LEGAL LOGIC
Chapter 1 - cite rule and apply to facts
Logic = Study of principles and methods of
reasoning
a. A science of reasoning which aims to lay
down criteria of correct and incorrect
reasoning.
b. probes concepts of argument,
inference, truth, and falsity
Legal Reasoning = used to apply laws,
rules, regulations to particular facts and
cases
Argument = A claim put forward with
reasons. A group of statements in which
one is called the conclusion.
a. Lawyers become more persuasive and
convincing if they speak in arguments.
Can support assertions
b. either logical/illogical, sound/unsound,
valid/unvalid
Elements of an argument
a. Conclusion
b. Premises
Difference of argument v explanation
Explanation = an attempt to show why
something is the case
Argument = An attempt to show that
something is the case
Components of legal reasoning
1. Issue – What is being argued
- Any matter or controversy, a dispute,
formulated in a interrogative sentence
- In law, a legal matter
2. Rule – What legal rule governs the issue
- rule is a statute, ordinance, or cases
3. Facts – What are the facts that are
relevant to rule
- The facts must cover all the elements of
the case
4. Analysis – how applicable are facts to
rule
5. Conclusion – Implication of applying
the rule to the given facts
Evaluating legal reasoning
What criteria is used to distinguish correct
from incorrect legal reasoning?
1. truth
2. logic
Process of legal reasoning
1. Presentation of facts which pertains to
question
2. Interference
Chapter 2
Burden of proof = Duty of any party to
present evidence to establish his claim or
defense by the amount of evidence
required by law
It lies upon him who asserts it.
Equipoise Doctrine = When evidence of
parties are evenly balanced or doubt on
which side the evidence preponderates,
decision should be against the party with
burden of proof, must favor accused
Evidence
Means sanctioned by Rules of Court
LEGAL LOGIC

The best evidence rule applies only when
the content of such document is the
subject of inquiry
Best evidence rule does not apply when
the issue is whether the document was
executed. Testimonial evidence is
admissible
Admissibility and relevance
Evidence is admissible = if it is relevant to
the issue or it is not excluded by law and
the rules of court
Evidence is relevant = if it has a relation
to the facts in issue as to induce belief in
its existence or non-existence
precedent which should be followed in
subsequent cases
Chapter 3
Deduction and induction
Deduction = Premises guarantee the truth
of the conclusion
Induction = Premises provide a good
evidence for the truth of the conclusion
What makes an argument deductive or
inductive is not the pattern of general and
specific but the type of support the
presumes provide

Testimony of Witnesses Deductive indicating words

1. personal knowledge Certainy
2. excludes hearsay = heard, told by Definitely
others Absolutely

Expert Testimony Inductive indicator words

- Experts in particular field Probably
- Requires skill, experience Likely
- Published treatise, periodical Chances are

Examination
1. Direct by proponent
- examination of witness by party
presenting him
2. cross-examination by opponent
- test accuracy and truthfulness of
statement
3. re-direct by proponent
4. re-cross by opponent
Dependence on precedence
Stare decisis = When a point has been
settled by a decision, it becomes a
Syllogism
Deductive arguments are expressed in
syllogism
An argument that consist of two premises
and a conclusion
May be valid or invalid
Valid = if the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true
No valid argument can have all true
premises and a false conclusion.
LEGAL LOGIC

Parts of a categorical syllogism

Validity = Not the truth but the Minor term (S) – Subject of conclusion
relationship between premise and Major term (P) – Predicate of conclusion
conclusion. If conclusion follows from Middle term (M) – term found in both
premises. premises

Valid and invalid do not apply to inductive Three kinds of statements

arguments. They are strong or weak Minor premise – Contains minor term
Major Premise – Contains Major term
Types of syllogism Conclusion – The statement the premises
1. Categorical support
2. Hypothetical
All A are B Major term
Categorical – Contains categorical C is A Minor Term
statements C is B Conclusion
Hypothetical – contains categorical and
hypothetical syllogism Rules for the validity of categorical
syllogism
Categorical statements – Asserts
something or states a fact without Rule 1. Must not contain 2 negative
conditions premises
- If premises are both negative, the
Hypothetical Statements = Compound middle term cannot mediate
statements which contains a proposed or between the premises
tentative explanation
Rule 2. There must be three pairs of
Categorical Syllogism univocal terms
Has quality and quantity as its properties - To avoid confusion

Quality = Affirmative or Negative Rule 3. The middle term must be universal

NEGATIVE TERMS = NO, NOT at least once

Quantity = Universal or particular Rule 4. If the term in the conclusion is

Universal – the whole or extension universal, the same term in premise must
All, every, no , none be universal
- Conclusion should not go beyond
Particular – What is being affirmed or what the premises state
denied is a part of the extension
Some Hypothetical syllogism
Most - Contains hypothetical statements
Few - Conditional, disjunction,
conjunction
LEGAL LOGIC

2. the facts from the circumstances

Conditional syllogism derived are proven
- A compound statement which 3. the circumstances point to guilt beyond
asserts that one member is true on reasonable doubt
condition that the other member is
true Inductive generalization – argument that
relies on characteristics of a sample
Rules: population to make a claim about the
Modus ponens: whole population
A then c
A Evaluating inductive generalizations
Therefore, C 1. Is the sample large enough
2. is the sample representative
Modus tollens:
A then c Analogical arguments
-c - Comparison of things based on
Therefore, -A actual similarities

Fallacies According to Edward levi

denying the antecedent
affirming the consequent
Enthymeme
A argument where one of the premises is
not stated since it is understood or in the
mind
Polysyllogism
A series of syllogisms where the
conclusion of one syllogism supplies the
premise for the nest syllogism
Chapter 4
Inductive arguments – premises provide
support, not conclusive evidence
Merely likely to be true
1. establish similarities between two cases
2. announce rule of law in first case
3. apply it to 2nd case
Chapter 5
Fallacy = error in thinking and reasoning
They are psychologically persuasive
Formal and informal fallacies
Formal = identified through inspection of
the form of argument
Informal = identified through analysis of
the content of argument
Fallacies of ambiguity, irrelevant
evidence, insufficient evidence

Circumstantial evidence = not conclusive, Fallacies of ambiguity – misuse of

suggest with high probability language
Irrelevant evidence – connection
1. more than one circumstance between premises and conclusion
LEGAL LOGIC
Insufficient evidence – premises fail to
provide strong evidence to support
conclusion
Fallacies of ambiguity
1. Equivocation = using a term in its
different sense
2. Amphiboly = double meaning not in the
word or term used , but in syntax and
grammatical construction
3. improper accent = putting improper
emphasis in words
4. vicious abstraction = misleading people
by using vague or abstract terms
5. Composition = What holds true to the
individual , holds true to the group
6. Division = reverse of composition
Fallacies of irrelevance
1. Ad hominen – ignores the issue by
focusing on personal characteristics of the
opponent
Two Kinds:
1. Abusive - based on reputation,
personality
2. Circumstancial – when the person
does the same thing
2. Ad misericordiam = appeal to pity
3. Ad baculum = Appeal to force
4. Petitio Principii = begging the question,
premises support itself
Two kinds:
1. Arguing in circle = argument
presupposes the truth of conclusion
2. Question begging language = leads
listener that a matter is already settled
3. Complex question = asks a question
in which some presuppositions are buried
in the question
4. leading question = leading person
to give a particular answer
Fallacies of insufficient evidence
1. appeal to ages = tradition, respect to
tradition
2. appeal to inappropriate authority = no
legitimate authority. Ex. Citing a scientist
to answer a question of grammar
3. Accident = applying a general rule to an
exemption
4. Hasty Generalization =
5. Arguing from ignorance = claim is true
because opposite cannot be proven
6. False Dilemma = choices are not
extensive
Chapter 6
Rules of collision = if two terms are
incompatible, the judiciary must first
reconcile one with other, if cant, uphold
one
Statute must be read as a whole
Laws vis a vis the constitution
- Statute must not contravene the
constitution
A statute must prevail over common law
principles
General laws vis a vis, special laws
= if reconcilable, special law prevails
regardless of date of enactment
Laws vis a vis ordinances
= ordinance- local legislative measures
passed
Must not contravene constitution and
statute
Rules of interpretation
1. verba legis
Ordinary meaning