1. What is an Argument from Definition?
They proposed various
Answer: It is an argument in which the conclusion is
claimed to depend merely upon the definition of
some word or phrase used in the preminse of
conclusion.
2. Define Circumstantial Evidence.
Answer: It is an indirect evidence; it tends to prove
indirectly the existence or non-existence of a fact or
event.
3. What are the three basic reading materials in law
school? BRIEFLY define each.
Answer: The three basic reading materials in law
school are the following:
a. Code/Codals – the bare law without
commentaries;
b. Jurisprudence – the cases decided by the
Supreme Court and can be read in the
Supreme Court Reports Annotated;
c. Commentaries – Text books by professor of
law.
1. Define Legal Reasoning.
Answer: Vern R. Walker writes that legal reasoning is
the “tool we use in interpreting constitutions,
statutes, and regulation 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.
2. What is Syllogism? Give example.
Answer: Syllogism is a form of argument where
conclusion is drawn from a set of premises. Example:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
And:
Socrates is mortal.
Plato is mortal.
Aristotle is mortal.
Socrates, Plate, and Aristotle are all
men.
Therefore, all men are mortal.
3. Briefly State the historical Background of Logic.
Answer:
 585 BC – Greek Pre Socratic Philosophers
starting with Thales Milethus started
asking questions about the nature of the
physical world.
answers and theories to these questions.
 Plato (428-347 BC) began asking the
veracity and validity of ideas and theories.
He began asking what is it that can be
properly called true or false, the nature of
the connection between the assumptions
of a valid argument and its conclusion, the
nature of definition. This started a way of
seeing logic as an object of study. Logic
became itself a branch of Philosophy.
 Aristotle (384 BC) began to actually lay
down the ground for logic as an object of
study in itself. He laid down the nature of
reasoning which is what we now described
as syllogism.
1. What is an informal fallacy? Name the 4 major
informal fallacies and briefly explain each.
Answer: The type of mistake in reasoning that arises
from the mishandling of the content of the
propositions constituting the argument.
The 4 major informal fallacies are:
a. Fallacies of relevance – are those in which
the premises are simply not relevant to the
conclusion drawn.
b. Fallacies of defective induction – those in
which the mistake arises from the premises
of the argument, although relevant to the
conclusion, are so weak.
c. Fallacies of presumption – mistakes that
arise because too much has been assumed in
the premises, the inference to the
conclusion depending on that unwarranted
assumption.
d. Fallacies of Ambiguity – arise from the
equivocal use of words or phrases in the
premises or in the conclusion of an
argument, some critical term having
different senses in different parts of the
argument.
2. What is an argument?
“ the RTC also ruled that treachery attended the
killing of the victim for the prosecution’s evidence
shows that the accused-appellant suddenly and
unexpectedly appeared and shot the victim who
did not sense any danger upon him.” - Is there an
argument in this statement?
Answer: Arguments are statements which try to
prove something as true or false. These statements
have “evidentiary” nature in them that qualify them
as arguments.
Yes. The RTC is arguing that the crime committed by
the accused is murder because the killing is by means
of treachery. Treachery in the RPC refers to the
manner of committing the crime. Killing a person can
either be homicide or murder depending on the
presence of qualifying circumstance such as, in this
example, treachery.
3. What are the two types of questions in law school
exam and bar exam? Briefly explain each.
Answer: The two types of questions in law school
exam and bar exam are:
a. Objective Type Questions are quite
straightforward. They are simple designed
to test what the examinee knows. They
require memorization and knowledge of
basic concepts, except when they are
designed to draw critical thinking and
logical reasoning from the examinee.
b. Problem Type Questions give you the
“facts” of a legal problem and you are asked
to determine what law is applicable in those
set of facts.
1. What are the other patterns of Legal Reasoning?
Explain each briefly.
Answer: The following are the other patterns of Legal
Reasoning:
a. Argument from Definition - It is an
argument in which the conclusion is
claimed to depend merely upon the
definition of some word or phrase used
in the premise or conclusion.
b. If and Then Reasoning - It is a syllogism
with conditional statement for one or
both of its premises.
c. Argument from General Principles of
Law - These are general principles of law
used as major premises in deductive
reasoning or used as the concluding
principle on which inductive premises
are based.
2. Give the instances when circumstantial evidence
is sufficient to convict a person.
Answer: In criminal cases, circumstantial evidence is
sufficient to convict a person when:
a. There are more than one 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.
3. Differentiate deductive and inductive reasoning.
Answer: Deductive reasoning is an argument where
the conclusion is the necessary outcome of the
premises while inductive reasoning is one where the
conclusion is a probable outcome of the premises.
1. What is context?
Answer: Context is about the overall meaning of
something. It’s the entire structure of statements - its
form and intent. It’s the picture or image that comes
out when all words and sentence are considered.
Context can be found in a sentence, in the entire
material being read. In law, most often, context can
be found in its very intent. To know its intent is to
know the context of the law. To know the context of
the law is to know the law.
2. What is logical reasoning?
Answer: In the legal profession, logical reasoning is a
vital tool. Vern R. Walker writes that legal reasoning
is the 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. Logical reasoning therefore is the bedrock
of all legal knowledge.
3. What is the negative implication of directly looking
for the facts, issue, and ruling?
Answer: In law school, it is strongly emphasized that
students must learn how to get the facts, issues, and
rulings of a case. However, through this, the students
develop a kind of reckless attitude in reading a case.
They skim through words, phrases and paragraphs
with a resolute intent if finding the facts, issues, and
rulings and fail to spend enough time reading the
arguments raised by the trial court and the court of
appeals. Students must read carefully all the contents
of the case.