ATENEO DE MANILA LAW SCHOOL

LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC OUTLINE1
SECTION 1E, SECOND SEMESTER, SY 2005-2006

ATTY. ALEXANDER C. DY
15 NOVEMBER 2005

I.

INTRODUCTION
A. B. C. History of Logic Civil Law vs. Common Law Tradition The Role of Logic in Law

II.

REASONING
A. Basic Concepts
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. What is Logic Propositions and Sentences Arguments, Premises and Conclusions More Complex Arguments Recognizing Arguments Deduction and Induction Validity and Truth Arguments and Explanations

B. C.

Analyzing and Diagramming Arguments Problem Solving

III.

LANGUAGE
A. Uses of Language
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Three Basic Functions of Language Discourse Serving Multiple Functions Forms of Discourse Emotive Words Kinds of Agreement and Disagreement Emotively Neutral Language

1

The Outline presents the manner by which Legal Technique & Logic will be taken up in class. The Outline is taken mainly from Introduction to Logic by Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen.

2. Definition 1. Disputes. 3. 2. DEDUCTIVE REASONING A. 4. C. Verbal Disputes and Definitions Kinds of Definition and the Resolution of Disputes Denotation (Extension) and Connotation (Intension) Extension. 5. Quantity and Distribution The Traditional Square of Opposition Further Immediate Inferences Existential Import Symbolism and Diagrams for Categorical Propositions Standard-Form Categorical Syllogisms The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Argument Venn Diagram: Technique for Testing Syllogisms Six Rules of Categorical Syllogisms Reducing the Number of Terms in a Syllogistic Argument Translating Categorical Propositions into Standard Form Uniform Translation Enthymemes Sorites Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogisms The Dilemma B. . 6. 2. 5. 5. and Connotative Definition Rules for Definition by Genus and Difference IV. 4. 6. 4. and Denotative Definitions Intension. Categorical Propositions 1. 3.2 B. Categorical Propositions and Classes Quality. 6. 3. Arguments in Ordinary Language 1. Categorical Syllogisms 1. 4. 7. 2. 3.

2. Symbolic Logic 1. 3. 5. Negation. 2. B. The Value of Special Symbols The Symbols for Conjunction. The Method of Deduction 1. 7. Quantification Theory 1. 3. V. 6. 5.3 D. 4. 2. 2. 4. Inductive Generalizations (Induction by Simple Enumeration) Analogy and Probable Inference 1. 6. 3. F. Logical Equivalence The Paradoxes of Material Implication The Three “Laws of Thought” Formal Proof of Validity The Rule of Replacement Proof of Invalidity Inconsistency Singular Propositions Quantification Traditional Subject-Predicate Propositions Proving Validity Proving Invalidity Asyllogistic Inference E. 4. C. D. Material Equivalence. 3. Analogy Appraising Analogical Arguments Refutation by Logical Analogy Causality Probability . INDUCTIVE REASONING A. and Disjunction Conditional Statements and Material Implication Argument Forms and Arguments Statement Forms.

ii. c. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Argument from Ignorance) Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity) Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Inappropriate Authority or Prestige) Argumentum ad Hominem (Argument against the Man) i. d.4 VI. g. Fallacies of Relevance a. 2. What is a Fallacy? Formal Fallacies 1. b. c. Fallacies in Categorical Syllogisms a. f. h. b. Fallacies in Disjunctive Syllogisms a. e. Four Terms Undistributed Middle Term Illicit Major Term Illicit Minor Term Negative Premises Particular Premises Fallacies in Hypothetical Syllogisms (Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens) a. B. i. e. d. b. f. C. FALLACIES A. Abusive Circumstantial Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to the Masses) Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force) Argumentum ad Antiquitam (Appeal to the Ages) Argumentum ad Terrorem (Appeal to Terror) Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi) . b. Informal (Material) Fallacies 1. Denial of Antecedent Affirmation of Consequent Missing Disjuncts Nonexclusivity 3.

Non cause pro causa Post hoc ergo propter hoc Fallacies of Presumption Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow) Begging the Question (Petitio Principii) Accident (Dicto Simpliciter) Converse Accident (Hasty Generalization) Equivocation Amphibology Accent Composition Division Vicious Abstraction Fallacies of Ambiguity D. b. ii. d. c. a. f. k. e. e.5 j. Tu Quoque (You Yourself Do It) Argumentum ad Nauseam Compound (Complex) Question False Cause i. 3. a. c. 2. SYNTHESIS AND APPLICATION . f. d. b. Avoiding Fallacies VII.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful