LOGIC AND LEGAL

REASONING
Reasoning
• We find different ways to support our statements. Support can come
from authorities, emotions or reasoning.

• Here we will look at reasoning as the building block of legal

arguments.

• When constructing legal arguments we are using sources of law, and

using those to work out an answer to a legal problem. Legal
reasoning is the process to get us from knowledge to the answer.
Arguments & Fallacies
• An argument contains one or more propositions and a conclusion.

• There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive.

• A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning.

Propositions
• Statements about the world.

• Propositions are either true or false.

• A question is not a proposition. It does not make any claim about the
worlds.

e.g. the world is flat.

India is a large country.
Deductive Reasoning
• Is a form of reasoning where a conclusion is proved by two other
propositions.

• Deductive reasoning starts with general knowledge and predicts a specific

observation.

• All men are mortal

Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

• Statutory interpretation - starting point is a general rule set out in a statute,

which is applied to specific facts.
Syllogisms
• Syllogisms are a form of deductive reasoning. You reason from the
general to the particular.

• There is a major premise, a minor premise and a true conclusion.

• All men are mortal – a general rule

Socrates is a man – a particular fact

Therefore Socrates is mortal – the conclusion which states whether the rule
has been demonstrated to exist under the fact situation
Syllogisms
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

• Mortal is the predicate of the conclusion (it is affirmed or denied). Mortal is the major
term.

• Socrates is the subject of the conclusion. Socrates is the minor term.

• Premise containing the major term is the major premise.

• Premise containing the minor term is the minor premise.
Syllogisms

E.g.
No heroes are cowards.
Some soldiers are cowards.
Therefore some soldiers are not heroes.
Syllogisms

“Unequal educational facilities are not permitted under the

constitution.
A separate educational facility for black children is inherently unequal.
Therefore a separate educational facility for black children is …”.
Syllogisms

“A law is unconstitutional if it impacts the zone of privacy created by

the Bill of Rights.
The law banning contraceptives impacts the zone of privacy created by
the Bill of Rights.
Therefore the law banning contraceptives is…”
Syllogisms

“The President’s power to issue an order must stem from an act of

Congress or the Constitution.
Neither an act of Congress nor the Constitution gives the president the
power to issue the order.
Therefore the President does not have the power to…”
Syllogisms
Sometimes syllogisms are difficult to spot.

Procedure for identifying syllogisms:

• Identify the conclusion
• Note its predicate term (which is affirmed or denied) (this is the major term)
• Identify the major premise
• Identify the subject of the conclusion (this is the minor term)
• Identify the minor premise
• Rewrite the argument in standard form: Major premise, minor premise,
conclusion
Flawed Syllogisms
Some men are tall.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is tall.

• Knowing that some men are tall isn’t enough for you to conclude that
a particular man is tall.
• Logic doesn’t entail the truth of the syllogisms.
• Certain words can help to spot flawed syllogisms: If the major premise
has words like “some”, “certain”, “a”, “one”, “sometimes”..
Inductive Reasoning
• Inductive reasoning starts with particular experiences and arrives at general
conclusions.

• Using precedent involves more of inductive reasoning than deductive reasoning.

• When there is no statute to provide a major premise for syllogism, we use inductive
reasoning.

• We assemble case law, and try to fashion a general rule.

• However, this type of reasoning can lead to hasty generalisations (where there are
too few examples).
Inductive Reasoning
• Inductive reasoning is about finding justifications for the later
decision.

• Contrast with deductive reasoning (syllogism) where if the premises

are true, the conclusion must be true.
Inductive reasoning by analogy
• Drawing similarities between things which appear different
• A has quality Y. B has quality Y. A also has quality Z. Because A & B both have Y, B
must have quality Z.
• Use to compare new cases to precedents.
• Judges:
• Establish similarities between two cases
• Work out the rule of law in the earlier case
• Apply the rule of law to the present case

• To be able to make analogies, draw as many comparisons between cases as you

can.
Example
• Assume that the Chennai Super Kings played the Mumbai Indians last night.
Dhoni bowled Harbhajan out. Dhoni generally takes an extremely long time in
the locker room after games. Harbhajan, knowing this, stood outside the locker
room with his gun poised waiting for Dhoni to come into his line of sight.
Harbhajan believed that the gun was not loaded and that the safety was on.
When Dhoni walked out of the locker room Harbhajan pointed his gun at him
and yelled that if Dhoni ever threw another sinker it will be the last ball Dhoni
would ever throw. Zaheer Khan, upon hearing the commotion, returned to the
hallway (having previously left) and pulled the fire alarm in an attempt to distract
Harbhajan. Flinching because of the loud unexpected noise, Harbhajan’s finger
pressed on the trigger, shooting Dhoni at close range. Dhoni dies from his wound
en route to the hospital. Should Harbhajan be charged with a crime?
Applicable law
• Conduct becomes criminal when the events indicate
that there has been a (1) voluntary act, omission, or possession; (2)
sufficient intent, and (3) causation.
Syllogistic Response
• Focus on voluntary act

• Major
• A voluntary act occurs….

• Minor
• Here when Harbhajan fired his gun, he….

• Conclusion
• Therefore, Harbhajan….
Complete the Syllogism
• Major
• Actions that are the result of coercion, reflex, an unconscious state such as
hypnosis and sleep, are not products of a conscious mental process and thus
not voluntary.
• Minor

• Conclusion
• Therefore, Harbhajan did not voluntarily act.
Complete the Syllogism
• Major

• Minor
• Here, no one compelled Harbhjan to act against his will.

• Conclusion
• Thus, Harbhajan was not coerced into firing his weapon at the victim.
Fallacies
• Arguments against the Person (ad hominem)
• Appeal to Emotion (Ad Misericordiam)
• Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)
• Hasty Generalisation
• Appeal to Populace
• Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
Ad Misericordiam
Person L argues statement p or argument A.

L deserves pity because of circumstance y.

Circumstance y is irrelevant to p or A.
Ad Misericordiam
Example:

Officer, there's no reason to give me a traffic ticket for going too fast
because I was just on my way to the hospital to see my wife who is in
serious condition to tell her I just lost my job and the car will be
repossessed.
Ad Misericordiam
• Example:

“Vikram goes to hear a politician speak. The politician tells the crowd
about the evils of the government and the need to throw out the
people who are currently in office. After hearing the speech, Vikram is
full of hatred for the current politicians. Because of this, he feels good
about getting rid of the old politicians and accepts that it is the right
thing to do because of how he feels.”
Ad hominem
• Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the
man“

e.g. "You claim that atheists can be moral--yet I happen to know that
you abandoned your wife and children."
Argumentum ad populum
• Appeal to the people or gallery

e.g. "For thousands of years people have believed in Jesus and the
Bible. This belief has had a great impact on their lives. What more
evidence do you need that Jesus was the Son of God? Are you trying to
tell those people that they are all mistaken fools?"
Hasty Generalisations
• Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.

• Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.

Hasty Generalisations
Sushant: You know, those feminists all hate men.
Jatin: Really?
Sushant: Yeah. I was in my philosophy class the other day and that Nishta gave a presentation.
Jatin: Which Nishta?
Sushant: You know her. She's the one that runs that feminist group over at the Women's Center. She
said that men are all sexist pigs. I asked her why she believed this and she said that her last few
boyfriends were real sexist pigs.
Jatin: That doesn't sound like a good reason to believe that all of us are pigs.
Sushant: That was what I said.
Jatin: What did she say?
Sushant: She said that she had seen enough of men to know we are all pigs. She obviously hates all
men.
Jatin: So you think all feminists are like her?
Sushant: Sure. They all hate men.
Ignoratio elenchi
• Missing the point
• A set of statements leads to conclusion X. Yet conclusion Y is drawn.

Example:
“There has been an increase in burglary in the area. It must be because
there are more people moving into the area.”
Fallacies in Legal Arguments
• A lawyer tells the court that that evidence of a witness’ past proves
that the witness was lying.

• Opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment believe that women

should stay barefoot and pregnant.

• The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. Therefore, my client

cannot be liable for anything she said.
Fallacies in Legal Arguments
• In the present case, the dog that attacked the small child clearly had a
vicious propensity. Two years earlier, the same dog had bitten a postal
worker who came on the property to deliver daak.

• If you don’t agree that castration is the right punishment for child sex
offenders just shut up for a moment and picture in your mind all
those poor children and their mothers crying bitter tears for their loss
of innocence and dignity. Let's give them the punishment they
deserve!”  
Fallacies in Legal Arguments
• It is time to put an end to these creative accounting practices. Millions
have lost their funds due to the excesses of these corporate elites.
Hopes have been dashed. Lives have been ruined. This cannot be
allowed to continue. For all these reasons, the defendants are guilty
as charged.

• Legalized abortion puts us only a step away from legalizing the

murder of anyone we deem undesirable or inconvenient.
Fallacies in Legal Arguments
• The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the
crime. Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine.
But drunk driving is a very serious crime that can kill innocent people. So
the death penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving.

• Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Indians think so!

• Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone who looks at
it! But such harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are
wrong: porn and its fans should be left in peace