Lecture notes-Methods of argument Draft: Not to be cited

Methods of Argument: Deductive Argument

An argument is a set of claims/propositions (the premises) that taken together to provide

sufficient ground to believe a further claim/proposition (the conclusion). But how do we
arrive at the conclusion? Is there any method of arriving or drawing the conclusion? This
question gives rise to three possible answers which constitutes three methods of argument.

(a) One possible answer is: conclusion can be derived from the rule of law or general
principle. This is called deductive method. In the field of law, most of the time the
conclusion is based on rule of law and statement of fact.
(b) But what if there is no existing rule of law? Can’t we make a judgement? Yes, we
can. Our conclusion should have some base. The base is observation or data. This is
called inductive method which is second method of argument. We experience
particular instances e.g., some men are mortal, some piece of iron gets rust in rainy
season when comes in contact with moisture, Apple falls from the tree. From
particular experience we arrive at generalization. The establishment of general truth
on the basis of particular experience is called generalization.
On the basis of particular experience or on the basis of data, judges decide the case in
the absence of the rule of law. For instance, Laxmi v Union of India (Curbing the sale
of acid), Kerala Bar Youth Association case (no liquor shop near highway), Roberson
v Rochester Folding Box Co. and Pavesich v New England Life Insurance Co.

Another best example of inductive method is statistical generalization that happens in

opinion poll. Any report on statistical generalization has to be scrutinized with the
help of 4 major questions:

i. Should we accept the premise?

ii. Is the sample large enough?
iii. Is the sample biased?
iv. Is the result biased in some other way?

(c) A new rule of law can be established to meet the requirement of society by observing
the situation of the society. But is it possible for a judge to establish a new rule of
law? Some would argue in a negative manner. So, they would say that inductive
method is valuable but not for the judge. It is valuable for legislature and policy
makers but not for judges. Judges are not supposed amend or establish the law.
Lecture notes-Methods of argument Draft: Not to be cited

Otherwise that would lead to judicial activism. If judges make rule of law, then it may
be arbitrary, subjective and subject to bias.
(d) If there is absence of rule of law and judges are not supposed to frame the rule of law
then what is the way out to arrive at the judgement? The third method would suggest
that judges must find a similar circumstance to deal with the present situation.
According to this method, there is no situation which won’t have a single
resemblance. Once the resemblance is found, judge must extend the principle of the
semblance case to the present one. This method is known as analogical reasoning. In
law it is known as precedence. The main idea of this method is like cases should be
decided in a like manner. For instance, Adams v New Jersey Steamboat Co.

Why analogical reasoning or precedence? To achieve certainty and objectivity in law.

Also to avoid arbitrariness of judges.
Is it always the case that like cases are being decided in like manner? It is not always
the case. If this would have been the case, then judges would not have overruled the
precedence. Judges do overrule the precedence. Below are the case laws to
understand this point.

Cases:

1. Riggs v Palmer & Oleff v Hodaff

2. Roberson v Rochester Folding Box Co. & Pavesich v New Life Insurance Co
3. Thomas v Winchester, Loop v Litchifield and MacPherson v Buick Motor Co

Deductive method of argument: Syllogism

Example:

1. All whales are mammals.

2. All mammals breathe air.
3. Therefore, all whales breathe air.

This is an example of a “deductive argument.” A deductive argument is an argument where

premise provide complete support to the conclusion. If the premises provide complete
support to the conclusion then the argument is valid. An argument is deductively valid if the
conclusion logically follows from its premises. Validity has nothing to do with truth. Validity
Lecture notes-Methods of argument Draft: Not to be cited

is the feature of a deductive argument whereas truth is the property of an individual

proposition. Validity is a relation among proposition in a deductive argument.

Important: An argument can be deductively valid even though its premises are false.
Deductively valid means if we accept for the sake of argument that the premises are true, then
we cannot deny the conclusion. Consider the following:

1. All earthworms can yodel.

2. All things that can yodel can fly.
3. Therefore, all earthworms can fly.

Imagine, for the sake of argument, that premises 1 and 2 were true. Now try to imagine that
the conclusion is false. That is, try to imagine that all earthworms can yodel, all things that
can yodel can fly, but not all earthworms can fly. You cannot do it. That is because it is
logically impossible for the conclusion to be false while the premises are true. So the
argument is deductively valid.

You would be crazy really to believe the conclusion of this argument, though, since the
premises in the real world are clearly false. In other words, even though this argument is
deductively valid, it is not a good argument. In order to be good, an argument must be more
than merely deductively valid. It must also be deductively sound.

An argument is deductively sound if and only if both of the following are true: (a) the
argument is deductively valid; and (b) all of the premises are true. (Hence an argument that is
not deductively valid is automatically unsound. Also, an argument with one or more false
premises is automatically unsound.)

It is not an easy task to check the validity of a deductive argument. Simple deductive
arguments can be analysed but what about complex argument? For that Aristotle
developed a technique called syllogism. Syllogism is a mediate deductive argument where
the conclusion is drawn from two premises viz., major premise and minor premise.

Structure of syllogism:

1. Three Propositions
Major Premise (Rule of law)
Minor Premise (Statement of Fact)
Lecture notes-Methods of argument Draft: Not to be cited

Conclusion.

2. Three terms: Major term, minor term and middle term

3. Distribution of the term

Categorical Proposition: - (Building blocks of deductive arguments)

1. A proposition that relates two classes or categories is called categorical proposition.

 The classes are denoted by subject and predicate term

 The proposition is either affirms or denies that some class of subject is
included in some other class of predicate in whole or part.
 All……
 No…..
 Some…….
 Some…….not

2. Any sentence you utter will fall within the class of categorical proposition. For example,
light travels at the speed of 186000 miles per second. Italicized refers to entire class of light,
so universal affirmative. Salman was starred in Dabaang. Here the single individual denotated
by the name i.e., Salman falls under the class of person who starred in Dabaang. Not all
murderers are convicted death penalty. In this proposition the entire class of convicted
murder is excluded from the entire class of person who gets death penalty.

 All S is P (Entire class of subject is included in the some part of predicate class). So in
universal affirmative proposition S is distributed but not P.
 No S is P (Entire class of subject is excluded from the entire class of predicate). Both
S and P are distributed in universal negative proposition.
 Some S is P (Some part of subject class is included from some class of predicate). In
particular affirmative proposition neither S nor P is distributed.
 Some S is not-P (Some part of the subject class is excluded from the entire class of
predicate). In particular only P is distributed.

Syllogistic rules:
1. Avoid 4 terms. Otherwise the argument will be fallacy of four terms

Example: “Murder is the intentional killing of a human being. State v. Jones, 12 N.C.
345, 34 S.D.2d 56 (1929). Here, the defendant is an escaped convict who was already
serving a life sentence for the murder of a police officer and was apprehended just
two miles from where the victim’s body was found. Therefore, the defendant is guilty
of murder”

Explanation: In this example, the attempt to create a syllogism is foiled because there
is no middle term. The conclusion tells us that the defendant is guilty of murder. The
Lecture notes-Methods of argument Draft: Not to be cited

major premise (the first sentence) defines “murder” by telling us the elements of that
crime. Thus, in order to establish the conclusion, the minor premise (the second
sentence) should show us that this defendant’s conduct satisfied each of these
elements. The elements of the crime should be the “middle term” that connects the
premises together. Instead, the minor premise does not even mention the elements of
murder. It gives us other, extraneous, information about the defendant (i.e. his prior
record and where he was apprehended). Because it fails to refer back to a “middle
term” (the elements of murder), the minor premise is disconnected from the major
premise and the argument falls apart.

2. Middle term must be distributed at least once. Otherwise the argument will be
fallacy of undistributed middle.

Justice Bhagwati’s argument

Major Premise-All arbitrary actions violates equality

Minor Premise-Some laws violates equality
Conclusion-Some laws are arbitrary

Robinson’s case
Major Premise-Benlate contaminated with SU herbicide causes chlorosis.
Minor Premise-Robinson’s tree exhibited chlorosis.
Conclusion-Benlate that Robinson applied to the trees was contaminated with SU
herbicide.
3. If any term is distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in premise.
Otherwise fallacy of illicit major/minor.

Illicit Major

All dogs are mammals.

No cats are dogs.
No cats are mammals.
In the above argument, the major term (i.e., mammal) is distributed in the conclusion
but not in the premise. Therefore, illicit major.

Illicit minor

All traditionally religious people are fundamentalists.

All traditionally religious people are opponent of abortion.
All opponent of abortion are fundamentalists.
In the above argument, the minor term (i.e., opponent of abortion) is distributed in the
conclusion but not in the premise. Therefore, illicit minor.

4. If one of the premises is negative, then conclusion must be negative.

No poets are accountants.
Some artists are poets.
Some artists are accountant.
The argument is invalid.
Lecture notes-Methods of argument Draft: Not to be cited

5. No conclusion can be drawn from two negative premises.

6. No particular conclusion can be drawn from two universal premises.

The following example is invalid.

All household pets are domestic animals.

No unicorns are domestic animals.
Some unicorns are not household pets.