I.

LAW and LOGIC
-man has always been a thinker and thinking has become
the primary human function; the ability to reason is critical
to the development of our full potential and protection of
our social liberties.
Logic is essential to the practice of law
-logic and law are intertwined; however, logic is often lost
in the legal discourse; lawyers are all guilty from time to
time in resorting to rhetoric.
-legal logic is the ultimate tool of persuasion in the
courtroom; when properly applied, it efficiently amplifies
the truth and disposes the lie; law is supposed to ignore
appeals to emotions and focus only on the application of
law to facts.
-arguments are the primary tools of the law profession –
one cannot use them effectively unless he understands and
obeys the rules of logic; arguments require logic to be clear
and acceptable to a judge.
-good legal reasoning habits are essential to a quality law
practice; the use or misuse of logic promotes or impairs the
development of law.
dangerous; Socrates was put to death for his rational
challenge to the religious worship of the gods; Giordano
Bruno was subject to inquisition and burned alive at the
stake in 1600 when he refused to recant his radical writings
as to the Earth revolving around the Sun in a larger
Universe; and the so-called witches and wizards, were
tortured and killed in the middle ages for their free-thinking
magic
-real thinking is the function of relating, comparing and
contrasting to gain understanding and knowledge; legal
reasoning depends upon the power of seeing logical
connections in the cases, of recognizing similarities and
dissimilarities
-four basic functions of Man's consciousness are thinking;
sensing, feeling and willing. Briefly, "sensing" is the basic
intake of data and perceptions, pure unprocessed
information; the facts of the case. "Feeling" is the positive
or negative response, the likes and dislikes, desires, drives,
emotions and dreams; the equities of the case. "Willing" is
action, choice, control, deciding yes or no, movement; the
decision of the case. When thinking properly your thinking
is independent, grounded in the evidence (sensing) and the
equities (feeling), and leading to just decisions (willing).

Logic is essential to the study of law
-most writing and speaking in the legal profession is based
upon logical arguments; a law student cannot read case
books like a lawyer until he understands the basics of
logical thinking.
-logic is central to effective engagement in Socratic
dialogue; good reasons are not enough; a law student must
improve his argumentation skills; logical arguments are
bulletproof.
Law is not logical
-law involves complex considerations of justice, history,
equity, facts, customs and economics; law cannot be
reduced to a syllogism or legal mathematics.
-the life of the law is not logic but experience; life does not
exist for the sake of concepts but concepts for the sake of
life.
-it is not logic that is entitled to exists but what is claimed
by life, by social relations, by the sense of justice – logical
necessity or logical impossibility is immaterial.
II. THINKING
-thinking independently is a basic human need
-prior to renaissance, blind faith in the church and
obedience to the state were demanded of everyone
-then came the Magna Carta and the beginning of legal
constraints on the absolute power of the king; the law and
its servants then started to have power as society moved
from a feudal system of dictatorship to an urban system of
law; the surest way to chaos and tyranny was to remove the
guardians of independent thinking (as remarked in
Shakespeare's King Henry VI – the first thing we must do
is kill all the lawyers!)
-independent thinking was discouraged; for most of
recorded history independent thinking was extremely
-pseudo-thinking includes undisciplined mental processes
such as haphazard associations and blind repetition of the
thoughts of others
-legal thinking is pondering a given set of facts so as to
perceive their connection; this realization of a
connectedness or unity is what is meant by a "thought"; the
thought can be in words, symbols, or numbers, and can also
be in geometric patterns, images, tones, colors, movements
or kinesthetic processes; the act of making these
associations is thinking.
III. CRITICAL THINKING
-not what to think but how we think
-not what we believe but why we believe
-not fault-finding
-focused on exercising objective, fair and skilled judgment
-involves the application of the methods and principles of
logic (science of correct reasoning)
Skills
-interpretive (analysis of the language)
-verification (ascertaining truth values)
-reasoning (basis and acceptability)
-asking relevant questions (meaning, truth and logic)
Characteristics
-intellectual honesty
-objective judgment
-openness to criticisms
-independent thinking
-self-control
Importance
-higher order of thinking (active and intelligent evaluation)
-avoidance of foolish personal decisions (mistakes)
-protection of social liberties (informed decisions)
-self-respect (development of full potential; liberation from
our ignorance, prejudices and unexamined assumptions)
IV. REASONING
-when we reason, the mind links thoughts together in such
a way that one thought supports another thought.
-reasoning is a form of thinking, but not all thinking is
reasoning (imagining, daydreaming or reminiscing where
we just entertain some thoughts)
Argument
-the product of reasoning is argument
-it is a claim put forward and defended with reasons
-it is a group of statements/propositions in which one is
claimed to be true (conclusion) on the basis of another
(premise)
-it is either logical or illogical, valid or invalid, sound or
unsound depending on the acceptability of the premises
and their connection with the conclusion
-conclusion indicators (therefore, thus, hence, so,
accordingly, it follows that, consequently, etc.)
-premise indicators (because, since, for, given that, as in
view of the fact that, in as much as, etc.)
-at least one premise is enough to support a conclusion
-several premises may give rise to several conclusions
which are then treated as separate and distinct argument
Statement/Proposition
-it is a group of concepts the purpose of which is to assert
something about reality; thus, it is always either true or
false; similarly, no statement is neither true nor false
-when we make a statement, we actually relate at least two
concepts; this mental process is called judgment
(agreement or disagreement between two concepts)
Sentence
-is a group of words that expresses a complete thought
-we do not judge sentences as either true or false
-although statements are usually express through sentences
Statements and Sentences
-a sentence may be used to express more than one
statement
-different sentences may have only one assertion
-no interrogative sentences are statements
-no exclamatory sentences are statements
-no imperative sentences are statements
-no ambiguous sentences are statements
-no sentences with indexical expressions are statements
Concept
-building block of statements
-it is the representation of the essence of a thing in the
mind grasped through the process of abstraction
-essence (characteristics common to a group of objects)
-accidents (individuating characteristics)
-it is expressed through term (word or group of words)
-it is not identical with term
-a term may express more than one concept
mental operation Product expression
abstraction Concept term
judgment Statement sentence
reasoning Argument argument
Non-Arguments
-not all groups of statements are argument
-in an argument, premises must support the conclusion; the
intention is to prove or establish that something is the case
-reports (provide information or narrations but do not prove
or justify anything)
-unsupported opinions (there is no premise)
-conditional statements (if-then relationship, the antecedent
and consequent are not asserted to be true; the former only
implies the latter); they can be arguments if modified
-explanations (show the causes, factors, motives; an
account why some event occurred)
Truth, Logic and Soundness
-truth (conformity of the statements to reality)
-logic (connection between the premises and conclusion)
-soundness (concurrence of truth and logic)
-the first two criteria does not depend on each other; an
argument may be logical even one or more of its premises
is false or an argument may be illogical even all its
premises are true.
V. PROBLEMS OF LANGUAGE
-language is the essential tool in the art of logical and
effective reasoning; it is the most effective means to
express our thinking because it is difficult, if not
impossible, for others to read our mind.
-language can also be a source of miscommunication and
misunderstanding between people *due to its inherent
characteristics, *when our words do not appropriately
reflect our thoughts, and * when our language and other
thoughts do not jibe.
Vagueness and Ambiguity
-vagueness is lack of clear and precise meaning while
ambiguity refers to multiplicity in meanings of a term
-a term may be vague but not ambiguous (no precise
meaning but it has only one meaning); a term may be
ambiguous but not vague (it has several meanings but they
are precise)
-vagueness depends on the contexts in which the language
is used; there are contexts in which precision is not needed.
-vagueness should be avoided as a rule, although it may
sometime be useful when *we lack precise information,
*we need to talk with caution, and *in diplomacy.
-the ambiguity of language also depends on the contexts in
which it is used; therefore, a word is ambiguous when it is
not obvious which of its meanings is intended in a situation
in which the word is used.
-semantic ambiguity results from uncertainty about the
meaning of a word in the sentence.
-syntactic ambiguity results from faulty grammatical
construction.
Verbal Disputes
-when people disagree because they have different notions
of what a term means. They disagree because of their
different understanding of economic progress. This can be
avoided if the words in the sentence are clarified from the
beginning.

Genuine Disputes
-when people disagree because they have different
knowledge, information or belief about something. It can
be settled by looking at the facts or data regarding the
matter.
-a genuine dispute does not arise from linguistic problems
while a verbal dispute does. It is with verbal dispute that
logic is mainly concerned.
VI. RESOLVING LINGUISTIC PROBLEMS
-through clear and accurate definition of a term
-the term “define” comes from the latin verb “definere”
which literally means to “enclose within limits”; thus, to
define is to set limits to the usage of a term.
-if a term is used in any way, it loses its significance
-we must know when to apply it or not to apply it.
-in order to set limits to the usage of a term, we need to
understand the two senses of a term – extension and
intension
Extension and Intension
-extension of a term refers to all objects to which it
correctly applies.
-intension of a term refers to the qualities or attributes
shared by all and only those objects to which the term
refers. It supposes some criterion for deciding whether it
falls within the extension of that term.
-every term has both extensional and intensional meaning
-intensional meaning is also known as connotation,
whereas, extensional meaning is also known as denotation;
Note, however, that logic uses the terms connotation and
denotation differently from the rules in grammar where
“connotation” refers to subtle nuances of the word,
whereas, “denotation” to the direct and specific meaning
-In logic, to “connote” means to give certain attributes,
while to “denote” means to refer to some objects.
-Intension and extension are related to each other in an
inverse manner – the greater the intension of a term, the
lesser will be its extension and vice versa.
-So it can be said that if the term becomes more precise, the
greater will be its intension (attributes) but lesser extension
(examples/members)
VII. METHODS IN DEFINING TERMS
Every definition is consist of two parts; the Definiendum
which is the word or group of words to be defined and
Definiens which does the defining.
Denotative (providing concrete examples)
-assigns meaning to a term by giving the members of the
class which the definiendum denotes (enumerative
definition).
-pointing to the objects which the term denotes (ostensive
definition).
-Limitations of denotative definition; *it is difficult to give
examples of abstract terms; or *the examples may not be
familiar. Despite the inadequacy of this method, it can help
people to better connect the term to concrete things.
Connotative (giving essential characteristics)
-defines a term by providing the qualities or attributes
common and peculiar to the definiendum; it is also called
definition by genus (general class) and differentia
(attributes distinguishing the various subclasses).
Synonymous (giving words with the same meaning)
-sometimes we do not understand a term not because we do
not know its extension or intension but simply because it is
unfamilar to us, thus, we define it using another term that
has the same meaning.
-unfamiliarity with terms can also be caused by technical
jargons.
-in this method, we must be careful of some words which
may have certain similarities but are not synonymous.
Etymological (providing the origin or ancestry)
-most English words have their etymology in Old or
Middle English or in some other language such as Greek,
Latin and French.
Operational (specifying experimental procedures)
-the term is to be applied only when a specific test or
operation yields a certain result; this strategy is essential in
situations where precision and accuracy are very important
like in science; It is not operational if no procedure is
prescribed.
VIII. TYPES OF DEFINITION
-the general purpose of defining terms is to explain or
clarify their meaning; however, there are specific purposes
why people give definitions:
Stipulative (to deliberately assign meaning)
-use when we want to introduce a new word in the
language; Thus, there is freedom and authority to assign
meaning to this term; Common reasons in introducing new
term include: *Discoveries or inventions; *Secrecy; and
*Economy in expression.
-it is also use when we want to give an old word an entirely
new meaning.
-since stipulative definition is a completely arbitrary
assignment of meaning to a word for the first time, there
can be no true or false stipulative definition.
Lexical (to give conventional or standard usage)
-reporting the meaning that a term already has in a
language; the purpose is not to invent or assign meaning;
thus, lexical definition may be true or false depending on
whether or not it reports the way a word is actually used.
-because a term may be frequently used in more than one
way, lexical definitions have the purpose of eliminating
ambiguity by listing in it the various meanings of the word.
Precising (to clarify vague term in a particular context)
-serves to reduce the vagueness of a word by further
clarifying its meaning depending on the context in which it
was used..

-This kind of definition is related to the operational strategy
in defining a term. Oftentimes, precising definition can be
given using operational definition where we indicate
certain procedure to determine the exact applicability of a
term.
Persuasive (to influence)
-the purpose is accomplished by using emotionally charged
or value-laden terms in the definition; the words used are
not neutral and objective compared to the lexical definition.
IX. ERRORS OF DEFINITION
Circular
-when the term we are defining or its root word appears in
the definition; this definition does not help in making
people understand what is meant by a term.
-Synonymous definitions may commit this error when the
term we are defining is not really unfamiliar to people but
it is simply vague, thus, we need a more substantial
definition of it.
Too Broad
-the definition includes non-members (non-extension) of
the term being defined; this happens because the definition
lacks certain essential characteristics of the term.
-to avoid this, we should include all the essential
characteristics of a term that makes it different from other
terms.
Too Narrow
-the definition excludes real members (extension) of the
term being defined; this occurs because the definition
contains certain characteristics that are not essential to the
term.
Figurative
-the definition involves metaphor and tends to be poetic;
Although the sentences are pleasing to our ears, they fail to
convey what the word really means because they do not
give us the essential characteristics of the word.
Obscure
-the definition unnecessarily uses technical and unfamilar
terms; Instead of being enlightened of what the term
means, people will be more confused because of needless
inclusion of difficult terms.
Negative
-the definition conveys what the term is not rather than
what it is; Although it gives a right information, it failed to
give the necessary information to adequately understand
the term.
-there is nothing wrong with negative definitions when the
term is intrinsically negative; But if the terms can be
defined affirmatively, we must do away with negative
definitions.
X. USES OF LANGUAGE
Informative
-to communicate information
-consists of matter of facts
-objectivity in the language
Expressive
-to evoke similar feelings and attitudes (poetry)
-not all expressive language is poetry (exclamations)
-it is neither true nor false
Directive
-to cause or prevent an action
-commands and requests, signs and advertisements
-it is neither true nor false
XI. Fallacies
-mistake or error in thinking and reasoning; not false belief;
they are deceptive and misleading since, although illogical
and incorrect, they seem to be correct and acceptable; they
are not logically sound but are often psychologically
persuasive.
-there is a difference between good sound reasons and
reasons that sound good; knowing the fallacies will make it
easier to avoid them.
Formal Fallacies
-those identified through mere inspection of the form and
structure of an argument; they are found only in deductive
arguments that have identifiable forms; regardless of the
content of the argument, as long as its form violates the
rules of logic, the argument commits a formal fallacy.
Informal Fallacies
-those that can be detected only through analysis of the
content of the argument; since the form is valid, one might
conclude that the argument is logical although the contents
are not.
-these fallacies may be categorized into:
Fallacies of Ambiguity (committed because of a misuse of
the language; they contain ambiguous or vague language
which is deliberately used to mislead people);
Fallacies of Relevance (they do not have a problem with
language but with the connection of the premise and
conclusion; the premises are not logically relevant to the
conclusion but rather psychologically relevant); and
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence (they occur not because
the premises are not logically relevant to the conclusion but
because the premises fail to provide evidence strong
enough to support the conclusion).
XII. FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
Equivocation
-using a term in its different senses/meanings and making it
appear to have only one meaning.
Amphiboly
-using a phrase whose meaning is ambiguous due to its
grammatical construction.
Improper Accent
-misleading people by placing emphasis on a word, phrase
or particular aspect of an issue or claim; it can be done by
putting sensational words which is pleasing or attractive to
the people or distortion by pulling a quoted passage out of
context.

Vicious Abstraction
-misleading people by using vague and abstract terms;
occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete
thing.
XIII. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
Personal Attack (Argumentum ad Hominem)
-Ignoring the issue by attacking the character or personality
of the opponent (abusive name calling and mudslinging) or
by citing the circumstances of another person
(circumstantial or tu quoque or you too) or alleging that
one's adversary is rationalizing a conclusion formed from
selfish interests (poisoning the well).
Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
-evoking feelings of compassion and sympathy that are not
relevant to the conclusion; they exploit emotional
sensitivities.
Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum)
-persuading others to accept a position using threat or
pressure instead of presenting evidence for one's view.
-not all threats, however, involve fallacies; there are times
that it is just right to point out the dire consequences that a
particular course of action can bring about.
Appeal to Desire
-ignoring the issue by appealing to the interests or passions
of the people to get the conclusion accepted.
Straw Man
-misrepresenting an opponent's position or argument
usually for the purpose of making it easier to attack;
reconstructing the argument in a distorted form; it fails to
deal with the actual arguments that have been made.
Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)
-stating or assuming as a premise the very thing that should
be proven in the conclusion; this is also called arguing in
circle or circular argument (Circulus in demonstrando).
XIV. FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
Appeal to Popularity (Argumentum ad Populum)
-assuming that the conclusion is proven because people in
general believe it to be true; also called bandwagon fallacy.
-an attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing
to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often
characterized by emotive language.
Appeal to Tradition
-persuading others of a certain belief by appealing to their
reverence or respect for some tradition; the argument is
either right or wrong depending on the norms; it is
considered a fallacy because what may be acceptable in the
past may not be acceptable today, and vice versa.
Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
(Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
-persuading others by appealing to people who command
respect but do not have legitimate authority in the matter.
-it occurs most frequently in the form of a transfer of an
authority's competence from one field to another.
-another type of inappropriate authority is a biased one;
some people may be qualified in a particular field yet they
are so vitally interested in or affected by the issue that there
would be good reason to treat their testimony with
suspicion.
Accident
-applying a general rule to a particular case when
circumstances suggest that an exception to the rule should
apply; it unnecessarily applies a general truth to particular
cases.
Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
-drawing a general or universal conclusion from
insufficient particular cases; a particular case is taken
(which may actually be an exception) and make a general
rule or truth out of it.
Division
-wrongly assuming that what is true in general is true in
particular; it exists in two varieties, *to assume that a
property of some thing must apply to its parts and *to
assume that a property of a collection of items is shared by
each item; this is quite related to the fallacy of accident.
Composition
-wrongly inferring that what holds true of the individuals
holds true of the group made up of those individuals; to
conclude that a property shared by the parts of something
must apply to the whole; this has semblance with the
fallacy of hasty generalization.
Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
-assuming that something must be true simply because it
has not been proved false or, equivalently, when it is argued
that something must be false because it has not been proved
true; the premises of an argument are supposed to provide
positive evidence for the conclusion but did not do so; the
error is that it pass the burden of proof to the opponent.
-relate with presumption of innocence in criminal cases;
this fallacy does not apply in a court of law, where one is
generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.
-also, in scientific investigation if it is known that an event
would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the
absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that
the event did not occur. However, we cannot conclude with
certainty that it has not occurred.
False Cause
-mistaking a purely temporal sequence for a causal
connection; it presupposes that just because one event
precedes another event the first event causes the second
(Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc).
-also, because two events occur together, they must be
causally related, and leaves no room for other factors that
may be the cause/s of the events (Cum Hoc Ergo Propter
Hoc).
-relate with the rule on circumstantial evidence.
Slippery Slope Argument
-This argument states that should one event occur, so will
other harmful events. There is no proof made that the
harmful events are caused by the first event.
Compex Question
(Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition)
-asking a question in which some presuppositions are
buried.
False Dilemma (Bifurcation)
-arises when the premise of an argument presents a choice
between two alternatives and assumes that they are
exhaustive (they cover all the possibilities) when in fact
they are not; thus, the person is force to choose from the
alternatives when there are other ways of dealing with it.
-Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, which
occurs when one presents a situation as having only two
alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can
exist.
False Analogy
-drawing comparison between two or more things where a
significant difference exists between them.
XV. OTHER FALLACIES:
Argumentum ad crumenam
-believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that
those with more money are more likely to be right.
Argumentum ad lazarum
-assuming that because someone is poor he or she is
sounder or more virtuous than one who is wealthier.
Argumentum ad nauseam
-this is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely
to be true the more often it is heard; it employs constant
repetition in asserting something.
Plurium interrogationum / Many questions
-this occurs when a questioner demands a simple answer to
a complex question.
Non sequitur
-an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises
which are not logically connected with it.
Red herring
-when irrelevant material is introduced to the issue being
discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away
from the points being made, towards a different conclusion.
Audiatur et altera pars
-people arguing from assumptions which they do not bother
to state; the premises of an argument were not stated
explicitly; Note that it is not strictly a fallacy to fail to state
all of one's assumptions; however, it is often viewed with
suspicion.
XVI. ASSESSING TRUTH CLAIMS
-statements are either true or false
-truth of all the premises and their strong connection with
the conclusion will yield to a sound argument
-understanding the nature of statements is helpful in the
construction and evaluation of arguments
Verification
-the process of determining whether or not a claim is true
-what makes one statement true is different from what
makes another statement true
-different types of statements have different notions of truth
Types of Statements
Empirical Statements
-asserted to be true on the basis of sense/perception; one
need only to check or observe the facts (direct evidence);
correspondence between a statement and an empirical fact
(correspondence theory of truth).
-however, there are empirical statements that cannot be
checked or verified by direct observation; We cannot go
back in time to check the correspondence of the statement
to the facts, instead, consult indirect evidence like history
books.
-the same applies with statements about the future; We can
use empirical evidence about the past and present that
makes the predicted event likely to occur. When the event
occurred, then we would have direct evidence.
-Falsifiability Principle; sometimes it is practically
impossible to observe every single member of the
population to prove the truth of a statement; Instead, just
look for a falsifying instance, that is, an instance which if it
happens, the statement can be considered false.
Analytic Statements
-asserted to be true based on a rational analysis of the
concepts contained in the statements; the use not of the
empirical senses but of reason; coherence of the statement
with a particular formal system (coherence theory of truth)
Evaluative Statements
-judgment about the worth or value of a thing (preference,
personal taste, approval or disapproval; there is no need to
justify the statement; we simply need to respect the
statement.
-they are arbitrary and subjective; they have no empirical
truth claims, as such, cannot be verified using
correspondence theory; also, they are not based on formal
system, thus, cannot be verified using coherence theory. In
sum, do not waste time arguing about their truth or falsity.
Moral Statements
-unlike empirical statements, they have truth values; moral
claims.
-they should not be regarded as purely subjective and need
to be justified as either true or false; the rightness or
wrongness of an action is to be determined using either
deontological theory (appeal to objective moral principles
e.g. respect for human dignity, preservation of peace, care
for the environment) or consequentialist theory (appeal to
the consequences of an act e.g. benefit-harm equation).

Sources of Truth Claims

Personal Experience
-we based much of what we believe and accept on what we
personally observe or directly experience.

-our sense of experience, however, is limited; our

perception of things is not infallible; our beliefs, fears and
expectations affect or even distort our observation.

Background Information
-that vast network of conscious and unconscious beliefs we
learned from what we read, hear etc. from a variety of
sources; it helps us avoid being misled by the inadequacies
of our sense perception.

-the broader our background information of things, we can

evaluate claims more effectively

Testimony and Authority of Other People

-sometimes we do not have a direct experience or
background information of things, yet we still accept the
claim because it is said by a person who has credibility or
authority over the matter.

-our reliance on the authority of the person making the

claim will also explain why sometimes even if the claim
diverts from our experience or information, we tend to still
believe it.

-notably, there is a tendency for many to judge a person's

credibility on the basis of outward appearance e.g. based on
his accent, gender, color, etc.

-there is no hard and fast criteria to determine who is

credible, but we can consider some guidelines; e.g. The
source is someone we can trust; The source is a genuine
expert or authority; The source is not biased.