LEARNING UNIT 8

LEGAL LANGUAGE, ARGUMENT AND LOGIC

Theme 2: Legal argument and logic

Chapter 17 (pp 382-394)
Objectives

LO6 Critically evaluate LO7 Briefly describe

LO5 Explain the process the process of five fallacious methods
of inductive reasoning; deductive of argument in the
reasoning; and courtroom.
Inductive reasoning (LO5) (pp 382-386)
■ Thought process (technique of argumentation) by which a general conclusion is drawn from specific
facts
■ A search for generally applicable truths from specific observations
■ Human knowledge is based on induction – we draw inferences on what we see, hear and experience
■ To be reliable, a conclusion must be based on facts that are known and not mere speculation
■ A conclusion must be based on a representative or adequate sample
■ Inadequate factual basis can easily lead to an invalid conclusion
– E.g. There is nothing you can tell me about boxers – I know Johnny
■ In law inductive arguments are used
– Credibility of witnesses
– Presumptions help prove facts
– Judicial notice
– Circumstantial evidence
– Res ipsa loquitur (the matter speaks for itself)
– Legal rules of common law
Deductive reasoning (LO6) (pp 386-388)
■ Works the other way round
■ A general statement is applied to specific circumstances to arrive at a conclusion
■ Examples
• All humans are mortal (general). Sarena is a human (specific). Therefore:
Sarena is mortal (conclusion)
• Someone who kills another with intention (a) is guilty of murder (b) (general)
The accused (c) killed the deceased with intention (a) (specific)
Therefore: The accused (c) is guilty of murder (b) (conclusion)
■ A valid deduction must be based on a primary hypothesis that is true
■ If you use deductive process, you may reach a logical conclusion
■ If your starting premise is invalid, your conclusion will be invalid
Five (5) fallacious methods of argument
(LO7) (pp 388-392)
1. Manipulation of words
• Arguments are made up of words
• Words may be used in their ordinary meaning
• But words have also an emotive meaning (or connotation) to
manipulate (to argue or convince)
• Example: a judge calling the accused’s deed a ‘cowardly, atrocious
and evil action’ to justify the imposition of death penalty
• Techniques of verbal persuasion (words woven together) are
rhetorical language
• Rhetoric language is used to move or persuade readers and listeners
Five (5) fallacious methods of argument
(LO7) (pp 388-392)
2. Playing the player (ad hominem)
– Sometimes rugby or football players play the other player and not
the ball (due to frustration or anger)
– Participant in debates may shift the attention away from the issue to
be argued to the person arguing (side-stepping thorny issues)
– Also known as ad hominem argument
– Example?
– Lawyers must be wary of getting involved in personal vendettas with
court opponents
Five (5) fallacious methods of argument
(LO7) (pp 388-392)
3. Shifting the goal posts
• Extending the issue so that if falls outside the initial boundaries (or
playing field)
• Attempt to avoid addressing the issue
• An argument in favour of the death penalty, a person argues that the
criminal justice system does not generally show sympathy to victims
and their families
Five (5) fallacious methods of argument
(LO7) (pp 388-392)
4. Extreme alternatives
• A very clever technique is to reformulate an issue as a plain choice
between two extreme alternatives
• Example of the death penalty debate:

Supporting death Supporting freedom

penalty for murderers
Five (5) fallacious methods of argument
(LO7) (pp 388-392)
5. Circular argument (begging the question)
• Most easily recognised as an argument where the conclusion is
already contained in the starting point (premise)
• Something claiming to be proof is exactly the issue that must be
proved
• Also known as ‘begging the question’
• Example
• Proving the truth of the Bible by quoting the Bible itself to answer
questions about its truthfulness
Five (5) fallacious methods of argument
(LO7) (pp 388-392)
6. Non sequitur (it does not follow) arguments
• Sometimes a conclusion is portrayed as the necessary consequence
of one event or statement when it is, in fact, not the case
• When two events are illogically linked as cause and effect
• The conclusion does not follow the premise
• Example
• Mrs. X made a speech at a conference that female priests should be allowed.
Subsequently, women were allowed to become priests
• Therefore: Women became priests because Mrs. X made a speech at a
conference that women priests should be allowed