7.
EXPLANATION
Legal Logic
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
1. WHAT IS LOGIC?
- the study of principles and methods of good reasoning
- a science of reasoning which aims to determine and lay down the criteria of a good
(correct) reasoning and bad (incorrect) reasoning
2. WHY IS IT INDISPENSABLE IN THE FIELD OF LAW?
- The efficiency of practicing law depends on the quality of legal reasoning
- Used when applying laws, rules, and regulations to particular facts and cases
- Used when interpreting constitutions and statutes
- Used when balancing fundamental principles and policies
- Used when evaluating evidence, and making judgments to render legal decisions
3. WHAT IS LEGAL REASONING?
- It is what is used when applying laws, rules and regulations to particular facts and
cases
- Expressed thru arguments
4. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT FOR LAW STUDENTS?
- Will enable the law students to discriminate between good and bad patterns of legal
argumentation
5. WHAT IS AN ARGUMENT?
- A claim put forward and defended with reasons
- A group of statements in which one statement is claimed to be true (conclusion) on
the basis of another statement/s (premise).
- Lawyers become more persuasive and convincing if they develop the habit of
speaking in arguments, that is, they do not just make assertions or claims that
something is true, but support their assertions by providing justification, reasons, or
premises for their claims.
6. WHAT ARE THE 2 BASIC ELEMENTS OF AN ARGUMENT?
- CONCLUSION
- PREMISE
HOW ARE ARGUMENTS DIFFERENT FROM:
- An explanation is an attempt to show why something else is the case, while an
argument is an attempt to show that something is the case
- Explanations are not meant to prove or justify the truth of a particular claim.
- Although both argument and explanation give reasons, the nature of these reasons
differs.
o In explanation, these reasons are usually the causes or factors that show
how or why a thing came to exist;
o In argument, they are intended to provide grounds to justify a claim, to show
that it is plausible or true
- KEY QUESTION to distinguish: Is it the speaker’s intent to prove or establish that
something is the case (argument) or is it his intent to explain why something is the
case (explanation)
8. OPINIONS
- Opinions are statements about what a speaker or writer happens to believe; it may
be true or false, rational or irrational
9. CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS
- A conditional statement is a statement that contains an if-then relationship.
- It is made up of two basic components:
o Antecedent (if-clause)
o Consequent (then-clause)
- Conditional statements are not arguments because there is no claim that one
statement is true because of the other statement
10. WHAT ARE THE 5 COMPONENTS OF LEGAL REASONING?
1) ISSUE of the argument
- An issue is any (legal) matter of controversy or uncertainty; an issue is a point in
dispute, in doubt, in question, or simply up for discussion or consideration.
- Always formulated in an interrogative sentence
2) LEGAL RULES
- May be a statute or an ordinance, may take the form of cases or principles that
courts have already decided (stare decisis)
- 3 parts:
o A set of elements, collectively called a test;
o A result that occurs when all the elements are present;
o A causal term that determines whether the result is mandatory, prohibitory,
discretionary, or declaratory
 3) FACT CHAPTER 3: DEDUCTIVE REASONING IN LAW
- Material facts – facts that fit the elements of the rule
- Sound reasoning demands that the facts to be considered should not be one- 1. Distinguish deductive reasoning from inductive reasoning
sided DEDUCTIVE REASONING INDUCTIVE REASONING
4) ANALYSIS - Premises intend to guarantee the truth - Premises intend to provide good (but
- Argumentation and illustration
of conclusion not conclusive) evidence for the truth of
- Supposed to show the link between the rules and the facts presented to establish the conclusion
what we are claiming in our argument - Conclusions are established by the - Conclusions are likely or probable, given
- Analysis requires taking into account the basis which one could say the act is premises with logical necessity the premises
reckless or outrageous - Generally moves from general premises - Generally moves from particular premises
5) CONCLUSION to particular conclusions (not all the to general conclusions (not all the time)
- Ultimate end of a legal argument. time)

11. HOW DO WE DISTINGUISH CORRECT FROM INCORRECT LEGAL REASONING

- 2 General criteria – TRUTH and LOGIC – which can be explained by looking at the 2. What is SYLLOGISM? Why is it important for law students?
two main processes involved in legal reasoning: - A three-line argument: 2 premises and 1 conclusion
o Presentation of facts w/c pertains to the question of truth - A clear, well-constructed syllogism ensures each conclusion is well-supported with
 Are the premises provided in the argument true or acceptable? evidence, and gives the judge a recognizable basis to evaluate the strength of the
 Conclusion must be grounded on factual basis, for if the premises judgment
that are meant to establish the truth of the legal claim (conclusion) is
questionable, the conclusion itself is questionable. 3. Are all deductive arguments valid?
 The legal reasoning that will prevail is that which is grounded on truth - Deductive arguments may be valid or invalid.
or genuine facts. - INVALID: deductive arguments with conclusions that do not follow necessarily from
o Inference w/c pertains to the question of logic their premises
 Is the reasoning of the argument correct or logical? - VALID: argument in which the conclusion really does follow necessarily from the
 Does the conclusion of the argument logically follow from its premises
premises? -
 The premises of the argument must not only be factual but the 4. What are the 2 types of syllogism?
connection of the premises to the conclusion must be logically a. Categorical syllogism -statement that directly asserts something or states a
coherent fact without any conditions
Example:
Senators are elected public officials.

b. Conditional syllogism – compound statement which contains a proposed of

tentative explanation; contains at least 2 clauses that contain one subject and
one predicate
Example:
If a party to a contract fails to perform its obligations in the contract,
then there is a breach of contract.
5. What are the properties of categorical syllogisms?
a. Quality – either affirmative or negative
b. Quantity
i. Universal – what is being affirmed or denied of the subject term is its
whole extension (ex: All, Each, Every, No, None)
ii. Particular – what is being affirmed or denied of the subject is just a
part of its extension (ex: Some, Most, Several, Not All, Many)
6. What are the parts of categorical syllogisms?
a. Three kinds of terms in a categorical syllogism:
i. Minor Term (S) – the subject of the conclusion (subject term)
ii. Major Term (P) – the predicate of the conclusion (predicate term)
iii. Middle Term (M) – the term found in both premises and serves to
mediate between the minor and the major terms
b. Three kinds of statements in a categorical syllogism:
i. Minor premise – the premise which contracts the minor term
ii. Major premise – the premise which contains the minor term
iii. Conclusion – the statement the premises support
7. How do we determine the validity of categorical syllogisms?
Rule 1: The syllogism must not contain two negative premises (violation: Fallacy of
Exclusive Premises)
Rule 2: There must be three pairs of univocal terms (violation: Fallacy of
equivocation)
Rule 3: The middle term must be universal at least once (violation: Fallacy of
particular middle)
Rule 4: If the term in the conclusion is universal, the same term in the premise must
also be universal (violation: Fallacy of illicit minor/major)
8. What are the 2 valid forms of conditional syllogisms?
a. Modus Ponens – When the minor premise affirms the antecedent, the
conclusion must affirm the consequent
b. Modus Tollens – When the minor premise denies the antecedent, the
conclusion must deny the consequent
9. What are enthymemes?
- Kind of argument that is stated incompletely, part being “understood” or only “in the
mind”
10. What are polysyllogisms?
- Series of syllogisms in which the conclusion of one syllogism supplies a premise of
the next syllogism
CHAPTER 4: INDUCTIVE REASONING IN LAW
1. What is the importance of inductive reasoning?
- It is employed in determining the facts of the case
- Decisions on cases are often derived from inductively inferring that given the truth of
a set of particular circumstances a claim about the case is justified.
-
2. What are the types of inductive reasoning?
a. Inductive generalization – an argument that relies on characteristics of a
sample population to make a claim about the population as a whole
b. Analogical arguments – a comparison of things based on similarities those
things share
3. How do we determine the strength or weakness of an inductive generalization?
a. Is the sample large enough?
b. Is the sample representative? (sample must be diverse)
4. Why is analogical reasoning important?
5. How do we determine the strength or weakness of analogical arguments?
a. Relevance of similarities
b. Relevance of dissimilarities between entities compared
CHAPTER 5: FALLACIES IN LEGAL REASONING
1. What are fallacies? Why is it important to study and learn these fallacies?
- Fallacies are error in thinking and reasoning
- Knowing them makes it easier for us to avoid them and attack them, and thus, spares
us from being fooled or midled
2. What are fallacies of ambiguity?
- Committed because of a misuse in language
- Contain ambiguous or vague language which is used to deliberately mislead people
a. Equivocation – using a term in its different senses and making it appear to
have only one meaning
b. Amphiboly – presenting a claim or argument whose meaning can be
interpreted in two or more ways due to its grammatical construction
 c. Improper accent – placing improper emphasis on a word, phrase, or
particular aspect of an issue or claim
d. Vicious abstraction – using vague or abstract terms
e. Composition – wrongly inferring that what holds true of the individuals
automatically holds true of the group made up of those individuals
f. Division – wrongly assuming that what is true in general is true in particular
3. What are fallacies of irrelevance?
- Occur because the premises are not logically relevant to the conclusion
- Premises are psychologically relevant so the conclusion may seem to follow from the
premises although it does not follow logically
a. Ad Hominem – ignores the issue by focusing on certain personal
characteristics of an opponent.
b. Ad Misericordiam – evoking feelings of compassion and sympathy when
such feelings, however understandable, are not logically relevant to the
arguer’s conclusion
c. Ad Baculum – using threat or pressure instead of presenting evidence for
one’s view
d. Petitio Principii – designed to persuade people by means of the wording of
one of the premises
i. Arguing in circle – assumes as a premise the very thing that should
be proven in the conclusion (“A is true because A is true”)
ii. Question begging language – discussing an issue by means of
language that assumes a position of the very question at issue, in
such a way as to direct the listener to that same conclusion.
iii. Complex question – consists in asking a question in which some
presuppositions are buried in that question
iv. Leading question – directing the respondent to give a particular
answer to a question at issue by the manner in which the question is
asked.