness, or record of the judgment, that he or she has been convicted of an
offense. (11a)
• Section 12. Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime. – For the purpose of
impeaching a witness, evidence that he or she has been convicted by final
judgment of a crime shall be admitted if
(a) the crime was punishable by a penalty in excess of one [(1)] year; or (b) the
crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty. However, evidence of
a conviction is not admissible if the conviction has been the subject of an
amnesty or annulment of the conviction. (n)
• Section 13. Party may not impeach his or her own witness. – Except with respect
to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10 of this Rule, the
party presenting the witness is not allowed to impeach his or her credibility. A
witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court
upon adequate showing of his or her adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to
testify, or his or her having misled the party into calling him or her to the witness
stand. The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an
adverse party, may be impeached by the party presenting him or her in all
respects as if he or she had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence
of his or her bad character. He or she may also be impeached and cross-
examined by the adverse party, but such cross-examination must only be on the
subject matter of his or her examination-in-chief. (12a)
• Section 14. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. –
Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he or she has made at
other times statements inconsistent with his or her present testimony, the
statements must be related to him or her, with the circumstances of the times
and places and the persons present, and he or she must be asked whether he or
she made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements
be in writing[,] they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to
him or her concerning them. (13a)
 • [Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness. – (Incorporated in Section 54,
Rule 130)]
• Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. – The court, motu proprio or
upon motion, shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the
testimony of other witnesses. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (a) a
party who is a natural person,
(b) a duly designated representative of a juridical entity which is a party to the
case,
(c) a person whose presence is essential to the presentation of the party’s cause,
or
(d) a person authorized by a statute to be present. The court may also cause
witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented from conversing with one
another, directly or through intermediaries, until all shall have been examined.
(15a)
• Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. – A witness may be allowed
to refresh his or her memory respecting a fact by anything written or recorded
by himself or herself, or under his or her direction[,] at the time when the fact
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was
fresh in his or her memory and he or she knew that the same was correctly
written or recorded; but in such case[,] the writing or record must be produced
and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he or she chooses, cross
examine the witness upon it and may read it in evidence. A witness may also
testify from such a writing or record, though he or she retains no recollection of
the particular facts, if he or she is able to swear that the writing or record
correctly stated the transaction when made; but such evidence must be
received with caution. (16a)
• Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the
remainder admissible. – When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing
or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may
be inquired into by the other, and when a detached act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given
in evidence. (17)
• Section 18. Right to inspect writing shown to witness. –Whenever a writing is
shown to a witness, it may be inspected by the adverse party. (18)

2.6. Stare Decisis et non quieta movere

• “to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled.” • Courts
follow what is known as “stare decisis” which literally means, “let the decision
 stand.”
• is a judicial policy of adhering to the principles established in past cases.
3. Reasoning and its Methods

3.1 Argument

• In philosophy, an argument is a connected series of statements, including at least one

premise, intended to demonstrate that another statement, the conclusion, is true. • The
statements that serve as premises and conclusions are sometimes referred to as
“propositions.” Statements (or propositions) are declarative sentences.
• Arguments offer proof for a claim, or conclusion.

3.1.1. Premise/s

• 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 premise is a statement that supports, or helps lead to, an argument’s conclusion.

3.1.2. Conclusion

• A conclusion is a statement in an argument that indicates of what the arguer is

trying to convince the reader/listener.
• A conclusion is the statement that is inferred (reasoned) from the argument’s
premises. Arguments are “inferential; they intend to “infer” something.

3.2. Inductive Reasoning

3.2.1. Definition

• is an argument where the conclusion is a probable outcome of the premises.

3.2.2. Simple Enumeration

• Simple Enumeration as a form of induction.

• Simple enumeration is a method of arriving at a generalization on the basis of

uniform uncontradicted observation of something.
• While using this method, we observe a number of instances that agree in some
quality. During our observation, we do not find any contrary instance. So, we
arrive at a conclusion that as far as that thing is concerned, there are no contrary
instances. Then we get a general proposition as a conclusion.
 • We do not verify our conclusion further or try to analyze the events in order to
find any logical relationship in these common similar events. (for 3.2.4.5)
• This is the reason why even when our observation is wide, it still stays imperfect.
This is because our method is a method of SIMPLE enumeration and not
COMPLETE enumeration. In complete enumeration, since we have observed all
instances from a group about which we are talking, there is no chance of coming
across a contrary instance. But this is not the condition of simple enumeration.
(for 3.2.4.5)
• In simple enumeration, conclusion can be disproved by observing just one single
contrary instance. So, the wider the observation, the greater is the probability of
an inference by simple enumeration. (for 3.2.4.5)
• The conclusion by simple enumeration is highly probable when the number of
observed instances is really high.
• But if one is arriving at a conclusion on the basis of very limited observation, the
conclusion is less probable and hence, it is termed as hasty generalization or
illicit generalization. (for 3.2.4.5)
• Many times we find that people arrive at hasty generalizations in determining
some vital things in their daily life.

3.2.3. Causality

3.2.3.1. vis-a-vis Probability

• A causal inference draws a conclusion about a causal connection based on

the conditions of the occurrence of an effect. Premises about the
correlation of two things can indicate a causal relationship between
them, but additional factors must be confirmed to establish the exact
form of the causal relationship.
• Prediction. An Inductive Prediction draws a conclusion about a future
instance from a past sample. Like an inductive generalization, an
inductive prediction typically relies on a data set consisting of specific
instances of a phenomenon. But rather than conclude with a general
statement, the inductive prediction concludes with a statement about
the probability that the next instance will (or will not) have an attribute
shared (or not shared) by the previous instances.
• Example:
Proportion Q of observed members of group G have had attribute A.
Therefore, there is a probability corresponding to Q that other members
of group G will have attribute A when next observed.
3.2.4. Analogy

3.2.4.1. Meaning

• Analogy is a type of imperfect induction where we are comparing two

things, persons, groups or classes. while doing so, we observe some
similarities and on the basis of these, we infer some further similarity, as
we find an additional quality in one of the two compared things,
persons, groups or classes.
• Many times, we observe or compare two things, events, groups,
individuals, things, etc., observe some similarities, and then, infer some
further similarity. We have no logical reason why we get such a
conclusion, but we simply rely on our observation. This is how analogy
works.
• Characteristic of a good and bad analogy. Here, if the observed similarities
are relevant to the additional quality, then our conclusion is likely to be
true and we may say that Analogy is good Analogy.
• But if the observed qualities are not relevant to the additional quality,
then our conclusion about predicting the additional similarity is not likely
to be true, so, we say that such an analogy is Bad Analogy. (for 3.2.4.5)
• Use of Simple Enumeration and Analogy in law: in circumstantial evidence
& getting precedents.
In law, we need to use simple enumeration and Analogy to infer things
from circumstantial evidence. Of them analogy is more useful in legal
matters. Also, while using precedent law, we use analogy to indicate the
support of past decided cases in our matter.
When we see a person following some pattern of behavior or thinking or
actions, while talking of the Modus Operandi of that person, we use
simple enumeration as we talk of the generalized pattern of behavior of
that person.
This is the method followed by criminal investigators quite often. They
determine the Modus Operandi of a criminal to find out the criminal
and / or to track the criminals. This is a very common practice used by
the police in registering the crime record of certain criminals while
maintaining their files.
While contesting any matter, the lawyers use analogy in arguing about
similar matters, or actions done by an individual in similar situations, to
infer about the truth of the statement given by any witness.

3.2.4.2. Example
 • For example, if it is shown that the witness had reacted in a particular way
in the past in similar situations, or has reacted in a particular way in
similar situation created in court, then, one can infer that he must have
reacted exactly in same way when the actual event had happened that
the witness was witnessing.
• This type of inference adds to the weight-age in argument in court.

3.2.4.3. Ruling on the Basis of Judicial Precedent

• Similarly, when we are arguing any matter, we may come across previously
decided matters of same type in the same court, or higher court or
another court. We use the citation of these matters as case law or
precedent law to lead the judge to the conclusion we want, and the
procedure of inductive argument that we use in this type of matter is of
analogy. This is why it is said that Analogy is of great use in legal
arguments.

3.2.4.4. Basis for filling in lacunae in the law

• THE PHENOMENON “LACUNA”- The law deals with the social and
individual life of human beings, a very complex affair, not least because
it is in constant flux, evolving for many reasons, some of which relate to
the ever-changing circumstances surrounding the human condition. The
law simply cannot provide for every eventuality and, thankfully one
might
say, is not intended to do so.
By definition the law therefore occasionally exhibits a casus omissus,
deficiencies, inadequacies, incompleteness, open territory, voids,
lacunae—that has been the case for centuries and should remain so.
The closure of these gaps is not always identified or articulated as the
creation of something new, and is often presented merely as reasonable
interpretation.
• For present purposes we will assume that a legal lacuna exists where an
appropriate legal rule to be applied by a court to the situation before it
is not evident, is uncertain, unclear or does not (yet) exist.
Such a problem is usually solvable (as opposed to being an insoluble
dilemma) provided that the court concerned is endowed with the
jurisdiction to fill the crack. If a particular court does not have such
jurisdiction, it should identify the gap to be filled by other means, such as
legislation or superior adjudication in order to provide justice.

3.2.4.5. The Perils of Inductive Reasoning

 • See Topics 3.2.2 and 3.2.4.1.

3.3. Deductive Reasoning

3.3.1. Definition

• is an argument where the conclusion is the necessary outcome of the premises.

3.3.2. Immediate Inference

• The process by which we reason in order to reach a conclusion is referred to as

inference.

3.3.2.1. Oppositional Inference

• A- Universal in Quantity, Affirmative in Quality.

• E- Universal in Quantity, Negative in Quality.

• I- Particular in Quantity, Affirmative in Quality.

• O- Particular in Quantity, Negative in Quality.

3.3.2.1.1. Contrary Opposition

• Two propositions are said to be contraries if they cannot be both true, that is, if
the truth of either one entails that the other is false.
• The opposition of a pair of propositions so related to one another that they cannot

be simultaneously true but they can be simultaneously false. • The truth of one
excludes the truth of the other, but the falsity of one does not exclude the falsity of
the other.
• Universal attributive, or categorical propositions having the same subject and
predicate but differing in quality (A & E) are contraries.
• The Rules for Contraries:
1.) If one of two contraries is true, the other is false.
2.) If one is false, the other is doubtful.

3.3.2.1.2. Contradictory Opposition

• Two propositions are contradictories if one is the denial or negation of the other,

that is, if they cannot be both true and they cannot be both false. • It is the
opposition of a pair of propositions so related to one another that they cannot be
either simultaneously true or simultaneously false.
• The truth of one excludes the truth of the other, and falsity of one exclude the
falsity of the other.
• Quantified attributive propositions having the same subject and predicate but

differing in both quality and quantity (A & O, E & I) are contradictories. • The Rules
for Contradictories:
1.) If one of two contradictory propositions is true, the other is
false. 2.) If one is false, the other is true.

3.3.2.1.3. Subaltern Opposition

• Two propositions that have the same subjects and the same predicate terms, and
agree in quality but differ only in quantity are subalterns.
• Subalterns are not, strictly speaking, opposites at all because neither the truth nor

the falsity of either of them excludes the truth or falsity of the other. • Both of them
can be true and both of them can be false.
• Propositions having the same subject, predicate and quality but differing in
quantity (A & I, E & O) are subalternates.
• The Rules for Subalternates:
1.) If the universal is true, the particular is true; but if the universal is false, the
particular is doubtful.
2.) If the particular is true, the universal is doubtful; but if the particular is false,
the universal is false.

3.3.2.1.4. Subcontrary Opposition

• Two propositions are said to be subcontraries if they cannot both be false,

although they may both be true.
• Subcontrary opposition is the opposition of two propositions that cannot be
simultaneously false but can be simultaneously true: if one is false, the other
must be true; but both of them can be true.
• Particular propositions having the same subject and predicate but differing in
quality (I & O) are subcontraries.
• The Rules for Subcontraries:
1.) If one of two subcontraries is false, the other is true.
2.) If one is true, the other is doubtful.