For batch-2018 Philosophy-I

Syllabus for end term and how to write answer

1. Argument and Explanation: Suppose you are given a passage and asked to identify
whether the passage is an argumentative or explanatory or both. If you think the
passage can be interpreted as argumentative, then you have to state the claim(s) and
premises. Then justify why the particular proposition can be read as claim. If you
read the proposition as claim that does not mean that the other person will read the
same proposition as a claim. Same is the case with premise as well. Therefore, you
have to provide justification for your statement.
You will lose mark: if you fail to provide justification for your answer, even if you
correctly identify premises and conclusion. In Mid-Term test almost 90% student re-
described the passage. Never re-describe the passage. Also never write “the passage
talks about….” Or “the passage says that…”. Words like „talk‟, „say‟ are ambiguous
in logic, as these words may connote explanation, description, narration etc. Instead
you write „proves‟ or „argues‟. Redescription of the passage will not fetch you good
marks.

2. Types of Dispute and their resolution: Suppose you are asked to define a particular
dispute with reference to a case law. In that case start explaining the dispute with a
suitable example and then you discuss the case law. While discussing the case law
state where lays the dispute in the case. Provide reason for your point.
If you are asked to identify the dispute from the passage or case law then first
mentions the dispute underlies in the passage or case law then provide justification for
your answer. While discussing about dispute with reference to the case law, mention
the fact, issue and judgment of the case in precise manner. That will give a good
understanding of dispute that underlie in the case.

3. Types of Definition: If the question is directly asked to define a particular definition

with reference to a case law/case study, then start with the analysis of the definition
with an example. And then cite the case law/case study to show the utility of the
definition in the field of law. Citing case law/case study shows the significance of the
definition in the present context as well as your understanding of the concept.

4. Rules of Definition: While analysing the definition clearly state which rule does it
violates and how.

5. Fallacies: To recognize fallacy in the passage first identify the claim and premise.
Then see their connection.

6. Methods/structure/forms of Argument: We have discussed three methods of

arguments viz., deductive, inductive and analogy. You may get a passage/judgement
and asked to identify the form of argument that the passage contains.
For batch-2018 Philosophy-I

Or you may be asked to critically analyse the argument. Before critical analysis
identify the form of argument first. Unless and until you identify the form, you cannot
check the soundness of an argument. Remember only deductive argument can be
valid or invalid. Validity of the deductive argument can be checked by applying
syllogistic rules. It would be difficult to apply the syllogistic rules to the argument if
the argument is not properly translated into the deductive form. Therefore, it is
necessary for you to learn how to translate argument into deductive form.
An inductive argument cannot be valid or invalid. Inductive argument can be cogent
or not cogent. Cogency of inductive argument is based on the authenticity of evidence
or observation. To develop a counter argument is it necessary to bring the main
argument in its proper structure. Once you bring out the structure of the argument,
you will clearly see the kind of argument the passage or judgement has. Then you can
develop the counter argument. If the argument is deductive and you have to develop a
counter argument, then attack either the major premise or minor premise depending
upon the fact of the case. If the argument is inductive, then you can reject either
premises or conclusion depending on the situation. But in deductive argument you
cannot reject conclusion without rejecting the premises. If the argument is analogical
and you have to develop the counter argument, then you have to prove that the past
case is not same as present one.

Reading list:

1. Read all the case laws in the compendium and 11 judgements

2. First chapter from the compendium which deals with argument, premise and
conclusion.
3. Case law analysis method from the compendium which deals with rules of syllogism.
4. Logic for law students from the compendium to understand three methods viz.,
deductive, inductive and analogy used in law.
5. Statistical generalisation from compendium.