Distinguish Deductive Reasoning from Inductive Reasoning.

There are two major classes of arguments: Deductive and Inductive arguments.
SIMILARITIES:
Both play important roles in our legal system.
- When a court would determine whether the correct rules of law were applied to the given facts or whether
the rules of evidence were properly applied in establishing the facts, they employ deductive reasoning.
- In cases when we want to determine the facts of the case and to establish them through causal
arguments, probability or scientific methods, the reasoning chiefly relied upon is inductive.
Both reasoning attempts to provide support, that is, evidence or reasons for their conclusions.
DIFFERENCES:
They differ greatly in the amount of support they intent to provide.
- In deductive reasoning, the premises try to prove the truth of their conclusions.
o We are reasoning deductively when our premises intend to guarantee the truth of our
conclusion
- In inductive reasoning, the premises merely try to show that their conclusion/s are plausible or likely or
probable to be true given the premise/s.
o We reason inductively when our premises are intended to provide good (but not conclusive)
evidence for the truth of our conclusion
They differ in how they are formulated.
Deductive is
- from general to particular
- from a class to a member of its class
- The validity or invalidity of this depends on the premises or statements and the conclusions contained
in the argument
- Conclusions are established by the premises with absolute certainty.
- Draw out truth or information already contained in the premises
Ex1. All humans are mortal. Socrates is human. Thus, Socrates is a mortal.
Ex2. All accused are presumed innocent during trials. Mr. B is an accused. Hence, Mr. B is presumed
innocent until proven guilty.
Ex3. All misdemeanors are criminal offenses. Driving under the influence of alcohol is a misdemeanor.
Hence, driving under the influence of alcohol is a criminal offense.
Ex4. If quartz scratches glass, then quarts is harder than glass. Quartz scratches the glass. Therefore,
quarts is harder than glass.
Ex5. Not from general to particular but still deductive reasoning
Three is a prime number. Five is a prime number. Seven is a prime number. Therefore, all odd
numbers between two and eight are prime numbers.
Inductive is
- The reverse of deductive reasoning
- From particular to general
- Once an attribute of a class is found, the whole class members are given the same attributes which
may or may not be true depending on other factors.
- Simply claiming that their conclusions are likely or probable given the premises offered.
 - Gives us truth or information more than what the premises are saying; what is claimed in the
conclusion goes beyond the evidence found in the premises
Ex1: Angelo is an accused. He is an indigent person. Most accused are indigent persons.
Ex2: Maria is a beautiful lady. She is from Milagros, Masbate. Ladies from Milagros, Masbate are
beautiful.
Ex3: Neil, a student in a Legal Logic class, has good study habits and is always attentive in class
discussions. He is a consistent dean’s lister and has never failed in any subject he has taken in law school.
Therefore, it is very probable that Neil will not fail in his Legal Logic class.
Ex4. The car cannot start even though there is plenty of gasoline in the tank. It is likely that the battery is
already exhausted.
Ex5. In the last five years, the passing rate in the bar exam has always been less than 25%. So we can
say that this year’s successful bar examinees will probably not go beyond 25%.
Ex6. Not from particular to general BUT still illustrates inductive reasoning
All of J.K. Rowling’s previous books have been bestsellers. Therefore, her next book will probably be a
bestseller.

DISTINGUISHING CRITERIA: TYPE OF SUPPORT the premises are claimed to provide for the conclusion.

Deductive Reasoning Inductive Reasoning

The connection between a given piece of The connection between given pieces of
information and another piece of information and another piece inferred
information concluded from it is a from them is not a logically necessary
necessary connection. connection.
A deductive argument is one whose An inductive argument is one whose
conclusion is claimed to follow from its conclusion is claimed to follow from its
premises with absolute necessity. If the premises only with probability and not
premises are valid, the conclusion is valid.
absolute necessity. All that is represented
If the conclusion is valid, the premises are
is that the conclusion is more probable than
valid. not. Its premises do not provide conclusive
support for the conclusion; they provide
only some support for it.
In a valid deductive argument, if the In a valid inductive argument, the
premises are true, the conclusion must be conclusion is not necessarily an absolute
true. truth; by induction, we reach a conclusion
that is only more probably true than not.
Moves by inference from the general Moves from the particular to the general
(universal) ultimately to the particular. (universal) (induced generalization by
enumeration of instances), or from the
particular to the particular (analogy).

COMMON DEDUCTIVE INDICATOR WORDS

Certainly
Definitely
Absolutely
Conclusively
It is logical to conclude that
This logically implies that
This entails that
It must be the case that

COMMON INDUCTIVE INDICATOR WORDS

Probably
Likely
Chances are
One would expect that
It is plausible to suppose that
It is reasonable to assume that

There are cases where there are no indicator words and in those cases, we just have to base our judgment on
the content of the premises and conclusion of the argument – Is the conclusion intended to follow with strict
necessity from the premises or is it intended to simply follow from the premises with a degree of probability?

NOTE:
The absence of complete certainty, however, does not dilute the importance of induction in the law.

Deductive reasoning is not applicable in cases where there is no established law, or binding precedent or clear
statute to provide the major premise or our legal argument.

It is inductive reasoning that is applicable in such a case. The lawyer must build the major premise himself.
He has to draw upon the cumulative experience of the judiciary, the specific holdings of other cases. When he
has gathered a sufficient case law, he will then formulate a general norm that supports his claim.

Inductive Reasoning is what we chiefly employ in determining the facts of the case.

In Criminal Law: Conviction can be had even upon circumstantial evidence given that the circumstances
proven should constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the
accused to the exclusion of all others, as the author of the crime. (People v Paguntalan, GR No. 116272)