LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

finding justice

A. Basics of logic and its application to legal

thinking and legal argument
Deductive Reasoning
based on the act of proving a conclusion by
means of two other propositions.
reasoning in which a conclusion is compelled
by known facts
syllogism
Syllogism
powerful tool because of its rigid flexibility
Three Parts:
a. Major Premise: states a broad and
generally applicable truth.
b. Minor Premise: states a specific and
usually more narrowly applicable truth.
c. Conclusion: drawn from the two
premises that offers a new insight that
is known to be true based on the
premises.

Principle:
What is true of the
universal is true of the particular.
Inductive Reasoning
anthitesis of deductive
specific conclusions are generalized to
general conclusions
multiple particular to general
Principle: The world is sufficiently regular
to permit the discovery of general rules.
B. Civil Law Tradition vs. Common Law Tradition
Civil Law Tradition
the law is almost entirely codified, highly
systemized and structured and that it relies
on broad, general principles, without
necessarily setting out the details.
basis of private law; quantified
appear for the most part in reported usually
judgments rendered by higher courts.
Common Law Tradition
known for its jurisprudence, for a system of
legal precepts that emerge from court
decisions
Differences
Sources of
Law
Principle of
precedent &
stare decisis
Method of legal
thinking &

CIVIL LAW
Codified
Bound to codes
& reason

COMMON LAW
Judge-made
case law
Subject to these
two principles

Develop
abstract

Dominated on
focusing on

Function of
Doctrine

Appointment of
Judges

Procedural

principle & apply

to the facts by
subsuming
Provide all
practitioners w/
a guideline for
handling &
deciding on
specific future
cases by
developing basic
rules
Appoint young
highly skilled but
inexperienced
graduates
Focus on
settlement of the
dispute

each case
Find
differences&
similarities in
decided cases
to extract
specific rules
from decided
cases
Selected &
appointed only
from among
experienced
practicing
lawyers
Adversarial

Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege

there is no crime when there is no law
punishing it
Precedent
basic ingredient of the common law
narrow rule that emerges from a specific fact
situation
Stare Decisis
stare decisis et non quieta movere
things that are settles should not be
disturbed
II. Legal Thinking
A. Moral, Aesthetic and Legal reasoning
1. Moral reasoning and Moral deliberation
Moral Relativism
nobody is objectively right or wrong
culture- based
Moral Subjectvism
our own mental activity is the only
unquestionable fact of our own experience.
Utilitarianism
achieving greatest happiness for the general
welfare
Duty Theory or Deontologism
moral duty
duty ethics, place the emphasis on adhering
to ethical principles or duties

postulate the existence of moral absolutes

that make an action moral

Virtue Ethics
focuses on how to live
how to develop a good character
Divine Command Theory
different divine authorities
2. Aesthetic Reasoning
judgments about beauty and art
rely on conceptual frameworks that integrate
fact and value
Principles:
a. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they have a
meaning or teach something true.
identifies value in art that fulfills a cultural or
social function by teaching that non-art cannot
provide.
e.g. More happens in one episode of
teleserye than what happens to me in one
year.
b. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they express
the values of the culture they arise in, or the artists
who make them.
value in art that fulfills cultural or social function.
e.g. Homers Iliad makes a warriors
value vivid.
c. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they can lead
to social change.
social change is an improvement
e.g. Noli Me Tangere & El Filibusterismo
d. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they give their
audience pleasure.
contributes to our happiness, connecting value
with a thjng s ability to produce a type of
psychological experience, aesthetic hedonism.
e.g. Fifty Shades of Grey
e. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they give their
audience certain emotions.
emotions are not daily occurrences
e.g. The Lincoln Memorial is awesome.
f. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they produce a
special nonemotional experience that comes only
from art, such as autonomy, or, the willing
suspension of disbelief.
comes down to the production of a certain
subjective state
e.g. Ansel Adams photo of Yosemite
Valley are breathtaking.
g. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they possess
a special aesthetic(formal) property, such as beauty,
unity, or organization.

the art object is valuable for itself

e.g. Monets waterlilies series of oil
paintings beautifully displaying his
obsession with color and design
h. Objects are aesthetically valuable because of
features that no reasons can determine and no
argument can establish.
moral subjectivism; an object is aesthetically
valuable if someone values it
e.g. She loves the look of her antique
bathtub.
3. Legal Reasoning
addresses itself both to the foundation of law
in general and to the interpretation of specific
laws.
Resembles moral reasoning
Note: Both involve value judgments, though
the commands of law come with clear social
enforcement behind them
Legal Principles:
a. Legal Moralism
position that the law should prohibit anything
immoral
e.g. prostitution should be illegal
because it is immoral
b. Harm Principle
the law should only prohibit activities that harm
others
e.g. prostitution would be outlawed
because those engaging in it could
spread diseases to their unwary partners
c. Legal Paternalism
we stop people from behaving a certain way for
their own good
prohibits harm to himself/ herself
e.g. laws that limit the hours in which
bars
may open
d. Offense Principle
gives a society the right to ban activities that are
generally found offensive
e.g. Spitting in the streets in Singapore

Legal interpretation thus addresses itself to

issues of vagueness
Many important legal arguments involve an
appeal to precedent, in which one uses an
established judicial decision to interpret a
new case
Based on the desire for consistency, the
similar treatment of similar situations.

III. The Language of Logic

A. Basic Expressions of Logic
Case Method Study
study the decisions of the Court because the
justices interpret the law
study of the logical method and principles
which is used to make decisions

IV. Introduction to Deductive Reasoning and

Inductive Reasoning
A.

Socratic Method
dialectical method of teaching
Logical Thought
same as reflective thinking
works without emotion
works by comparison, yes or no, either/ or.
Seeks conclusion, decision between two
opposing choices
Process that requires some attention to be
directed to each step of the process
Reflective Thinking
refers to processes of analyzing and making
judgments about what has happened
Proposition
refers to the content or meaning of a
meaningful declarative sentence
includes having the quality or property of
being either true or false
Term

part of speech representing something, but

which is not true or false in its own right
e.g. man, mortal

Deductive Reasoning
Two propositions which imply the third
proposition, the conclusion, are called
premises. The broad proposition that forms
the starting point of deduction is called the
major premise; the second proposition is
called the minor premise. The major premise
represents the all; the minor premise,
something or someone included in the all.

B.

Inductive Reasoning

In law, as in general logic, there are

fundamental differences between the two
types of reasoning:

Deductive Reasoning
The connection between
a
given
piece
of
information and another
piece of information
concluded from it is a
necessary connection.
A deductive argument is
one whose conclusion is
claimed to follow from
its
premises
with
absolute necessity. If
the premises are valid,
the conclusion is valid. If
the conclusion is valid,
the premises are valid.

Inference
conclusion inferred from the data
Implication
the data implies the conclusion
Conclusion
* it offers a new insight that is known to be true
based on the premises.
B. Conclusion Testing
a conclusion can be true only when
(1) the other proposition are true
(2) these propositions imply the conclusion
not all means of persuasion are based on
reflective thinking or formal logic
some forms of persuasion are not qualify i.e.
rhetoric

In a valid deductive
argument,
if
the
premises are true, the
conclusion must be true.

Moves by inference
from
the
general
(universal) ultimately to
the particular.

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

The core of the difference lies in the strength of the

claim that is made about the premises and its
conclusion.
1. Inductive Generalization
Formulating a generalization in the law
enumerating a series of tight holdings of
cases (legal rules) to create a
generalized
legal
precept
(legal
principle) is at best a logic of
probabilities.
2. Analogy
Pursuant to the method of analogy, the
courts do not generalize certain relevant
resemblances and differences between the
case at bar and another single case or a
relatively small group of cases.
V. Deductive Reasoning
A. Categorical Syllogism
deductive argument which consists of three
categorical propositions, consisting exactly three
terms, in which each of the three terms occurs in
exactly two of the propositions.
1. Terms
a. MAJOR TERM: predicate of the major
premise and the conclusion.
b. MINOR TERM:
predicate of minor
premise and the conclusion
c. MIDDLE TERM:
includes in both
premises but not in the conclusion
2. Premises
a. MAJOR PREMISE: states a broad and
generally applicable truth
b. MINOR PREMISE: states a specific and
usually more narrowly applicable
truth
3. Quantity of Propositions or Terms
I. Propositions:
a. UNIVERSAL: broad or general
b. PARTICULAR: narrow or specific
II. Terms
a. DISTRIBUTED: broad or general
b. UNDISTRIBUTED: narrow or specific
4. Relationship of Classes
a. CONTAINMENT: every member of
one
class is said to be a member of another class
b. NO RELATIONSHIP: no member of one
class is said to be a member of a second
class
c. PARTIAL CONTAINMENT: Some, but
perhaps not all, members of one class are
all said to be members of another class

d. PARTIAL NON- CONTAINMENT: Some,

but perhaps not all, members of one class
are said not to be members of another class
STANDARD FORMS OF CATEGORICAL
PROPOSITIONS
A: Universal Affirmative
E: Universal Negative
I: Particular Affirmative
O: Particular Negative
PROPOSITIO
N
A
E
I
O

SUBJECT

PREDICATE

D
D
U
U

U
D
U
D

Case: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 227

N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916) include Chief
Judge Bartletts dissenting opinion
Enthymeme
an informally stated syllogism with an unstated
presumption that must be true for the premises to
lead the conclusion
a. unstated premise
b. unstated conclusion
Case: Leliefield v Johnson
Polysyllogism
string of any number of propositions forming
together a sequence of syllogisms such that the
conclusion of each syllogism, together with the next
proposition, is a premise for the next, and so on.
a. Prosyllogism: the conclusion of
which is used as a premise of another
syllogism except the last
b. Episyllogism: one of the premise of
which is the conclusion of a preceding
syllogism; validity deals only with
form.
e.g. It is raining.
If we go out while it is raining
we will get wet.
Therefore, if we go out we will
get wet.
If we go out we will get wet.
If we get wet, we will get cold.
Therefore, if we go out we will
get cold.
SIX RULES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
1. A valid CS must contain exactly three terms, each of
which is used in the same sense throughout the
argument.
2. In a valid CS, the middle term must be distributed in
at least one premise.

3. In a valid CS, no term can be distributed in the

conclusion which is not distributed in the premise.
4. No CS is valid which has two negative premises.
5. If either premise of a valid CS is negative, the
conclusion must be negative.
6. No valid CS with a particular conclusion can have
two universal premises.
Cases:
Morales Development Co., Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-26572, 28 March
1969
Tavora v. Gavina, G.R. No. L-1257, 30 October
1947, including Resolution dated 11 December
1947
VI. INDUCTIVE REASONING
critical in the common- law tradition; undergirds
the doctrine of precedent; like things must be treated
alike
A. Inductive Generalization (induction by
enumeration)

Underlies the development of the

common law; from many specific case
holdings, a generalized proposition is
reached.
B.

Analogy

Does not seek proof of an identity of

one thing with another, but only a
comparison of resemblances.
Unlike the technique of enumeration,
analogy does not depend upon the
quantity of instances, but upon the quality
of resemblances between things.

In the law, points of unlikeness are

as important as likeness in the
cases examined.

Criteria in the appraisal of analogical

arguments:
1. The acceptability of the analogy will vary
proportionally with the number of
circumstances that have been analyzed.
2. The acceptability will depend upon the
number
of
positive
resemblances
(similarities) and negative resemblances
(dissimilarities).
3. The acceptability will be influenced by the
relevance of the purported analogies. An
argument based on a single relevant
analogy connected with a single instance
will be more cogent than one which points
out a dozen irrelevant resemblances.
Cases:
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 227 N.Y.
382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916)

Nielson and Co., Inc. v. Lepanto

Consolidated Mining Co., G.R. No. L-21601,
17 December 1966
VIII.

Formal Fallacies

A. Fallacies in Categorical Syllogism

1. The Fallacy of Four Terms (Quaternio
Terminorum)
Logical quadruped argument has more
than three terms
When it consists of four terms rather than
three because one of the terms is used with
two different meanings.
If a term is used in more than one sense, it
also violates Rule One; it also constitutes the
material fallacy of equivocation (infra).
E.g. A ruler is twelve inches long. King Juan
Carlos of Spain is a ruler. Therefore, King
Juan Carlos of Spain is twelve inches long.
2. The Fallacy of Undistributed Middle
In order to effectively establish the presence
of a genuine connection between the major
and minor terms, the premises of a syllogism
must provide some information about the
entire class designated by the middle term. If
the middle term were undistributed in both
premises, then the two portions of the
designated class of which they speak might
be completely unrelated to each other.
E.g. All priests are men. Joey is a man. Joey
is a priest
3. The Fallacy of the Illicit Process of the Major
Term and Minor Term
a. Illicit Major
o Major term in the major premise is
undistributed but it is distributed in
the conclusion; the term is applied to
all members of a class in the
conclusion even though it was
limited to some members of the
class in the major premise
o E.g. All poets have a creative
imagination. No poets are good
business people. Therefore, no good
business people have a creative
imagination.
b. Illicit Minor
o Minor term in the minor premise is
undistributed by is distributed in the
conclusion.
o E.g. No Negroes are white. Some
men are Negroes. Therefore, no
men are white.

Case: Suga, et al. v. Lacson, et al., G.R. No. L26055, 29 April 1968

Fallacy of affirming the

consequent
b.

4. The Fallacy of Negative Premises/ Exclusive

Premises
In an argument consisting of two negative
propositions, the middle term is excluded
from both the major term and the minor term,
and thus there is no connection between the
two and no inference can be drawn.
e.g. No dogs are cold-blooded. No coldblooded things are capable of barking.
Therefore, no dogs are capable of barking.
5. The Fallacy of Particular Premises (Drawing an
affirmative conclusion from a negative premise,
or drawing a negative conclusion from an
affirmative premise)
An affirmative proposition asserts that one
class is included in some way in another
class, but a negative proposition that asserts
exclusion cannot imply anything about
inclusion. For this reason an argument with a
negative proposition cannot have an
affirmative conclusion.
6. Existential Fallacy
Because we do not assume the existential
import of universal propositions, they cannot
be used as premises to establish the
existential import that is part of any particular
proposition.
B. Fallacies in Hypothetical Syllogism
Hypothetical Syllogism this does not
directly assert the existence of a fact;
instead, it contains a condition, if, unless,
granted, supposing, etc.
Hypothetical proposition conditional ifthen statement; compound proposition in
that every such proposition consists of two
component propositions:
a.
b.

Antecedent component proposition

following if
Consequent component proposition
following then

Forms and fallacies:

a.
Modus ponens valid if and only if:
i.
the categorical premise affirms the
antecedent of the conditional
premise; and
ii.
the conclusion affirms the
consequent of the conditional
premise
iii.
e.g. If A, then B. A. Therefore, B.

Modus tollens valid if and only if:

i.
the categorical premise denies
the consequent of the
conditional premise; and
ii.
the conclusion denies the
antecedent of the conditional
premise
iii.
e.g If the dogs are noisy then there
are intruders in the compound.
There are no intruders in the
compound. Therefore, the dogs are
not noisy.
Fallacy of denying the antecedent

C. Fallacies in Disjunctive Syllogism

Disjunctive Syllogism one premise takes
the form of a disjunctive proposition and the
other premise and the conclusion are
categorical propositions which either deny or
affirm part of the disjunctive proposition
Moods of disjunctive syllogism:
1.
Mood Which By Denying Affirms this
does not assume that the disjunction
asserts two mutually exclusive disjuncts;
the disjunctive proposition is not taken
to affirm categorically that only one
disjunct is true; it says only that at least
one disjunct is true, leaving open the
possibility that both may be true; not
mutually exclusive of one another
2.
Mood Which By Affirming Denies this
assumes that the disjunction asserts two
mutually
exclusive
disjuncts;
the
disjunctive proposition is taken to affirm
categorically that only one disjunct is
true; mutually exclusive
Fallacies:
1. Fallacy of Missing Disjunctfailure to include all possibilities or
alternatives in the major premise;
e.g. the jury will either convict or
acquit.
2. Fallacy of Nonexclusivity
applies only to the second mood;
occurs whenever one assumes that
affirming one disjunct shows the
other to be false, when in fact it is
possible for both to be true
IX.

Informal Fallacies

A. Fallacies of Irrelevance and Distraction

1.

Fallacy of Irrelevant Evidence

(Ignoratio elenchi) or Fallacy of
Missing the Point

 Purports to establish a particular

conclusion but is instead directed to
proving another conclusion
2.

Fallacies of Distraction
Shift
attention
from
reasoned
argument to other things that are
irrelevant, irrational and often
emotional
a. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad
misericordiam)
Evades the pertinent issues and
makes a purely emotional
appeal
Not a fallacy when relevant to the
decision, e.g. equity cases
and
discretionary
sentencing;
however, if the question under
consideration is a factual issue, an
appeal to pity is irrelevant,
and
deflects attention away from the
facts.
b. Appeal to Prestige (Argumentum
ad verecundiam) or Appeal to
Inappropriate Authority
Appeal to authority or prestige of
parties having no legitimate claim to
authority in the matter at hand
Use of pedantic words and
phrases, references, quotations,
length, detail and specificity
e.g. Pacquiao said: support the
RH bill
Lawyers who use too much references,

Case:
Neill, J., dissenting, Cresap v. Pacific Inland
Navigation Co., 478 P.2d 223, 228 78 Wash.2d
563 (1970) when the support of the law is not
significant per se, its effect is only rhetorical.
c. Appeal to Ridicule (Argumentum
ad hominem)
Shifts an argument from the point
being discussed (ad rem) to
irrelevant personal characteristics of
an opponent, and makes the
opponent the issue
However, ad hominem may be
allowed in the use of evidence of
both bad character and bias for the
purpose of attacking a witness
credibility. Another proper use is in
receiving expert witness testimony.
See: Rules of Court Sec. 20 Rule 130 (Witnesses;
their qualifications)
Sec. 51 Rule 130 (Character evidence not
generally admissible; exceptions)

Sec. 11 Rule 132 (Impeachment of adverse partys

witness)
Sec. 14 Rule 132 (Evidence of good character of
witnesses)
Cases:Melvin v. Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119, 30
June 2008 (conduct of an unbecoming of a judge,
attacking the law school the lawyer attended) ;
Sy, et al. v. Fineza, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1808, 15
October 2003 (judge settlement fee bakla)
d. Appeal to the Masses(Argumentum
ad populum)
Departs from the question under
discussion and attempts to win
assent to a proposition by making an
appeal to the feelings and prejudices
of the multitude
Approaches:
a. Bandwagon Approach Everybody is doing it.
b. Patriotic Approach "Draping oneself in the flag.
c. Snob Approach - All the
best people are doing it.
5. Appeal to the Ages or Tradition (Argumentum
ad antiquitam)
Holds that determinations and customs of
our fathers and forbears must not be
changed
6. Appeal to Novelty, Modernity or Youth
(Argumentum ad novitatem)
Claims that an idea or proposal is
superior exclusively because it is new
and modern
7. Appeal to Terror (Argumentum ad terrorem)
Appeal
to
fear
of
exaggerated
consequences
in
the
event
an
adversarys argument prevails
8. Argument from Force (Argumentum ad
baculum)
Substitutes veiled threats for logical
persuasion or asserts something must be
the case because thats just the way
things are
9. Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad
ignoratiam)
Argues that a proposition is true simply
on the basis that it has not been proved
false, or that it is false because it has not
been proved true
Exception: meeting ones burden of proof
in a trial
See:Sec. 2 Rules 133 Rules of Court
(Proof beyond reasonable doubt)

10. Straw Man Argument

Includes any lame attempt to prove an
argument by overstating, exaggerating, or
over-simplifying the arguments of the
opposing side
11. Fallacy of Stacking the Deck
The speaker stacks the deck in his favor
by ignoring examples that disprove the
point, and listing only those examples that
support her case. This fallacy is closely
related to hasty generalization, but the
term usually implies deliberate deception
rather than an accidental logical error.
Deception; using hearsay evidence
12.
Hypothesis
Contrary
to
Fact
(Argumentum ad speculum)
Trying to prove something in the real world
by using imaginary examples alone, or
asserting that, if hypothetically X had
occurred, Y would have been the result.
13.

Genetic Fallacy
Claims that an idea, product, or person must
be untrustworthy because of its racial,
geographic, or ethnic origin

B. Fallacies of Context and Content

1. Overzealous Application of a General Rule /
Fallacy of Accident (Dicto simpliciter)
Applies a generalization to an individual case
that it does not necessarily govern; the
mistake often lies in failing to recognize that
there may be exceptions to a general rule
2. Hasty Generalization / Fallacy of Selected
Instances
Occurs when we construct a general rule
from an inadequate number of incidents;
results from enumerating instances without
obtaining a representative number to
establish an inductive generalization
Fallacy of Statistical Simplicity
The probability of a sampling error tends
to diminish as the size of the sample
increases. But size alone is no
protection.
3. False cause
Treats as the cause of a thing something that
is not really its cause
a. No causa pro causa
o Mistakes what is not the cause of a
given effect as the real cause; the

events could be so correlated

because they were both caused by a
third, unexamined event, although
neither caused the other
Event C happened immediately prior
to Event E. Therefore, C caused E.

b. Post hoc ergo propter hoc

o The suggested inference that one
event is the cause of another simply
because the first occurs earlier than
the other; more prevalent in the law
o B comes after A (post hoc).
Therefore (ergo), B comes because
of A (propter hoc).
4. Irrelevant Conclusion (Non sequitur) or Fallacy
of the Consequent
Argument that contains a conclusion that
does not necessarily follow from the
premises or any antecedent statement
offered in its support
The difference between the post hoc and the
non sequitur fallacies is that the post hoc
fallacy lacks a causal connection; the non
sequitur fallacy lacks a logical connection.
E.g. when a sick person is treated by a witch
doctor or a faith healer then becomes better,
superstitious people conclude that the spell
or prayer was effective
5. Compound (complex) questions
Arises when: (1) two or more questions are
asked at once, and a single answer is
required; (2) a question is phrased as to beg
another question; (3) the question makes a
false presumption or (4) the assertion frames
a complex question but demands a simple
answer.
See:
Relevant rules on Evidence, e.g.
laying the basis or predicate for questions in
the examination of witnesses
E.g. Have you stopped beating your wife?
6.Circular Argument / Begging the question
(Petition principii)
Assumes the truth of what one seeks to
prove in the effort to prove it; the conclusion
lies buried in the premises used to reached
that conclusion
Case: Viray, et al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 92481, 9 November 1990
7. Tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy)
A charge of wrongdoing is answered by a
rationalization that others have sinned, or
might have sinned.
Yet, in the law, tu quoque arguments can
sometimes be used as an effective defense,

e.g. in matters of provocation, in the

equitable defense of in pari delicto
See:Article 13(4), Revised Penal Code
(mitigating
circumstance
of
sufficient
provocation or threat of the offended party
which immediately preceded the act
Case:Bercero v. Capitol Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 154765, 29 March
2007 (in pari delicto; you should come to
court in clean hands)

B. Linguistic Fallacies
1. Equivocation
Confuse several meanings of a word or
phrase in the context of an argument; allow
the meaning of a term to shift between the
premises of the argument and the conclusion
2. Amphibology
Ambiguity comes from the grammatical
structure; the double meaning lies not in the
word but in the syntax or grammatical
construction of a sentence
Arise in an argument where meaning is
muddled by slovenly syntax bad grammar,
poor punctuation, dangling participles,
misplaced modifiers
3. Composition

Mistakenly impute the attributes of a part of a

whole to the whole itself
stereotyping

4. Division
Mistakenly argue that attributes of a whole
must also be present in each part of that
whole
5. Vicious Abstraction
Removal of a statement from its context,
thereby changing the meaning of an
argument
6. Argumentum ad nauseum
Unnecessarily long brief or a windbag oral
argument where the advocate seeks to
sustain his position by repetition piled upon
repetition rather than by succinct, effective
proof or logical development