You are on page 1of 6

LOGIC

-Derived from the Greek word “logike” or “logos” which means word, speech, discourse, argument, idea,
and plea, possessed of reason.

-The study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning.

-The science and art of correct thinking. As science it employs the same approach and attitude in
studying its object (arguments). It relies on careful observation, critical analysis and conclusive rational
proofs.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

-Traced back to the Greek Pre-Socratic philosophers starting with the Thales of Miletus around 585 B.C.

-Plato (428-347 B. C.)- At least began asking the veracity and validity of ideas and theories. It started a
way of seeing logic as an object of study. Later, logic became a branch of philosophy.

-Aristotle (384 B. C.)- He laid down the nature of reasoning. “Reasoning” is an argument in which certain
things being laid down, something other than necessary comes about through them.” SYLLOGISM.

ELEMENTS OF REASONING

1. Words
2. Statement
3. Argument
4. Judgement

DEDUCTIVE REASONING

- Is an argument where the conclusion is the necessary outcome of the premises.


- Top-Down Logic

Ex:

All men are mortal. (General statement)

Socrates is a man. (Inference-necessity)

Therefore, Socrates is Mortal. (Conclusion)

INDUCTIVE REASONING

- The conclusion is a probable outcome of the premises.


- Bottom-Up Logic

Ex:
Socrates is mortal. (Particular statement)

Plato is mortal. (Particular statement)

Aristotle is mortal. (Particular statement)

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are all men. (Inference)

Therefore, all men are mortals. (Conclusion)

Word vs. Term

- Word has a general meaning than term. Term is used to mean special words in particular fields
or subjects.

DEFINING A WORD

Arguments from definition- is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merely
upon the definition of some words or phrase used in the premises and conclusion.

Example Cases;

1. Cayetano v. Monsod, G. R. No. 100113, Sept. 3,1991


2. Orceo v. Comelec, G. R. No. 190779, March 26,2010
3. Leus v. St.Scholastica’s College, G. R. No. 187226, Jan. 28,2015

Kinds of Definitions and Their Uses:

1. Reportive (lexical) Definition:- use to eliminate ambiguity


2. Stipulative Definition- use to eliminate ambiguity
3. Precising Definition- Used chiefly to reduce vagueness.
4. Theoretical Definition- Used to advance theoretical understanding.
5. Persuasive Definition- used to influence conduct.

SENTENCE: LANGUAGE USES

CLAIM OR STATEMENT- a sentence about which it makes sense to ask whether it is true or false. It has a
truth value.

-it is the “stuff of logic”, the focus of attention in reasoning.

KINDS OF SENTENCES:

1. Necessary vs. Contingent


2. Normative vs. Descriptive
3. Singular vs. Categorical
4. Simple vs. Compound
Categories of Sentences:

1. Declarative : Asserting
2. Interrogative: Questioning
3. Imperative: Commanding
4. Exclamatory: Exclaiming

Ideas those are particularly relevant to the world of legal thinking:

1. Fundamentals of Deductive Reasoning


2. Principles of Inductive Generalization
3. Reasoning by Analogy

SIMPLE STATEMENT COMPOUND STATEMENT


It does not contain any other statement as a It contains at least one simple statement as a
component. Any statement that is not truth- component. W/N the truth value of the compound
functionally compound. statement is determined wholly by the truth value
of its components, or determined by anything
other than the truth value of its components.

Ex. SCJ’s impeachment proceedings were closely Ex. PRRD is the president and Leni is the vice-
monitored by many people. president.

NORMATIVE STATEMENT DESCRIPTIVE STATEMENT


It does not convey any information about how It describes or tells us truly or falsely about
things are but rather prescribes how things ought something or the world.
to be.
Ex. People ought to obey the laws. Ex. Sometimes people disobey the law.

NECESSARY STATEMENT CONTINGENT STATEMENT


Whose truth values depends on languages and Statements whose truth value depends upon facts
logic alone. about the word.
It does not convey any new information. It is informative.
Must be either always true or always false May be true or may be false, neither necessarily
a. Tautology- a necessary statement that is true nor necessarily false.
always true.
b. Contradiction- a necessary statement that is
always false.
Ex. Either Renato Puno is a retires justice or Ex. Renato Puno is a retired Supreme Court Justice.
Renato Puno is not a justice.
SINGULAR STATEMENT CATEGORICAL STATEMENT
Statement which are about a single thing or Statements which are about classes or categories
situation. of things or situation. They assert that a particular
class is either in part or as a whole related to
another class.
Ex. 1. The SC rules on the constitutionality of the 1. universal affirmative
statutes. 2. universal negative
2. Erap has been found guilty of plunder. 3. particular affirmative
3. The death penalty is cruel and unusual 4. particular negative
punishment.

KINDS OF COMPOUNDS:

I. CONJUNCTIONS (symbolize by the dot “.” ; p.q )


- These are formed with the word “and” or one of its cognates (but, although, also, yet, however
etc.)

RULE:

- For any 2 statements “p” and “q”, the conjunction “p and q” is true when and only when both
component statement “p”, “q” are true. Otherwise it is false.

- p and q are placeholders which represent any statement.

Ex: Pedro was found guilty in the criminal trial of physical injuries and he was held liable in the civil
trial to pay the damages resulted therein.

II. DISJUNCTION/ ALTERNATIVE PROPOSITION (symbolizes by the wedge “v” ; p v q)


- These are formed with the word “or” and one of its cognates (either, unless). A type of
compound proposition if TRUE, at least one of the component must be true.

RULE:

- For any 2 statements p and q, the disjunction “p or q”, is false when and only when both
components p, q are false. Otherwise it is true.

Inclusive Disjunction- “this or that and perhaps both”

Exclusive Disjunction-“this or that but not both”

Ex: 1. Either Atty. A cross-examined the witness or Atty. B cross examined the witness.

2. Guilty or not guilty.

III. CONDITIONALS (symbolizes by a horsehoe “u” ; p u q)


( Hypothetical/ implication/ implicative proposition)

- These are formed with the form “ if p then q” where the symbols are filled by simple
statements.
- The 1st blank is called the antecedent and the 2nd blank is called the consequent of a conditional.

RULE:

- For any 2 statements p and q, the conditional “ if p then q” is false when and only when the
antecedent is true and the consequent is false. Otherwise it is true.

Ex: If Pedro marries again, then he will have a spouse.

IV.BICONDITIONALS (symbolizes by their tribar “=” ; p=q)

-these are also called “equivalence”, and they are formed with the expression “ if and only if”

RULE:

- For any 2 statements p and q, the biconditional “p if and only if q” is true when both p and q
have the same truth value.”

Ex: Pedro is a criminal if and only if he committed a crime.

V. NEGATION/ Denial/ Contradictory (symbolizes bythe tilde or curl “~” ; ~p~q)

- The truth value of a negative statement depends on the truth value of the affirmative statement.

-it is formed with the word “not”, it is not the case that, or “it is false that”

-it is also formed with the expression “neither, nor”. (negation of a disjunction)

RULE:

- If the statement p is true, then not p is false, and if p is false then its negation not p is true.”

Ex: Neither X will be arrested nor Y will be arrested.

SUMMARY OF TRUTH CONDITIONS FOR COMPOUNDS

p q p and q (p. q) p or q (p v q) If p then q (p u p if and only if p then not p


(Conjunction) (Disjunction) q) q (p = q) (Bi- (~p)
(Conditionals) conditionals) (Negation)
T T T T T T F
F T F T T F T
T F F T F F
F F F F T T

RELATIONS OF STATEMENTS

A. EQUIVALENCES/ Logically equivalent

RULE:

-Two statements are equivalent if they have exactly the same truth value.

PATTERNS:

1. “If p then q” is EQ to “ if not p then not q”


2. “if p then q” is EQ to “not q unless p”
3. “if p then q” is EQ to “it is not the case that p and not q”

Ex. If Pedro committed the crime then he will go to prison, is equivalent to, If Pedro did not commit
the crime, then he will not go to prison.