Episode 3

1. Converse Accident
7:17 – 8:10

HJ: When did it start? Since when did you fall in love with me.
JC: What? Fall in love with you? Who? Me?
HJ: Bingo!
JC: There must have been misunderstanding.
HJ: You fell in love with me when I hugged you, right? That's why you hugged me back, right?
JC: No, I only hugged you because you hugged me first. I had no feelings.

Explanation: Due to the prior action of Jae Chan, which is saving Hong Joo, Hong joo hastily
concluded that Jae Chan has a feeling for her.

Episode 4

1. Converse Accident
8:58 – 9:06

So-Yoon: My dad will never be put on trial because prosecutors

are dumb and lawyers are sly.

Explanation: Because of So Yoon’s prior experience, that prosecutors and lawyers manipulating
cases, does not necessarily mean that prosecutors are dumb and lawyers sly.

2. Evidence

10:10 – 10:27

Jae-Chan: "So it must be an injury case, right?"

Yoo-beum: "No, it's an assault case. That's Ms. Do Geum Sook's medical report. She has multiple
ribs broken and a contusion."
JC: "How can it be an assault when there's a medical report?"
YB: Hey, you should check the dates. The incident occurred on February 14. The medical report
was written on February 10."

Explanation: In this scene, the documentary evidence was shown, to be able to determine the
nature of the crime.

Episode 5
1. Deductive Reasoning
5:41 – 5:45

Jae Chan: The injured party does not wish the accused to be punished, therefore the case is
unprosecutable.

Explanation: Premises of Jae Chan in this scene provides a valid conclusion. Physical injury is an
example of a private crime. Hence, if the offended party does not want to pursue the case, the
offender shall not be prosecuted.

2. Inductive Arguments

21:57 – 22:04

Jae Chan's father: You probably manipulated your report cards like that because you felt
smothered by my expectations of you.

Explanation: The premise that Jae Chan manipulated his report card is true, but is not a
conclusive evidence to support that Jae Chan did it because of his father’s expectation from him.

3. Deductive Reasoning

25:21 – 25:24

Seung Won (Jae Chan’s Brother): I will never become a prosecutor.

Jae Chan: You’ll never be able to become one with the grades you’ve been getting.

Explanation: The premise of Jae Chan in this case provide a valid conclusion. Because, if his
brother consistently get a failing grade, he will not graduate. Hence, he will not be able to
become a prosecutor.

4. Inductive Generalization

26:11 – 26:13
 So Yoon: All prosecutors are stupid.

Explanation: So Yoon generalizes all prosecutors based on the prosecutor on her father’s case. In
this case, she used a sample population to make a claim about the population as a whole.

Episode 6

1. False Cause
00:46 – 00:48
Hong Joo: Burns can get infected if they’re not treated properly.

Explanation: The argument of Hong Joo in this scene is false, because infection is not a result on
how burns are treated.

2. Conditional Syllogism

00:59 – 01:01
Hong Joo: You’ll probably be hospitalized if you make breakfast again.

Explanation: In this scene Hong Joo’s argument states that if Jae Chan makes a breakfast again,
he will inflict harm on himself again. But there still lies a probability that Jae Chan may or may
not harm himself when he will cook breakfast again.

3. Argument
3:48 – 3:59
Jae Chan asked Hong Joo if she always wear glasses, the subsequently said that it might be
annoying to wear a glasses if it gets fogged.

Explanation: In this scene, the argument of Jae Chan intents to prove that wearing glasses might
be annoying.

4. False Cause

4:06 – 4:07
Jae Chan: If (wearing eyeglasses) it does not bother you, then keep wearing them.
 Explanation: The argument of Jae Chan in this case is a false cause, because Hong Joo wears her
eyeglasses not because she was comfortable with it, she wears it because of her poor eyesight

Episode 7

1. Conditional Syllogism
2:57 – 3:05
Yoo Beom while talking to Mrs. Park , he mentioned that once the trial against her husband
will pursue, Mr. Park(husband) will cut all his support in favour of Mrs. Park and to So Yoon.
Which be the cause of the loss of So Yoon’s talent and her future.

Explanation: The argument of Yoo Beom in this scene is conditional, because IF Mrs Park will
pursue the trial, THEN Mrs. Park and So Yoon will lose all financial support.

2. False Cause
2:57 – 3:05
Yoo Beom while talking to Mrs. Park , he mentioned that once the trial against her husband
will pursue, Mr. Park(husband) will cut all his support in favour of Mrs. Park and to So Yoon.
Which be the cause of the loss of So Yoon’s talent and her future.

Explanation: The argument of Yoo Beom in the same scene is at the same time a false cause,
because So Yeon’s talent and future is not dependent on the financial support given by Mr.
Park.

Episode 8

1. Analogical Argument
01:37 – 2:05
Hong Joo and Woo Tak examines on which dream they will use, it is either Hong Joo’s or
Woo Tak’s dream. Hong Joo deducted that the facts in their dreams are the same except
in Hong Joo's dream it was Jae Chan who investigated, whereas in Woo Tak's it was Dam
Dong himself who did.

Explanation: In this scenario, Hong Joo was able to deduce the difference between her
dream and Woo Tak’s dream. Because in her dream, Mr. Park was acquitted and in Woo
Tak’s dream he was convicted.

2. Converse Accident