LEGAL LOGIC FRANCIS JULIUS N. EYANGELISTA, Ph.D. 2 DAVID ROBERT C. AQUINO, LIB, CSEE ot PUPLEGAL LOGIC Copyright Piippines 2015 to RANCH EVANGBLISTA Di «TC. AQUINO ALRights Reserved 613 'No pat ofthis book may be reproduce in any fasion without [permission rom the authors In oder to trace anmuthorized ‘production the authors hav included insigeficant eros om roughout material © pup B senstesnoitsoes & < oes Abtihedinanis isite 527 Phen Blidng son Resa, Queen Cy FOREWORD 1 veould be tite ose the importance of logic inthe study and practice of lave After all a8 Sir Edward Coke has trite reson theif of” Bis quite surprising then that Tegal teacoing has receired sant attention fom our legal ducators and scholars “The tools of legal loge ar ndipensiblo for la students fn analyeing cases and problems and in preening thet ‘guns Tp taking the bar, examinees ae exhorted to preset thei answers in lgial manner In the pace of law ae in ‘he administration of juice, the advocate and the judge wil toon realize that the persuasive power of tal and appellate Arguments and of judicial declsone Hr rooted in thet Togiest ongaization In fine, lgat logic is cxtial to sucess fm Law ‘chal in he bar examination and in legal practic, ‘The authors deserve strong commendation fr their work which should be sequined reading foe aw students and rossors as well a forthe meaner of the bench and the bar Egat education should plac more emphasis on the aequlstlon of legal sls and competencies rather than on the rote ‘memorization and surgation of egal rales. The publication of this book ea saint step inthis ection |Alty. MANUEL R.RIGUERA, ‘Nene Lael Ect BoardMESSAGE ‘Those who sl elev tha any legal reasoning should be ‘Bude bythe principe of ogi wl benefit from this book, With dear language, the book discusses and ilustrates trough aches! Supreme Court decisions whet makes anyresoning in law val invali or allacous [teaches legal reasoning sil in syle far beter han that ofsome ae schools. Prof. RENATO B. MANALOTO, sue nd Fry opine Py Utes MESSAGE Finally @ textbook on legal logic that is spedfally designed fr Filipino law studens, With ts clea and organized reeniation ofthe cincapt and principles of egal logic nd te of examples involving actual legal case nthe ont, thi work ‘will surely make the study of legal reasoning more engaging, productive and enjoyable for Filipino law students ‘Congratslations othe author of his textbook, Dr. France Julius Evangelista and Atty, David Robert Aquino, fora job wel done What they have accomplished isan inspiration to anyone thinking of making Philippine edurtion more slevant end meaningful fr Filipino sudenss Dr. NAPOLEON M. MABAQUIAO, JR. Aa Pfr of hoops ‘Beta Steiner MoeRecognizing Arguments ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS ‘Compete of Legal Reasoning ‘valuating Legal Reasoning FOREWORD Chapter 2 Atty Manuel R Riguers Fumamenia Concpl i Leal Resoing eer Lapel aie Bad Burden of Prof MESSAGES Evidence Relevance snd Admissibility Prof, Renato B. Manaloto Lee a ay Dern of Pep Tesanny of Witnesses Expert Testy Dr. Napoleon M. Mabaguia, “ama ref Ponty ‘eta See inert Mae ‘Bxaination Dependence on Precedents chapters myTRODUCTION DedctiveReoning in Desuction an Induction Chapter a Intrecin Shlogsms Logieand Law om ‘Types of Syllogiems Legal Resoning aw Categoria Sytogsms Argumentat an Expression ofRessoning 03 6 o 2»(Quantiy ofthe Predicate arts Categorical yllogiems Rules for Vay of Categercel Spogisms Hypothetical yogis Conditional logins Rules for Conditional: Agios Enthymemes Plyylogiss Chapters Inductioe Reasoning in Late Incsctive Generalizations valusting sdutive Gene Analogical Axgusnents Evaluating Analogical Arguments Chapters alin Lega Resoning Formal nd Informa Fallacies False of Atbigty 6 Expivocition “Ampluboly Improper Accent Vicious Abstraction Composition Fallacies of eaevance Argument of Honiton Argument 8 Mierirsom Argument of Boca Peto Prin Fallacies of insufenBvidence Arguoent 8 Aion Argument a Vicon Accident assy Generalization Argumentun af igortion Fale Dera ~ o ey 2 1m m0 mm roChapters Fades of eget Resoing ns Roles of Colson Bs ‘Rules of Interpretation and Construction 151 ules of fume 16 ules of Procedure 8 About the Authors Insect Cover INTRODUCTION tt ge lap neat ft ny gh ett haf Be mon erie ‘compishent of moni = Most iterate on the subject of legal logic come fom foreign juristicions. The concep, principles and more ‘importanly the examples given ae clled fom expesences from legal systems that are not ou own. Te was this situation that prompted us to undertake this humble workin order to preset fo the student of Lega! Logic 8 ‘wholly lipo view of he subject Ths wor discusses the fundamental points ingle leat reasoning highlighting the concepts and pnp psy’ ts ‘tempts to present to the student the rich dyna invlved in Crafng a logial argument as well appealing the art of understanding flaws an ts tenths More importantly, this work works is way around domestic law and illustrates is slit point Uxough dhe use of fur oven jurisprudence. While we sl fake our bearings on thehallowed grounds of legal logic from Western thought the appletion and presentation i lip. Though legal lgie is considered as & minor subject, we Deieve tha the concepts, principles an disipine embodied in this very dynamic sen would greatly sengthen and asi the student of law in areas of legal walling, debate and ngumentaon as well ti the interpretation and contruction flaws. ‘As tis wil continously be & workin peogres thie work does ot purport tobe an exhaustive exposition on fe subj ‘but rather an atone to help the stent faiasae Meet ‘with he concepts and principle of legal logic May the deine of so the night of ube, ai bre ‘height ofthe Ward and te Spe of Grae ‘Guo ey Chapter Introduction Nature that, Bgl ection» as nat fit man 19 any apse ewionment. Aang the rulttude of seine wach xref, oot ad ‘ein around ws, man i he nly Ove hi ot kad Into hs enoromen. His imagination, his vaso, is ‘otoal subtly and toughness, male it pos for Te rot act te eon! bu change i A ha ve of ents diferent kindof exon - rat loge but ela eclation. Tall it rit ‘opm of utara pats.” Jb rons ‘The i Logic ste study of the principles and mathods of good reasoning, It is a scence of reasoning which aims to determine nd lay down the enters of good (correct) essonng and a (incorrect reasoning. 1a ine with this purpose It probes into dhe fundamental concepts of argument intrence, truth fy and validity, among others Is on this very purpose of undertaking this ‘ud where its pracical value les it i by means of logte that ‘we clay our ies, sees the aceplabity of the claims arabelies we encounter, defend and jusify our assertions and statement, nd male rational and sound decors though peychology is also Interested in and studies reasoning, Its primarily concemed with how people reason. This demands looking for patterns of Behaviour spasch of ncarolgial activity Unt ake place inthe prowess of reasoning Logi ‘on the other hand, Studies the ‘principles of good reasoning Is task does not merely describe how people reason, but to discover and make available those ceri that can Be ‘ued fo est egument for correctness! Logie, being the science of comme and sound reasoning, is Indispensable in the field of nv. Th efeney of practicing lw ddepercs on the quality of legal reasoning, Legal reasoning is ‘what we use when we apply ws res and regulations to Darla fact and cases it what we use when we interpret onsiuions and taites, when. we balance fundamental ‘rineples and polkies and when we evaluate evidences, end ‘make judgments to render legldastons By examining and evaluating the elements and structures of legal reasoning ou legal judgments and decslone wil shit ffom mere subjective preference o objective ational, Sach kind judgments and decisions con bela serve the ul of law. Given the pume importance of logical reasoning in the law practic, legal education should inciade the understanding and analysis ofthe fundamental principle and methodologies of legal reasoning that wil erable the law stents to discriminate between good and ba patterns of legal agunetation, For a profession that relies so much on sound sessing and valid argumentation in order to justify a dain, defend ropostin, assss the stength of evidences and render a "ang cp Ga Gta ain a Lape. 88), judicious decison, legal logic shoul be placed at he canter of furlegal cwzcaum, Legal Reasoning Argument as an Expression of Reasoning Legal reasoning, like any kind of reasoning, 6 expressed haough arguments and ti wth argument that logic is chiefly concerned. Thus, ts important ints inwodutory chapter 0 tiseus the fundamental notion of arguments baie elements fe ailutesand what makes eitnct fom other verbal ‘ateranars ane expressions, ‘When people hear the word “apument” they sisally think of some kind of quar or dpe n Lagi, however ak tgument isa claim pt forward and defended with esc, To ‘bemmore proce, an argument group of latements in which cone stalement fe claimed to be tue on the Bais of another Stement/s The statement that being claimed to be tu I fale the conclusion and the statement that serves as the basis or support ofthe conclusion called the premise. Thus when & Jaw attempts to prove justify or defend a particular cai by conecting it to one oF more claims, he/she is making an asgument. From the above explanation, we can see how valuable argument ae for Inwyers, Lawyers becom more persuasive and convincing. they develop the habit of speaking in ‘rgunens that they do not fst make assertions or dale that something s tue Gwever confident and carn they ar of the truth of thelr assertions), but support thi assertions by Povidingjstication reasons or promis for their cme. However it is not enough that lwyers formulate sgumenta to persuade people, for not all agents ae coeect tnt sceepable, In Loge, anguments are categorized ae etherlogial_ or logis valor invalid, sound or unsound epending, on the accepabilsy of the premises andthe ‘connection between the premize an the conclusion. To beable fo consiucl waite and present acceptable and. convincing srguments lawyers must esl in determining the lgle and Sundaes of sgument, ‘This sil of determining the lg of arguments desnands the ably to analyze the stracare and content of atgurents ‘what are the issues and problems being ried, what the chet claim of the argument. what are the basst and premises Advanced to support the chim, and what ase the cra ‘assumptions implict in on's restoring, Thus, ti fundamental that one ean identify ina pacar argumentative passage the ‘yo basic element in an argument = Une concn and the premises To alp us do this ak ther are words or plates tht ‘ypialy serve to incre the premise or the concuson ofan argument The prcence of any of them cften though not sways, signals fiat what follows Je the premie or the fanelison. Some of the common conclusion indians ze thorfore 0, ths, Hence, ete hile the premise indicators we fe use are bec, since, for nas ee (On ist reading a passage iis often weft undeline or Iighight such indieator words when we run across them, ‘especialy ifthe passage is ong and complex. Dong 9 ers us to the crucial relationships of apport within the passage end thus ves us “Imari to i argumentative ste The eidence preset by Be prosetion vo btn through taping, Howey 1 wll {foray person, nt big thrid byl he partes fo ‘any pros conmunttion © tp ay seo able seortly ooh inter reed such communication. There, sich eens ill not be sie i is peta jul esto, [Noving the word “Burgi in dels sentence helps locnte the arguments cancusion, "Such evidence will not be scimisble inthis particular ual investigation” Te als lps te recognize tat the fit two dims Genfences) are offered as ‘easons or premises in suppoet of Ua conchsion. ‘Abortion shold not be gle eve in ces of rape end ics ore Hirt morally pre [el an imocnt defences Child due fo soo li” fat. In this pasage, the word “bute” ntouces the premise that supports the arger's positon against legalizing abortion. Aword of cation however mit be added. Some of the sxguments we will encounter contain ao indicators. Sometimes we ate ust supposed to undersand that an argument i being preemie |MMDAs campogn gt ri of sidewalk vendors is righ, The poration of se stew vendors sows dea the mowement fhe cing hey trafic Analyzing the content of tl passage, we can se hat the speaker is asserting tho uth of the fist statement and Supporting i withthe second statement. So, we have here an ‘gument where the fim sntament i the concution spd the second statement serves a ts premise although we cannot sce ‘ay premise or conclsion nico in the passage, Recognising Arguments ‘As discussed in an ealerpargzaph, an angument is 2 froup of statements, but sot all groups of sateents ar Siguments.An argument alwaysas & conclusion and «presse, ‘Without oe, a bunch of wordee nota argument Ii on this bass that we can recognize when there san argument and whenthere is none, However, people olen mistake arguments fra passages that seem to be arguments but att rot Thus it Imperative to be Skilad in distinguishing argumens fn ssgumens (One passage that Is often mistaken with axpuments is cxplanaion. An explanation is an attempt to show why ‘something is he case whe an argument i an attempt 0 show that something isthe cae? “Alfough an argument and an ‘explanation are both important in legal eaoning thet have tobe distinguished bose, unlke argument, explanations are rot meant to prove rusty the mith oa parle din, Hubert Wet an company were spt by the Siprone’Comt brent he cour found. inherent Inconsistencies the evidence provided bythe Any lw that probs pope from exprasing ther iwi wast eau our Conan rants the rom ofepec, (nthe surface, these two passages ok very mucha oh gve ors, and bth se he intr Word neue Hower hoe is anor ference between est. The fst selene is an explanation and He eccond sentence san su ‘An explanation rest show why something is the case {nour fat example. for instance itis ear tha the speaker isnot trying to prove the th of the statement Hubert Webb and company were agit bythe Supreme Court iti fact hat is not constable nor is 8 subject of controversy. Instead, the ‘speaker i tying 0 explain why they were aquitied (or how ‘ome they were acquitted). OF course you ean angue about * che Senn eal eta! Ting Suttle ese "eS whether a given explanation is correct or not, Bat hat patent passage mains mere explanation which snot meas! prove ny dam Although both arguments and explanations give atons, the nature ofthese easons difers Tn explanations, these easons te usually the uses or factors that show how or why 2 thing fame to exist. In arguments they aw intended 10 provide {rounds f fant eli, to show hat i ip plasible or tue Thay nthe ober example above about the law peohibling people from expressing thle views, the speaker Io making an Ergument Becase the second statement i intended to justi ‘wy sich aw unconsitiona. ‘ypleally explanations ae given by cing causes ofthe vent to be expsined. For example, te pidge postponed the TReving because the defendant fed to appa in the court due to unable health condition. “This ea crusl explanation the lure to appear brought out the postponement ofthe hearing. There is no attempt to prove the th judge indeed postponed the hearing, Such i= Sscumed as a fact The later part of the passage fers |sformation that would show howto fat ame tobe ‘Thus, to distinguish arguments om explanations, we reed to ask a hey question: she speaker's intent to prove oF stash that something isthe cee ~ that ito provide rensons lor evidence for accepting = clsim ast or sities inter 0 explain wy srmething is the cse~ that 1 offer an account of ‘why some event has ocurred or why somthing the way i? [ithe former then the passage san argument Ihe later, then the passage an explanation, Arguments should alto. be distinguished from smsupported opinions. Satemen’s of belie or opinion are Eaerente about what »spesker or water happens to believeSuch statements can be true ofl rational or irational, but they are parts of exguments only the speaker or wter cain that they follow tomy or support ether dais, Hee isan ‘ramp of eres of unsupported bebo opinion 1 agne with te proposed juve Juste ond Wile Act hing sated at psn! in bcrmeral onforenc commits of he Congres. Republic Ac 9344 rst be mene, The nt ag of criminal aby us be er rom 1512, This canot be conidare an angument because actly there is no premise (cr reasen) given why the mininuen age of ‘cimina ability be 12 rather than 15, No basis or evidence was ‘gen to show tat RAO is wrong ‘Asguments are also often confised with conditions! atements. A. conditional statement contains an ifthen ‘eatonship. It is made up of wo basic components the fist component i called the antecedent (or the ieciuse) and the second components called the consequent (orth then-ias) Conditional statements are not argurents becuse there is ‘ium hat one statament i trae Beene ofthe oer statement (Consider the fling conditions ateent the Philipines opts partiomentoy goverment tense wll ola Present anno [Nether the fast component (the Philippines adopts = peciamentary govenunent) nor the oer component (ne wil ot elect a President anymore) is asserted to be ae, ‘Thus, we basil have only one assertion inthis sentence (hus, only one statment. What is only asserted is thatthe former component implies the later ie, if the former wil happen the later wil as happen). But no premise is asertd, no inference i made and no conclusion i daimed to be tue Therefore there iso argument here. But consider the flowing Wel ot lect a Present enor enusthe Philippine adopt « priamentary government Hire we do have an argument as i suggested by the presence of the premiseindicstor bene, The sttement the Philippines adopted a paramentary goverment sacri a « preige andthe statement e will ot elect a Presiden anyore [sclaled to follow from tat premise and raver tobe rue Components of egal Reasoning All legal sesoning follows a similar pater inorder to prove defend or july ts lim, There are eset components {hat must be present algal argument fort be sucestlly ‘sdvanced. The Ast one isthe ISSUE ofthe argument: What ie being argued? ‘We engage in reasoning and construct arguments in onder to reepond to'2 particular sue. "Ar ise is any mater of tonto ov uncertainty ue pt pate, dub i ‘usin o ply up for discussion or cdration. "As such, es Always formulated in an nterrogativesentene, In the law it specially pertains to alga mate itis not just any controversial queticn Is reusing on’ own week that had been previously published « cave of plain? Is the accused gully of online delamation? Does the defendant's fonct constitute an intentional infcton of emotional har? The whole argument is basicly dinected by the irsue at hand This moans thatthe relevance ofthe premises depends on the ‘very ise the argument isaddresing, And whatever ansiver we {ie to this question conetituts cur postion on theese which IE refected in the conclusion of our argument) Iti also‘important 10 sd that an iesue is alifferent fom a topic of forversition or argumentation. Plagiaitn and ineret libel ae topics notes, Second isthe RULE What egal rales gover the su? ‘To argue legal cge one tut beable fo cite a ale (a statute or an ordinance) and apply i to st of facts: Richard [Naumann has sated tht vles have atleast tae pats: (1) «et Of lements, colt cl atest (2) ares tocar when all the ements represen fan the et tse) a case term thot deerme wheter the rel ie ranalry, proton, ‘scenario Tn sition, some rales have ane ot ‘more exceptions tat if resent would defeat he result. even if all the elements are present. An example of rule would be that: lence against wornen and children occured is person ated fgainst « women who is hls wile, former wif, or aglnst & ‘woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating ‘eatonchip, o with who he hae a comon ldo aginst het child whether lginate or legitimate, within ce without the family abode, which sult i oi Hksy to reslt in pial, ‘orca, psychological harm or aullering, or economic abuse Including treats of such act, battery, stall, coerdon. hharasamene or arbitrary deprivation of bey, The exiting ile governing the tue should be ‘specically ced. Bven when a decision fs based upon what is “iris because tee sa rue that says thatthe decison of this typeof sue will be based en fais Indeed thene ae ‘many rules o an argument has no weight unless i says exaclhy hich ue beng reed upon, The rule can als take the form of caso principles that ‘courts have already decided. The rearonng hee usally consists of arguing thatthe case under discon ssn wo that plor ‘br Noun, Lae Rasrnhg ane Lag Wiig: Secu, siopy se Sys ote Sab ase (stare desis) ox principle. On the issue of violence against ‘women and chldren, the case of Pape me. Labi or People lores may be cited. ‘On the part of the fudge, they shouldbe fly guided by the rules in order to render «sound decision. Others, the ecsian wll be questioned a inthe folowing ase People vs Cabra? Assaied before the High Court wae the ring of respondent judge in granting the pplication for ball which wae atrmed by the ppelite court, Petionersaloge and argue thal Aespite strong evidence hat coroborated the sworn Statement of the victim, the respondent jodge Alirogrded the same an granted bal. Moreover the Salictor General argued that the respondent jodge misapplied some well: ‘stable legal doctrines in cial aw. ‘as theo ait? In eterting the rules cining the dais of ‘judge in determining the mest ofan aplication for bail it observed that respondent Jug did disregard certain pices of evidence for the prosecution which should have been considered The ea ear ase of ron sequitur where dhe der ofthe respondent Judge was not arved at ab a "ro. t60 109,product of 2 loglel proces a8 pressed By the Rates ‘The nest esenal component in legal reseoning isthe FACT-Whatarethe facts that are evant othe ule? "here are alot of facts hat makeup the lets tory. For the purpose of legal analysis, we lok for “atari ‘acs, These aze the facts hat the element ofthe ale. The ale would be etisted I the fact of the present case cover all the cements of the ue. For example, regarding the Ines] Inficion of Einotional Distess (HED) ere, an ex boyfriend cll sn evsiiend several times inthe mide ofthe ight to harass her and his causes her sever emotional ites. ‘Sound reasoning demands tha the facts o be considered should not be one-sided. Although cet facts can very ell, ‘suppor and establish parla egal lim (Ut the defendant {gully of commiting acts of violence aginst women and chien, one must consider the facts to be presented by the defendant's counsel and be abl to detonsrae that those facts {si to spare the defendant ofthe charges town at i. By puting into equation the fas thet would possibly be presented. bythe other side and preparing to ail them down would give ‘he Iga counsel a gester chance of wining the case Inthe succeding case, the lowe cust used the bad man ‘del in which the had man only cares forthe consequence of the law, and what the courts wil dot him: The RIC judge did ‘not deduce his concsions rm facts. His decision was based on fis ide of justice conditioned by hs values, background, and. ‘cqualntanee with social fore, The judge appreciated the fact ‘and circumstances of he cae bac on his expec slne and its enough for his standard thatthe accused ks gully beyond ressonabie dou Prople vs. Escbart ‘Amadeo Abuyen alas Roberto Alot, wat formealy a secuty guard of appellant Juan Escober a the Bee Seng’ Electvcal Supply, a fay ‘corporation owned by couple Vente and Lina ‘Chun. Abuyen was rlcved Ey Domingo Rover for being always abeent and found sleeping while on uty: December 3 1982, Roc’ lout of duty wat ‘nom 700 in the mening to 7.00 inthe evening. He Jet is post and that evening after he ea lieved by apple Juan Eacober ARer Rocero bad, Vicente Chua went to his ofce at the Bee Seng lsctical Supply as he usualy dose lle office hour accompanied by his Ibyear old son Irvin and 6 yer old daughter Tiflany afer which the two ‘dldrn ‘watched. television” whe telr father proceeded othe bathroom Aluyen and his three companions rode a treyle and proceeded to the Boe Seng Becca] and appellant Escober opened the door. Abuyen fed fa two other companions een nae and = fushot wat fred, Vioote Chun saw is 10 Chilten moruly wounded and abserved that $000 esos was missing from his drawer. Juan Esober, fogeher with four unidentied persons was charged wih the crime of Robbery with Homicide ad found gully thers “Accuse.appellant Escher asses that sald decison i ll an voi fort doesnot conform to the regiment of Section 9, Artie X af the 1973 CConatitation nd tha it wae rendered even beforeall the stenographic noes of the proceedings had ‘een rans. othe aserion of xb caret? ‘The Supreme Court sid “Evry decision of court of ead sal larly and asin sae thefts ‘de woah it Bnd” and that he desion ofthe lower fed on this land. “The neegency siems primarily fom the pont ude’ tendeny © gene ano form conclusions witout dating the {its from eon suck concions ar deuce, Ts, he ‘onde that te material llgtion ofthe Amended Information wre thefts without specying hich of the estimoneso exible supported hs conclusion He elt the teimany of coed spplnt.Eaccer emae Ut wes algely replete wih contedictions thaw peng out wat hese contradictions oni of or hat ‘ital etal’ Exar shoul hele @ rele wits” Another important component is ANALYSIS. ~ How spplcable are the facts tothe sa ule? ‘This s the part where our aegumertation and ilustation ‘ome out. This partis supposed to show the link between the rales and the facts we presented t estbish what we ate lbiming in our argument. The concer here is whether the Paitifsvutneraity is known othe defendant the act can be fonridered outrageout. How about i thee inno intent onthe pt of the defendant to bring about emotional tess. A fretless disegard for the Ukelhood of causing emotional dlstess is sufclent. For example if the defendant refused to Inform the phn ofthe whereabouts ofthe plaints cd for several years though that defendant knee wheze the dd was the enive time, the defendant cold be eld Hable for VAWC ‘ven though the defendant hed no intent to cause dies tothe Plant Regarding the fourth element, does the plains fmctional experience sti this element? Aly demands ‘ing = standard to determine the depre of a pests dlstess ‘which can be qusnied by the itera, duration and phyvial ‘naniferations ofthe emotional experience In the following ase, the High Cou’ analysis of he case ‘ska in determining whether the CA and the RTC commited the faley fame ad enc amido v6. 8° GGamido was accused and convicted of forging tho signature of the President of the Repubic ofthe Philppines. The pizcpal witnss for the prosecution was. the Duecor of the [Matacanan Place Records Oe. Gamido sailed ‘is conviction base onthe testimony of he witness ‘owing fo the fact tha! the later ed rover wines the President sign any document and therfore Ie ‘material fac aly ft the ae rot competent to sly regarding the same He also Again looking a the issue whether the defendant is uy ‘of VAW, we must sh whether the seces of overt act made ‘he acuied manestd an intentional or reckless condi 8 wll, ean outrageous conduc. Analysis equi taking'nto acount ‘he basis when one could any the act is eles or outrageous ‘An Isolate incident of cling the plaintiff may nt consti an ‘outrageous ac ut if there ie 2 pater of conduct and he ‘argued thatthe Court of Appeals and the RTC commited the fallacy of ingimentum ad ignotio. dit an concluding that the signatures in the documents ere forgeries from the documents “anual format and strous grammar” when these 251 60a 11808dlocuments were not offered to prove thee appearance and grammat, The High Court noted that the witness, lowing t0 his long postion as cistodian of the records of Malacnan Palace very well familar not ony ofthe sgnature ofthe siting present but the signatures of previous president he had the prlegeof serving under, ako decared that under the Rules of Cou, ‘tis not rguted that the person identifying the handwriting of another must have seen the later rte the document or sign but tisenough, i he witness has seen wing purporting to be the Subjects upon which thas ata or etn change. As to the charge of the CA. and RIC commiting egumonium a igratio dnc, the High Cour eld’ that there ts no. tert in Petitioners im dat forgery could not be ai fo ‘st since the documents becuse of thelr untsal formar gram and missed werd coul not have dfauded or deceived anyone, and that rmorcover they Tack apparent legal efleny. hati not of the documents wer frcifal or whims, 2 for example, commision appointing petoner ‘mayor of a mythial kingdom, the forgery could Simply be dimissed a3 spoot But as polnted out by the Slitor General the Offce of the President had to sue a memorandum denouncing the legality of PRAMS because of the possibility thatthe less wary would be deceived especialy Because that Ue documents tuning to i bear the Great Sealand were typed on stationary which have the appearance of fal Stationery ofthe Ofice ofthe President The final element of legal etsoning the CONCLUSION Whats the implistion of plying the ral fo the given facts? “The concusion ete ultimate end of legal argument. I ‘swhat the fats the rales an the analysis ofthe case amount. Evaluating Lege Reasoning Given the liferent lems making up legal argument what cites can we ube fo ditinguish conrect fom incoeeet legal reasoning? There ae to general ctere: TRUTH and LOGIC. Ths can be explained by looking at the two main ppoceses involved in legal reasoning: (1) presentation of facts "whlch pertains to the queston of trith and. @) inference (Gerving a legal claim or adgment fom the given lewis and fats wehich pertain to the guetion of loge. “The it process deals withthe question Are the premises provided inthe argument re or acceptable Its necessary for the eondasion of = igal argument to be grounded on fac ‘bass, for if the prmios that are canto exabinh the truth of the legal cai (concasin) is questionable, the conelsion sel Isquestonable, (Otensines disputes inthe court are not abot laws but shoot mater of fact” The opposing sides would present Movcover under the same Rule 2 published testo, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, Iw sconce or at f Admissible as tending 19 prove the tush of a matter stated therein if the cour takes judicial notice or a witness experi the subject testis, hat the writer ofthe statement in he eae, petal or pamphlet srxogrized in is profeston or calling 5 expert inthe evbject™ The move commen auaion wherein ‘expert testimony is resorted to by the courts when a holographic ‘willis contested Buanination Please note that under the Rae of Court the oder ix which individual witness maybe examined ie flows > 2) Dirct examination by the proponent «refers to the cvominaon-in-hiet of witness by the acy preening him on the facts relevant foie ue Y)Craeaminaton by the appoint - Upon the termination of the deat eraminaton, the witess may be cross-examined by the fevers party as fo any matters sated in Reta Sacer ‘Be direct examination, or connected ‘Berewith, with sulieent fullness and fieedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom ffom interest or bay or the revert, and fo elict all smporant fats bearing upon te sue” ©) Reet examination by the proponent ~ Afr the ‘reexamination ofthe tess has been ‘ondluded, he may be re-examined bythe pany ealing him, to expainor supplement Is answers given during the com (quetions on matirs not dest with during the cross examinaton, may be allowed by the court ie dsc and a)Recosseuminatin by the opponent - Upon the entluson ofthe reget examination, the Adverse party may recrosexamine the tne on mates stated in his re-dret ‘examination. and. also. on such other raters as may be alowed by the court in Note, however that after the examination ofa witness by Doth sides has been concluded, the winess cant be recalled ithout leave of te cour, The cout wl grantor witho eave Inits loceton ab he nterets of justice may roguired.® 12 Scion Ratt CoatMoreover witess may be impeached by the party against ‘whom he wat ciled, by contediciery evidence, by evidence thats genera eputation fr tut honesty or integrity x ba or by evidence Gat fe has made at other times statements Inconsistent with his present testimony, but not by evidence of ‘articular wrongful acts except that may be shown by the examination ofthe wines or the recoed of the juagment tht Thea been cmviied ofan offence. ‘Before witness can be impeached by evidence that he has rade at eer mes statements inecnastnt with his present testimony the statements must be related to him, wilh he ‘Greuinstancs of the tes and plces and the persons preset, ‘ad he nt be asked whether he made such statements an if £0, lowed to explain them. IF the statements bein writing they must be shown tthe wise before any question is put Hin ‘onoering them. Dependence on Precedents Stare dc am ute move Thi is the bedrock of what we now refer tas precedents. tis general rule that when a point hasbeen sted by 3 dacson, becomes a precedent which should be followed in tubeeguent caresbefore tho rame court. The aes based wholly fom poy, inthe interest of uiforty and carat of he I, but equently departed from. The doctrine of adherence precedents or tre des was applied by the English courts and tras ater adopted by the United ttes.> In our very own att cepa La Doar 82 Sma eng st So 04 to) judo, dhe Civil Code echoes this by decarng that dit ‘acon apling or interpreting the lus o he Const shall ‘for prt of tea tom of he Plppnes* ‘The doctrine of ste decisis nom guide movere te embodied in Article ofthe Civil Code ofthe Flippin” This is the doctrine that, when a court has onc nid down 4 plecipl, nd apply Ht all future casey, where facts are Substantially the same, regardless of whether the patos and Droperis are the sane. Fllow past precedents and do not Str what has been sctled. Matters sleacy decided on the ‘ments camotbe subjectof gation again. But note ht this ale doesnot elicit blind adherence to precedents ™ kis based onthe principle that once question fle hat een examined and decide, it should be deemed sated and dlosed 1 further argument™ Only upon showing that tircamstances attendant in 2 particular cas override the grat ‘benefits derived by oa judi sytem fom the doctrine of are sees, can tne courts be juste Ia seling ade the same ® “The follorng cae fa clr ilstration of stad Pettioner Loma Pesca and respondent Zosimo Pesca were + marred coupe inl, the "sca Oosan, 508 2285205) "Femi. Peel, 55 SORA 12208 “© usatn Oni, 50 CRAZE 08) on 250010young couple id not ive together as ptioner was Pils aden in college and respondent, 2 sean, fad to ave the country on board an oceania ‘vessel barely a month after the marriage After entablshing their resident the couple could only stay together for 2 onthe ina yest ~ rhe respondent was on vacation. But despite Sis they beget four eildre. Te seas only in 1988, when petitioner began to rotce hat” respondent showed "signs of "psyolobpe tncmpacty” to perform his marital He was emodonally immature, an Jmesponsible hustand, cruel and violent, and was lho» habia drinker Petitioner snd tee cilren frat alo rented wih physial vere, Loran fled a petition tothe Regional Tea Court fr the declaration of rly oftheir mariage Invoking psychological incapacity. (On November 15, 1955, the RTC dedared the mariage null nd void ab init. Thie dection, ‘however, was reversed by the Court of Appeals on the boss that Loma felled to show proof that Zosimo was indeed sulfering trom poychological ‘neapacty that would cause him Yo be ncogntve of (he basi marl covenant Appallnt led a petition fr selew with the Supreme Court contending that he doce laid ‘ut by Sins CA! ant Republi of the Papin, (CA and Molind® should have no reoacive pplication and on the assimpton that the Malina ‘ling could be applied retroactively, the guidlines therein cutined should be taken to be merely ssvisry and not mandatory ia nature The appellant further contends that the application of the Senor and Molin dicta should ‘warrant only a remand of he case to the il curt for father proceedings and not its dismisa. Did the CA ern ging rete eptition the doctrine dot Senos. CA end Rapa. (CAand Matina? ‘The High Cour found no mest in the petton. The "ote of ste diss,” ordained in Article 8 ofthe Ci Code, expresses that judicial dlecsone applying or interpreting the lavr shal form pert ofthe legal system of te Philipines. ‘The rule follows the sete legal sande — “tes itrpreado gs vim obtint™ ~ that the Inlerpretation paced upon the writen law by 3 competantcourthas the fore of ave The interpretation or construction placed by the cours establishes the contemporaneous legate intent ofthe a The Inter as 20 inerpreted and consiued would thas eonaitae » part of that I a ofthe date the statute enacted. Its only when a pee ring ofthis Court finds ict Inter overruled, and 8 diferent view ion pokog seems spouse ap oud x sou ‘nog apriond oy pune arp one Jo ynous a) we pea {oy 4am ‘suysrpucs sa to} ~suosEa 10 sUepUa 5 TKR Twodknsapoid vue suum so Suoseo e MONTY [aap Buwostar jo suoyed om say awe MoH sono fy vodn payer Zyonp Syuosear aq spam ayguaps 20 Sayygeqod ‘sauaumie sno none ays! oY pues fa Row ap suusnap oye ane uae Sev Buqoear satonpap ous aq Dey TUUSqaeSD UL pause ‘Gpadond sow soup yo safe ap ago 30 SA} tn pcr pode stu say st pasa a ag eT ‘iron “aan 20 snco rade Uy “wate (eS 30 {ator wsnodary Any Bupuosea Jo suey 250 Jo Wo SuIOSe xronpey wey aaRonpep ypruReP Aeron suePrO7 ‘ousnpuy pur wormpo dsm sa peso ey afc saya ey anf pad jp Byes ps "any pup sure pron eg 9 fo prado wre ‘ance ute ged fo 90 agg wt de gay any in 9 se a fo anges pa ism 19 224 PE, ‘aur uy Bauoseey 20H mPa eamidey ‘a0 209 Sequore yeh agen ano eae con yn sid rmipn au 0 Aegan ap Auo Yu suns ‘ubispep pel snotsaud £q sa pel wabg a Te SRS oy opr wus swuapanad (FD a Tey aA OS ay, “youn pur soup sy SuTEUENE yA ur pun pig -suoneurumsa ssaD-a pu Pan a'50 AI suogeayme fess oStapam eosouren Hxy pus La 4g asmbar eng ox “Prunio> ase Sesous Jo woRERAFA fv any fy iUaunoop 20 ylgo ue yo une ap yon so sso 0 Suounsa yon 99 Fe ke SPI -pamg ease oy euneus pu yaoi og 05643 20> ssp Ay pape pus nes oxy 44 peedoside 99 of 20p9 {pe oj po UT Bupowed RPpA e Uy Pe) eS 3b cad po Uno Jo sy Jp PIN dq ty apo ap vO DUNPHY sos! OBA ‘Sind asp 70 Aimy 2 5 Youd 30 vopng = SION OL dc wou dod, = ens a ape spnaany aooepoe Ut pS ‘ood uy pase aun pur aupop po a Uo panas Sag oye sod yo sone w Kanpodond pode 97 0 aney Anat uupop au a eq ‘Pidopeob, Others merely try to show that their conlusions are plausible or licely or probable to be tre given the premise). ‘The frst Lind of argument i « deductive argument and the second kind is an inductive argument In her words, we are reasoning deducively when our premises intend to guaranie the tath of our concuson while we reason inductively when ‘ou promis ae intended to provide good Gut not conclusive) ‘evidence fr the uth of our eanlusion Here ae some examples of deductive easing: Alt mistneanor are criina fess Driving under the infunce of alkalis @ ‘idence Honcy dro der the nunc of eda s @ criminal fers LY gar each let, then quarts i hiker thon pase Quart coats Therefore quart harder ta sas [Notice how the conclusions of these arguments are ‘tubshed by the premises with abeoute certainty Each ‘eondlusion Nows from i premises with logical necessity: this ‘mews that given the premises, the concusion could aot oss be fale. Them are times who we make an argument the condasion of which i not certain. This isnot neces a ‘weakness fr ia many eases She most that we can expet ofan Argument is to support is conclusion with a dagiee of probability. Inductive arguments simply claim that thir foncusions ae ely or probable given the premises offered ee, a al, a ig ss Wenn Consier tis example: Nel shanti Legal Lape clas, hs good uty bts and says atte fe dss casio, He consent da’ iter and as never Bae in any sj he hs taken iI schol ond ‘There, ery pba ht Nel sl ft ‘ths Legal Li as. This is an inductive argument. Although it 6 a strong srgumen, it doesnot provide an absolute gunrante that Ne ‘wil not fil in his Legal Logic clas Theres oll «remote ‘oss that he wlan the subject. the press are ue then the concision wil very likly, or probably, be tr; Bt the truth ofthe premiss cannot absolutly rue ot the posiity thatthe conclusion wil be fle. In other words the conclusion ‘might tum out toe false even though the premises are tue The following ase some other examples of inductive arguments: he car cn tar eve hgh here enty of pul i te nk art 1 ty hat he bay iene 1 the ast i yrs, the pang rate i the bar as ays Bm ss Be 25% ad So we can say fh this ers sucess ar ‘came will probly not 50 yond Be, tie comotines auld hat the basic dfernce between deduction sd induction i that deduction moves from genera! remises to particular eancusios, whereas induction moves4 ‘tom particule premises to general concsions. Although ths te generally the case, tis wrong to use chs as basis of etinguiching dedcion from inducion since there are deductive arguments at move Srom particular t general and {inductive arguments that move frm general to parce Consider these two examples: ‘Thea prime number, ed ‘Seven prime member ad ‘rar lo uber bec tx end ight ‘oe prine name. Alb of 1K, Rossing’ previous Boks Ie Bae esl (Geral prem) and Theor, her nett bok wil probably be = ‘ster particle cnision) ‘The its a deductive argument butte reasoning moves from particular prises to a general concuson, while the ‘stcond is an inductive argument but ts reasoning fows from {general to particular Thus what maker an argument deductive ‘rinductve isnot he pattern of parcalarty or general in he premises and conciuston. Rath it isthe type of eupport the Promises ze claimed to provide forthe concsion. ‘To determine whether an argument is deductive of Induce, we can yon indict wor hat signal the ind of chim the argument makes. For example, 4 phrase suchas “it recetary follows thar” almost aways indicates that an ‘rgument is deductive. Here are some common deducive {ndlesor weeds: ersnly ogi come at ‘ily tha gialy oles that “oa Co at Go ositen Loge o 186). eaulely itl tat conclusoely mast Beth case ha “These are some common inductive nator words probably onemoull exc tat fly is plas to supe ha hones are tiers as tt ‘When no indicator words ae present to help us decide whether an arguments deductive or inductive, we ast have to ‘hee ou judgment on the content of the premises and concesion of the argument is the cnchusion intended to flow with et ‘eceaty from the premises or ist infended to stply follow Hom he premises with dey of probability? In this chapter we will concentrate on deductive srguments and discus inductive angaments in the next chapter Sylogisms In logic, deductive angaments ae often expres in whet we call “syns” A ylogisn «thee lineangument~ that ‘an argument that conse of exacly two premises and ‘incon. This form of rezoning is what is urkng below the Srflace of mort jadical opinions and bref. Gotted Leib ‘epresied the signiScance of he sylogc thre hundred years go calling is invention “one ofthe most Buti and on of the ‘most important, made ly the human mind. The value of sylogisms, particulary ix legal reasoning was also recognize by the eighteenth century raformer ‘Cees Becearia who expressly advocated that in the rea of criminal la, judges should fellow syllogisc line of arguing Ie exry erin ase Iie shuld comet perfect sloism: he major pene should be Retorta8 the general i the minor premise, the a, whic dos or docs not conform the ns andthe onli, etal or cndonation. But for all ts power, the principle ofthe syllogtm is surprisingly straightfonrand Whats rue of the universal tue ofthe parlor If we know that all torts ae cil wrongs and Alefamation isa tox therfore defamation isa cl vrog, Is ‘no exaggeration sy tha the ylgion isa the art of eg ‘ering: Conder thas follwing examples: The Constution probit mow Flipinas_ #2 euro lands of tp domain Signing this det of slew ence Me. Jason, 1 American acquire te tte of hs lend of he pul dma and Thc, ging ib ded of se 8 uci power ince the oer to detrne ‘tht or at here has ee grave abuse fires om the par ofa branch or fremont of th Goverment The Supreme Cour granted ud power ant ‘hegre, the Suprene Court hs the per 12 ‘trina or ot ee gree abt of cretion on he prt fay Srach or intnmenaty ofthe Goverment The President con grant anesy i te military mates i he i concur of & ‘joy of all the members of the Congress “Coe Gcara Gn Ca and Rr ar Dai Ye, 88) Lass than aio the members fhe Congress in ‘or of oti ay oe iy There, the Preiest canst grat the sid ‘mney. 1s important that law sents develop the habit of thinking ineyllogioms. When bing » cave asigned in thei elas, the saloon ofthe deductive splogisn must poke though in their description of tho casv's rationale. Lawyers, whenever ‘oss, mst make the argument in ec briets an meat the foum of sjlogisms A cle. welboonstrced sjlogisn ensures each conclusion is wellsuppored with evidence, and {ives the jadge a rcogrizable basi fo evaliate the srength of the argument Being able to construct elgisms is one il ving able to frm good syllogism is another sil. Not all logiems are Toglal Deductve arguments may either be vali or invalid What do we mean by abd and invalid agumens? We have seen that all deductive anguments claim, mplicily or explicitly, that Wels conclusions flow secesarly ‘tom ther premises. However some deductive arguments have condlusins which donot follow necesaiy fom their prem. ‘These arguments ar invalid deducive toguments. A valid deductive argument is an argument in wich the conclusion really docs flow necessarily fom the premises. Put another ‘way a valid angument is an angument in which the premises fe tue then the concasion mast be rae oF the trath of the Premises guarantee the rath of te conclusion. “Those are examples of valid arguments: 1 Inultor arena lie concn aboot nt ‘here rare ar tec conduct2 All sr heft mre harm han god ere ‘Allrcler arsinfct more har than go Therefor ail car was nus. Manos bce ens Fisher menoals reso fave lungs. Below are examples of invalid arguments 4 Fel ia criminal oer “Anal commitet criminal oes an Therore, Amalia cmmited rd Alfons rina fee. ‘All flowes are puichable by rarer, all criminaloftses oe puri by incre Fo Chinese are Ass ‘Arico ae at Chinese There, Americas ot Asians. As the examples above chow, the validity or invality of arguments doesnot depend on the tuth ofthe premises of the foncasion. Argument has obviously fale premises and fs onclason but i vai should be emphasize, however ‘hat no valid argument can ive all we premises and fs corcusion. This important truth follows from the very Aefniion of a valid argument. Sine « valid argument by ete, isan argument in which he concasioe must be tue ifthe premises are tun, no vad argument can have ll tae remiss and fale concsion, Looking at the examples of invalid arguments, we can notice that invalid arguments may have tre premises nate fonclusion as can be en in argument. Again these examples Show that what doteraines the valdlty (er Lavaity) of the argoment snot the tit (or falsity oft premes or conclusion ‘but the relates between is promises and concsion~ hat i whether the conclion elowe neces fren the premio (or putanoter way, wher te promises guarantee the truth of ‘he conctuson). ‘Ths the basic question in determining the wait of an ngunent sno: the premise true? Orth conclusion tue! ‘The bale question is: Does the caclusion follow necessary ‘nom th premises? (Or do the prmisos guarante the truth o ‘the conclusion’? If the answer is yes then the arguments vali the answer no, then the argument evi 1 shouldbe noted that the terms “oli” or “inaid” do rot apply to inductive arguments src inductive arguments, in the Bt place, do not claim that ther conclusion follows fom the promises with sect necessity lor at mater, all Inductive rgaments ae techy invalid). Othe terms of appeal are ‘sed for inductive arguments such as “song” and “oak.” This willbe diseased in the next chaper. ut how do we deternine whether an argument i valid or invalid (that is, whether ie conclision necessary follows fom its premises? ‘Types of Syllogioms ‘To addres ths question, we need to fst derstand the ‘yes of deductive arguments Syllogiams are of two ‘ype Categorical and hypothetical A” categoria! yllogiom f & ‘yllogsm composed of categoria sttement alone vile ¢ hypothetical syllogism indudes “both extegerical and hypothetical teens‘A categorie sinement ie a tatement that dnecty ates somthing oF sates aft without any conions. 1s subject simply afrned or denied by the predicate. The folowing ae ‘xamples of negara statement Seatrack pic oii ‘The Phipps nae commas tte Some crimes rags! atonal security. ‘The Suprone Core hs th ole pert adit ‘uu oh prc of Sum oferse ar purge A hypottiat statement i a compound statement which contains 4 proposed or tentative explanation. A compound Satement. consists of at lest two dauses connected by onjancions adverbs, ec, which express the relationship ‘between the case a well e our ast toi The clauses are simple statements or tatements that contain one subject and one predicate, ‘The fellowing ace examples “of hypothetio the county ii svn danger deo nono or reelion, the President con dcee Marti La. If 0 pty to a conte fils 0 pororm its sigsons inthe contrac ta hrs @ breach of entra. The tre of contrat 6 either actual or antsptory. Given the explanations of what categorical and Doypoteteal statements are, Wwe can now understand beter Ctegorcal and hypothetical ellgiams, The fllowing it = teporical yogis Cty ellos ava publi remy int ted pb ofc Theres, oo 8 nt ety coun Notice that every statement in the above syllogism Se & categorie statement. Hypothetical syllogiens, however ‘contain a hypothetial statment usally Iocted in fint ‘romise, The sample below ea hypothetalsyllagien If fe statment is not intended dive or ‘ied enone, the stoenent is nat rule (Mra. Un had intention of diving her serio There, Mrs. Lin’ statement, tough fa, ‘sel nde We wit fest desl with categorical ayllogissns end den ‘with hypothe! ylogiams Categorical Syllogisns Properties of Categorie! Statement Wo can better understand categorical yogisms and thet valdiy if we understand well the nature of calegorea Stotoments. "Every eaegorical saterent has qual” and _geanty ass properties. (Quality the quatty ofthe statement maybe afrmatve ‘ogativ. A statement hat asthe terms "n,n" one” and “never” Ib negative. In the absence of auch qualifies, the slacnent is afm Her are some examples of afiemative statements Sem crimes re prishble by inrisent ‘Thenceased dered the dares gah,Hee are some example of negative statements Noone above he ie Tre cased ot uly of te rine Quantiy: te quantity of a statement is either univers of pacticlat The statement ip universe wen what is being afimed or denied ofthe sujet term i ‘whole extension; the statement s patclar when aha ie boing affirmed or dried ofthe sujet is just part of is extension. Usualy there are quantifies that hep determine the quantity of the statement. For universal statements we usualy have a ~ evry sone cat For particu statements we have some slot a mst aa seen nny fo “The folowing are examples of univer statements: Al cari ends st eee 35 years ofage on Be day of th ton Alt ae suet holders of bac’ degre Yo statty tat ame in conch wlh te Constinton ee i ‘The lowing are examples of particular statements Some ses of lntion ae justo ‘Not al senatorial anaes re lig tr. ‘Some criminal oss rhs crimes. Quantity ofthe Predicate The predicate tem has sts own quantity, which fe not dental to nor dependent on th quantity of the subject term. In deterzuning the quantty ofthe proicate two rules must be observed Predinte of on alfmative statement Je generally parila. However, in statements whore the sujet and the ‘prodiatoare dene the predates univers ‘The predicate of negative statements always univers In thefollowing statements the predicates are particular The Piippines ix democratic country. See soir ee options In the following statements, the predicates ae universal: Mary Vili notin the 200 president Some sears rent nays ‘A ther i» fale port. (Although this statment is afrmati, the subject end the pad ardent) Pans of Categorical Syllogism, AS mentioned eatiec categorisl syllogm is + deductive argument consisting of thee categorical statements that together contain exactly thee ters each of which ce i cexaclly 0 ofthe conatituent statements. There are te kinds of ems in a eategoricl slog:or erm (S) the sje of ols a called te ube tr) Mair term ()~ the peat of the conctsion (as called te predate term) ial ter (0) ~ the tr ound bs Boh promises, en scros tet een the ior end the mae tems There ae thre Kinds of statements ina categortcal ‘yogi Minor promise ~ the prams wick comune the Major promise ~ the promise which consis the ar erm Contin teenth pri saport ere ae two examples that iustrate the diferent terns anal statements na categoria slog M oP A rts arco wos nao rose) s oM Negligence a tr (iar premise) s > ‘Doe, nln saci wrens conson) P M Al cantats with age terms evi rar promise) 5 M ‘Thicontact i at ina rms) s P Phage, tht contact dost nat coin tague_ terms (conan) [ole that both sllogioms shove are valid ellogiss, “They wil serve as oat examples of vad categorical ellos for the nec seion which glves us the rues In detaining ‘whether the categorical syllgisms ae vald or iva [ales forthe Validity of Categorical Sylogiams ale 1+ Thain mst ol conan fo negate promi. No scat onty pa Tee Pippin int si Tero itis cpt couniry No miltry ection whee harp efite cena ‘be conrad moral perms. AN military ses of bloi weapons are iteyactons ako ermal ects ‘Theron no matey se of Holgi weapons se meray permis Coffees are not eriminat fee ‘Slander in cra offre ‘There, slander is ees. ‘Ase the thre sylogsms vali? The only val ellogim is the second. The her two violate the Fst rule and thes, 36 Invalid. I can be obverve that both of the premises in each syllogism ae negative statement. The raonae behind ths Tle [5 dat hen She premibes are both negative, the middle termAin fas to serve its functlon of mediating between the major and ‘minor terme The violation of his ule called the fallacy of exclusive premises ‘Thus, we can say that even in the int syllogism both of ‘the premitesaze tue it doesnot low tat Une Flppies i a ‘eaplast country Re may have a mised economy. Inthe same ‘way the ine of reasoning in the thd tem i rong bec ven iit tue that Ci ffenses arent criminal oes, snd let us say Almsglving {6 not a cnminal offense, we cat ‘conchae hat Ans-giving ia cil ofense. ude 2: Tae mast be tre sof uni ters ‘The forms In the syllogism must have exactly the same mesning and must be used in exacly the same way in each ‘cure. A tem thathas diferent meanings ints occurences ‘is an equivocal tem A univocal erm hat the some meaing it lferentcerutencs, In our two examples of valid syllogism, teach pur of tra haste same meaning Examine the allowing examples: hat teal i gr mas mite tara Thro, toma a mista god, ‘re Congres con nor ik is. ‘hee of suply ad deme i. ‘hero, the Congress can eblsh the tw of ‘ply el dead Sling cirets to pers blow 18 gear of age ‘Sump That tre ol cigars t 9 stale Blow 18 es fae ‘herr th soe has lated he Which sllgiems above ate invalid? The fist and the second In he Bost angument the term natal” sed wi Alert meanings: ss tomehing pure (nat artic) and as Something normal or usual. Inthe second example, the term “ino” has to diferent usages in the fst and Ses premises In the thir aylgiem, each of the tems hasbeen used In the sume sence. What meant by “ow 18 yas of pe” in the Bat roms the se an the second premise The violation ofthe second rule is aed the falacy of ‘equivoceton: Equivocstionurvally cots inthe mide term Re 3: The leer mtb nivale once ‘Most mayors ave pola parties Mec Hees isa ayer ‘haere, Me. Heras has pol party Li form of dtation Reyes untae afr of defeat. ‘Theor Reyes untrae ection el No mlitary action that intentionally i inact cians rej. Some Melaysion itary cling in Soak intentional kd nnscent coins Thon, sme Mayon mir actions wre tus ‘Which syloplms here ate invalid? The fst two examples shove since they both volte Rule 3. Notice that their mile terms ave particular in both premises. The middle tert the rt ite i ago” ant in Ue seconds orm of efit “The reason for this ule 4 that when the middle team isa articular in both premise it might sand fora diferent portion Bf ts extension in each oecurence and, thus, be equivalent 19 two terms, and, theeor, fal ofa its fonction of uniting or ‘paatng the minor and major tems. Such violation is called ‘he fallacy of partis [Notice that in the thin syllogism which is ¢ valid syllogism, te mide term ("itary sso the intentionally Al Chien") i univenal i theft premise, although partclar in the second premise. To deernne ifthe mle trm i universal or pareular refer © the dscussion on the quantity ofthe Statement and pret However there isan excepton o this ule. Bren ifthe ‘mide term is parca in both premises but itis quantified by “ost” in both premises and the coneluion 1 quantiiod by tae," thesyflogam does noe violate this third rae. This i 0 since the combined extension ofthe td erm ie more than = ‘ives For example Most majors ave polite parts Most majors are corrupt These some pope who hace pal pares momrip. Rade te to ne concn ie, he same tre {nthe promise st ls besser. amine he fling egrets All yes red he hip iy Inguter. “Alt iuyes re lirate ‘There, al who rend the Philppine Daly Inne iat AIL ats that fc more harm am good are ej. {Beat Pre ge Spied anny 180. Al err allt more har than gd ‘Therefore al evo ets ae wus. oie criminal oes Mislmeoros ro oes ‘hegre, emer arena crimina offers Only the second argument above Is valid. In the frst slg, the minor trm "thse whe rea the Palippine Daily Inquirer” i universal in the conchusion but pacar inthe premise Sach voltion ical the alley of ie minor Inthe third example the major erm “criminal offense is ‘univer he concason ut parle the premise. Such & ilation ical dhe allay oft ‘The raonale behind this re ie that im a deductive argument the conchision should not gp beyond what the Premises state. Thus, the concuslon must nat be Wider in ‘vtenson than de premise, ‘Agni, to determine if the major term or moe tem is unlversal(o particular relr to the dscusion on the quantity ofthe statement and predicate Hypothetical Sylogiome A hypothetical syllogism isa syllogism that contains @ hypothetical statement as one ofits premises Hypothetical sllogims at of thre kinds sondtonl poem ‘junc soi conjunctce yagi Since in legal reasoning. we often encounter covtionel arguments we wl fous on conditional yogis‘Conditional Syllogisms ‘The conditional syllogism 4 a sllogam in which the tnsjor premise fa condonal statment ‘A condional statement iss compound statement which seers that one member (Ube then clause) is tue on condition {Bat the other member (the fcuse) I ue, For ample, it rains dn the ground wil be wet. Theif use ors equivalent {scaled the antecedent, whe the then clause ori equivalent is called the consequent. What is importa in the conditional statement i the sequence between the antecedent and the consequent hat, the truth ofthe consequent follows upon the falllment of the condition stated inthe antecedent. It docs not mater whether Individually the antecedent or consequent ete or fale what avers s the elationship between them. ‘The statement ~ Ifthe Philippines Is in Asia then Meldhor Aqui Is Flipina does nat make sence although ‘each cause, taken singly, is tue. The Philippines i indeed in ‘sia and’ Melchors Aquino is a Filipina. But the fact that Meldore Aquino is a Blipina is not 2 consequent of the hlipine being in Asia. On de oer hand, the statement If ‘Melchora Aquino isnot an Asian, thn she i nt a lpi is ‘eue statement although the dauses, taken singly, are fle, The ‘tntement etre because being am Asin i senda Yo bel Fipine, CCondiional statements can be exprseed not only in ‘en dauses but alsin wide valet of diferent sentences, For example Beng tonger he dye rss that you hae to for « trends one! of pt pressure ‘Th fit tha he tof Bal pista shekrowe Bho te see ls are Anyone cho ches fr Gina ust be Mark Cun fi Unles you re bor agin by water an spit, oul na ener te Ringo of Heaven, ener hey ane pour in Sample pont “Ave fooet. In ease one of the grates changes isle min, ‘youl ge te scalp Ie we wste these statements in the ten forms, we can se tha hei meaning remain these, 1 yo are tener thee days, thon you must lea tremens amount of peer presi 1 seis a ato of Boo, ten she ons whe the choot ls ar fe her for Gina, tam he mast be a Mar agin fo, fo ar not or gain by water and prt, (ow comer he Keg of ae, = for"imples” = for"thersore” Roles for Conditional Syllogisms hare are two valid forms of conditional eyogisms When the minar premise aims the antecedent the cnchsion must adem the consequent. This frm called mov ones le ring, then he ro wil wet. ADE Itrana 4 ‘There, he grou it wet, c When the minor premise denis the consequent, the concusion must deny the antecedent This form is called ‘modus ales Yin then he ground wl be wet, ADC ‘The gr int, “< There a a in, A ‘A conditional syllogism i invalid ifthe minor premise denis the anizcedent This valid form i ale the flay of ‘denying the antecedent, iran, the he ground wl ete, ADC eid not a “A There th ground nt we. x ‘The minor premise affims the consequent. This invalid form's called the fallacy of fring the consequent ‘Firings, he the ground wil bewet, A> ‘The ground et c ‘hari a 4 ‘Examine the following conditions syllogims. Which of these are valid which ze invalid? be fir the gun, then he should hase pune residue on hing or sin, Acad oth made examination, Here ets no tac of gpd sue on ony prt oft bed an tng. ‘Tarr hed nt othe 1 yo ae eligi to vote, thn you must be 15 sears end abn, My coin one 18 yur of age ‘Then, ey eosin i lig ete. 1 the defendant as no alge tht is siemens snr, cot he uly of fru The fedant nous at Ws semen is unten Therefore gully off 1 he ost the Unie States shen the crime appeed, ten he came commit the 1s promen that h a ten Slatsot Pat tne ‘Therefore he cot have commit the eine“The ist andthe fourth login bere ae valid. The ist fotlows the modus tlle for, and tbe fourth follows the ‘modus ponens form. However, the scond and thi syllogism are invalid. In the second sjlegisn, sthere the fallacy of wlfming. the consequent commtied, even if both premises are ue, we ‘anno be certain thatthe conclusion leo tru lnc here ae ‘other prerogiites tobe eligible to vee auch as citizenship and having registered a «voter Your coasn may have met the age requrement but he may have fled to register with the COMELEC. The third is aaa invalid having commited the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Th defendant may now that the statement intr bt the suppored victim did no actually rely on the statment that was made (which is another een ‘erterion to prove there was a feaud Enthymemes We donot often find these ylolte forms of arguing in ‘egal wertng, Legal opinions and memorandums age not waite {a each» formal structure conslating of wo premises and & concusion. However mot legal arguments actoally follow the ‘yllogistic reasoning: we only have to analyze deeper the Srguments fo excaate the sylogems. One logllan notes th “an argument’ base structare. maybe obscured by an exces of verbiage But an arguments srctre may also be obsczed for us. because it eto spare and has missing components Such arguments may appear sounder than they’ are bocie We ‘sre unaware of important assumptions made by them." Consider this onesentnce argument penned by Justce Blackman in is Roo, Wa opinion i on Wh ec son An tin a Fe 3 Thigh of pinay, wht ib fond in (he Fourth Amendments ono of psoas ‘2nd esrcions yon al action, a8 fol 7 the "Dist Court determined, ik he Neth “Amendments seraton fights othe pops road ‘enough encompee a womans dvson hah or not to teminat her papacy. {ying below the surface of Justice Blacamun’s arguments the fallow syllogism The right of pracy 1 guarenteal by the Faure or Ninth Amendment Awomars decom to trate ar regan is pole bythe ight of proay There. a woman’ econ thelr to termina hr pegony i proce by he ater or Nith Ammen Sometimes it f more than a mater of reaanging sentences and rephvaring statements to match up with the ‘Sllogitic form. Somatimes legal writer doesnt mention all Pals ofthe sllogssm leaving one to read benvoen the ines. One ‘nay jsify the conclusion thatthe Cybercrime Prevention Act is Uneonattional by mentioning only one premise the Cybercrime Prevention Act infinges on our feedom of ‘epression. The argument is Sncomplets, bat it can easly be ‘completed and assesied sith regard to i validity by rapping ‘he missing premise «law ls unconstitutional fi ininges on ‘or freedom of expression, Logisans are certainly aware that an aegument cn be founded on a slog although not all pats of the sllogisn are expressed, This kindof agunent that sated incompletely, "rape eo, Lope we A Oe Crap Tink 2 ‘S52 ian gsing io sma OS Hs oTpst belag “udestod” or only “inthe mind” te called an ntiymene.” In ordinary legal discourse arguments and inferences sre ‘expressed enthymematcaly. The reton is cay f0 understand ‘large body of legl statements canbe presumed tobe commen owledge, and legal pracitones save themselves trouble by not -repeting wellknown and. pechape trivially trae propositions that thei inter and readers an pect ell be Exped to supply for themsclves®™ Morcover itis ot at all ‘unusual for algal angument to be shetoelly more powerful tnd perussive when staled entbemenaticlly than when ‘undated in complet etal. As Aristote wrote in his Rhetor, "Spee that..relyon ener ecte he ude aplawse In each of the folowing enthymemes, can you supply the lasing premise Remon hat fe dsp tl Ker as evden by Ramon’ love leer to Kars we ‘here, Ramon has pro killed Kar Mant hs ben sece running ay frm ung hore a ra alr gg. Mei moral oe ie urge In the frst posag, the missing premise i One thar ¢ fied desi ol sare tly to Inte other argument, wht ‘was only imply stated was People who des fom the scene of crime are more aly gull than hey di not Nee Polyyllogisme Acide fom not explicly expressing ajuments and opinions in standard syllogism, legal weirs also have the ‘Rang. Lp rp: Ao One an Ta tendency o ple one slog on top of another, We cal thse arguments “plyyloions” A palysyllogiom 38 2 sae of ‘logins in which the conelsion of one syllogina supplies reise of the net syllogism. Typically, polyyllogians ae used ‘ease mare than one lial tp isneded to reach the desired ‘concasion, Be onthe lookout fr something Like tis at you pick puta complex gal opinion: Anything tat contin information gona for ingestion by the pubic ie a public dicunent DS contains inform by he patie ‘Dare, PDS a publ docnent masa or inpction ‘Vargas fifi ter PDS, PDS se ple decent Thro, Vang fied public dacwment Ealsiyng a public docent is criminal fee. apa ffi pute docu Terre, Vinge commit criminal ots Anyone proven to cnmit «criminal ofie ‘shod be dissed from” goverment Wor commit criminal fee. Thorne, Vargs ought 10 be dismissed fom green serie.FE « t © € © Chapter Inductive Ressoning in Lm en yous fom oe tr pagar: fg sa roman i cen” In the begining of Chapter Thee, we brlely dlecused what inductive aguments ae and difentate’ them fom deductive argument Now we cn get closer lok inductive fangunents and how important ate they in legal reasoning, Tncacive angumonis ae arguments in which Une premises ae Intended to provide suppor. but not conclusive evidence, forthe Unlike deductive arguments which draw out eth or leformation already contained in the promis, inducive arguments give ur trath or information more than what the promises ere saying. In an inductive argument, what edie In the conduson_goes beyond the evidence found in the ‘premises I efor thi reason that inductive engunents do not, ‘him that thee conclusion is certain or that thei premises umn the tth of she cancion” What inductive ‘arguments daim is that thee conclusion ased on the premises, {slay oe probly tue The absence of compete certainty, howovee, does not ule the importance of induction in the lav. Deductive reasorng ist spliable in cases where there sno established Inv o binding precedent, or cler statue to provide the major premise of our legal argument. And there ae so many cases of. {his i lw. Her, the lnryer must build the major premise inselt He has to draw upon the cumulative experience ofthe Judiciary the specie hldings of oer cases. When he has gathered sufcint case aw, he wil thn formulate a general form th supports fie ai Iti indatve easoring tat ft feoded her, Aside from enabling us to fashion a ginerat rae when such isnot rely availble, intuctive reasoning it what we ‘ety employ in determining the fads of the case. Indeed, putes in court are most often not about las, but about ‘matters of fact ™ Was the petson accused present in this Pace ‘where the crime was commit’ or as he na ferent place a5 thes claiming? Did the at ofA couse the injury of B? The court ‘must st determine the fact before rues or tats ae apped tothose facts. To accomplish this we primarily meiy on inactive reasoning, Desisone on cases are often derived from inductively Inferung tht given the mith of «st of particular roumstances 2 aim aboxt the case is justified. Jurspracence of recent Vintage tach ut that conviction canbe had even upon Circumstantial evidence given thal the cecumsianes prover should consitutean unbroken chain which lade one to af and reasonable concision pointing othe accre to the exhion of al others the author ofthe evime People es Paguntalan® Charged with 2 crime, Pagunfalan and his ‘companions were convicted by the court based on. bts end plese of reumalances shown by the ‘rosecation during tia. ‘These pies of evidence rig M Con Cat Coan, moan Lge 188)Indicate Sut Paguntalan asd his ‘ompanios acted in concert had a common design Sand understanding to Kill the viet Though no ect evidence of conepiracy Was shown in the evidence, Sis cid not detract fom the fact os fargued ‘by the prosccuion, that the act of PPagunalan in Kling hs victim was also an act of his coconeprstore The prosecton alo argued thot the time honored jurspradence i» that diet roo! isnot esentilto prove conspiracy It may be Shown by a number of indafate acs, conditions fand croumetances which vary according #9 the ‘urpoes tobe accomplished and from which may Iogealy be inerzed that there was, ‘There axe many Wypes of inductive easonng, and the simplest and most common of these ‘ypes fe called “induce ‘generation. An indaive generalization son argue! that rales on charactors of sample population o mae a cli about the population a «wine™ This Gaim fea general chim tht ‘malas a statement about al most or some members of «cas, foup, or sot The following are some examples of general Al io tudnts ae regi to stu txtion Exery poformance-nhoncing dug is bam in the Tor de Fron, Hearne nt edit coat Most cmgrssmen are guint the lgalztion of gen Tr AS nn 8 Although the sive ofeach ofthese four claims dif all ae general caine: Since the Git two use the words “al and “coy we can secopaize without much wouble that they efor to al members of e dss, group, or ot The fic eers to all, members of the group law stent the secand refer ¢ ll members of the group performancrenhancng, drags. Been though he thie dim dows not we the words every oral 00 {s general aim, Furthor this aim sno les oneal just because ‘ttle what hearsay ane nat rather than what they ar. The final example specicly mentions most congressmen, but shouldbe understood to eer othe ete cae of congressmen, [makes a gonerl calm about the whole clase of congressmen, ‘cnet claims that most are against the legaiaton of divorce nd implies thatthe remainder ae ot again An indutive gneralzation uss evidence about limited umber of people or tings of a certain type (he sample popultion), to make «general cai about a lager group of ‘rople or things of that type (the popuiton ab «whole. Indacveganeralizatons have the lioring form Z percent of oserod Fare ke roel, Bere, that Z poco of al Fr For example, we want to know what percentage of students at a particle college are in favor of abolishing the Seath perl.” Clecy i would be extremely difical © a ‘every saudent at the colege whether they favor abolishing the ath penalty. Wht we can praceally do ito selec a sample of students an determine heir postion on the isue, and then 'o generalize the msl othe woe student body. An inductive peneralzation could be writan outa lleSee A= ARTO ‘Sixyfoe pent of students at X Coles ‘srt questioned arin fear of bling the eas peaty, 1 pba, erie, that saysfie percent of students a X Cale arin fr of shone death peal. Evaluating Inductive Generalizations here ae two important questions we must ask when it ‘comes to determining whether inductive generalizations are ‘tong or weak 1 he Sample age Enough? ‘The size of he sample population i an essen factor In etermning whether the encusion about the population as 2 ‘wholes jusified or not, A sample is “ge eng when i is ‘der that we have not rushed to judgment, that we have nat formed a hasty geezallzaton. Admiltedly, the busiest of speciying what we mean by “enough” sat easy but oftentimes ‘ur comunon sense can help us decide when the sample i ange enough. ‘As a re of thumb, the more examples you find, the stronger your argument becomes. in O'Comer. Commons Edo Ca a federal judge inci ambesed an expert witness for atempting o formulate a unversal medical rule based on his servation of only five pallens. Based an the five patents (Dr Scherbel) has observed with cataracts induced by radiation ‘herapy, he developed his “binding uve re” that heaped 2 OConner, thus commiting the log fallacy known as Conese Accident Gust generalization) It ocats When a person foroncousy creates general rule from observing oo few ase. De. Scheibel has logically created “binding amie ral” bused upon insufclent data” (ne thing that 6 need to conser in determining the suffcienay ofthe quantity of the sample Ss She quanty of the ‘whole population In our example regarding the students pston om death penalty, we must know around how macy udents are there inthe college. Suppose there are around three thousand students a sample of twenty students is clearly fnsulcent A handved students, however may already be enough Adding Sty mare will Inaease the stergth of our agument Suppose we have thee hunded students for our sample, wl that make the conclusion af our generalization sccoptabe? ot neceerily. Although the sample defi pe enough there is another factor we need in evaluating the stength of Anductive generalization. Thus, we need to ask another question. athe Sample Repesestatie? Authough there were thee hundred students who were teteviewe fo the survey the gneralization maybe weak ite three hundred students only repent a pater portion ofthe wile student populaGoe.Suppote thee thre hundred Students are all members of Chest Youth in Acion (CYA), a Catholic organization of young people, they may not actually represent the whole student population ia signicat sumbet of students in that college ot member ofthat organization, This wil make our conclusion quesUonable since sich membership to that organization greaiy influences one's view ‘on death penalty for the Catholic Cauch strongly opposes such End of pusishenent." We call that Kind of sample a bised sample gg Comment Eon Ce, 1 08 (0.SAAS AER A sample is representative f thee is diverity in our ‘sample (atthe various subgroups of the whole population fa epresented inthe selected respondents) in the cate ofthe Stadens, the sample should sefet the same, percentage Aistrbuton inthe entve student body of X College ne regeds course, yeu grade average, age, sex, organization aligion. 0 name a few arable. Thus four sample comes fom the dierent subgroup, it is representative sample. This bass for ‘vauating the strength of our generalization is especially limportant when the. population we are dealing. with, i etrogenos One way to ensure sulficent evant diversity Is by making the Sample random. A random sample is “ne wich ll mh of th target ave a al ppt tb te empl For Instance, you could tnterview members randomly by honing every sth o tenth name on the membership Hat “Another pessiity would be to randoaly interview poop a omnon mecing place The am of ceting random srmple i to ensure thatthe diversity of the target is reflected by the sample Iwill not bea random sample iit excludes pat of the target. For example, «sample of eallge student ina particular university chosen. oes the students coming out fem ene’s Jocker room would not indade any female students in the sample This has been the problem in the classic poling blunder that happened in the United States. In 1936, Literary Digest magazine conducted a massive poling effort to predict the ‘ulcome of the Presidential eleedon between Alf Landon and Franin Roosevelt The Digest plled weit over two mon people, and the vast majony indicted they would vot for Landon (kep in mind that modern news organizations bese thele polls on the responses of 1.000 people). Th the actual ‘action however, Roosevelt won 523 electoral votes and Landon received only eight. How cid Literary Digest get i 0 wrong oa asa Pa ty i ing AU Man 202012) ‘when it had cafted its rule fom amassive umber of particular ‘examples? The problem was the Digest comport pling it from tephooe diecorie. In 1936, only about 40% of households owned a telephone, usually those who are in he ‘upper dass. Thus, even if they used random sampling in picking ‘he individuals to call and ask for tei presidential preference ‘he sample population is an unrepresentative group of the ‘American publ a tha tine” Samples may alo be bised when surveys reuire pstcipani inte conta vather than using a eurvey taker © sively slit reponse, For example, surveys requing that Partcpants respond by sending a text message, going online, phoning in their response are likely to get ansepresenttve ‘els sine the respondents are selected. Only people who te parculcy intrested in theese are ely to respond tothe survey. To make mallers woes, unless surveys prevent ‘eepondents frm contributing the anewers more than onc, he ‘ata likly tobe sewed by unserapulous repeat respondents ‘who ae tying to influence the outome.™ ‘Wie can observe that when established survey companies 4n the Philippines (ike SWS, Pulse At) conduct pinion pols ‘Gey woually ave only around L400 to 1210 respondents to represent the whole Flipino population (whlch #8 more than inety milion at present). Bu thee surveys are usally rable Since the sample faken is random representing diferent sectors ‘groups ofthe whole population that means, he respondents ‘ome ftom the diferent regions othe country, socio-economic ‘ase age groups, and soon. When we cannot do much about our sample (such as Increasing if} we can make our generalization acceptable by formulating. an appropriste concasion A good inducive "ont Jeo Pub Citarkrg A Urs Mead 249 (0"2 ate cn & Pa Neary Cl Pg Us Mal 2482012),e a e ¢ € fe t argument should make a conclusion tht is appropriate to the evidence ofered by i premises. The conusion should not ‘Gaimmare than ts premises can suppor. For example All ten of he Malays met ar god buses Se most Malaysians are god in busine. Hee the conclusion cams that most Malaysians ar good fn busines. But Hs premise only Gted fen Malaysians who se good in busines, "We could rake the argusient trong. by ‘making our conclusion less sweeping tut the conclsion ‘ould corer les ground, For example, if weinstad say Alt of the Malays et re goo nine So, ny Malasins god in sine (be argument would be stong. Given our premise, the conusian Is more key to be tue if ts lim is more Ke, restricting elf to many rather than most Malaysians. Other phrases that could soften the consusion are posse, probably, and lke. Remember that inductive generalizations should not loversate thar conciusions. Let us take another example Noe ofthe to tac Tmt in this sco! fn how io stk Spanish ‘a, no each bn Bch! tes ho ape Spon ‘We can se tat the concason is so sweeping thatthe argumen io not strong, After ll i there i just ome teacher that schoo! who knows how to speak Spanish, the conclaon ‘yl easly be flsled. Tb play ane hen, we might conclude Instead that “Vey fo, if ny ec in is schol Boe how 1 ‘pak Sich" This is til a swooping concuson, but it allows {oe the posiilty of a few exceptions This makes the ‘conclusion ely tbe ean dus dhe argument Sn, Analogical Arguments Another typeof inductive angument mos! commonly us In law is analogical argument. Analogy is" comparison of things Boot on siniarite tose tings she. We find nals corgsher."® in clog entrance examination, analogies 2 fen given, Brothers to ster as uncle so? If your answers ante” you ate comet because the rlaonahip i» one of opposites, We also encounter nalogie in poem and ange. Paap lei resting ple ‘A shtrfrmte torm, exists io gee you confor, 1 hare ep you arm Indeed most of our everyday resoning it bated on soalgy, Joan seasons that her new pair of shoes will be durable ‘on the grounds tit her other shoes with the samme brand and sake have been durable. Inthe sane wa, Vitor infers that he ‘wil enjoy the action movie he is ging Yo watch tonight because {thas the same distor and leading actor a the past action rovies he enjoyed. Analogy is atthe bas of thse simple, ‘ndiary arpurants we rake Mean be noticed that none of thes argument is cetin emanetrativey valid. None oftheir concanons fallow with logis necessity frm ther premises. 1s logialy possible that. Joan's ne pao show will not ast long or Vitor wil not enjoy ‘hat action movie. Jat ke any inductive argument there smo mathematical certainty in analogical arguments. However, the ‘aims ofthese axgutents may lb ensonablyscepted. What makes an argument by analogy? Analogical xguments depend upon an analogy or & sma berreen Wo cr more things. Analogies compare two or more Shing seg auto, cay Coa Tg: A Shee reser (2° aarguments by amalogy go one step further. They claim that ‘nother sinarty ext given. the siminties already cognizads Wheceas analogies simply pont out a sili, arguments by analogy claim that certain smart re evidence ‘hat theres another silat (or other sirlarits). This type of reasoning has a simple structure: A and B have characteristic X ‘Aas characeritie¥. Therefore B has characterise. Analogical reasoning Is very useful nla partic in ecding what rule of law to apply ina paral ase and in setling disputed factual questions. Let us go to the fst application of anslogical reasoning in law, Legal counsels ple tin coming up with anew legal cam based on rly tstabched precedent Typically this means that «curent case 'Scompare to an oder one and the outome ofthe nw case fs edict onthe bai of the thers outcome. Edvard Lev the foremost American athergy on the vale of analogy i the la described analogical reasoning as a tee step process: 1) ‘sabish similarities between two eases, 2) announce the rue of Inv embedded in the rt case, and 3) apply the role ofl to the second case This for of reasoning is diferent fom deductive loge or inducive generalzadon. Recall ut eduction requir us to reason fom universal plnlpes ‘smaller speci the And the proces of generalization aks us tocraft larger rules tom a numberof specie examples. Ana, ‘m cantmet, males onetoone comprare that require A generallzation or rane on universal rue, In he language of Togician analogy «proces of reasoning from the particule the patcala. Let uslookat an example to usta the distinction. Suppose you are to defend a legal cain thatthe use of ‘marijuana shouldbe alowed by the stat. The ie pertaining ear Le So eect Lage Rang 8, to this matter i hinged on two opposing legal opinions ~ one that sserts marijuana is a eaing herb and the other that azn rarana is «dangerous drag. Which of thee to positions Is tobe followed? Without a Gear universal rule or pot eases on pint deductive loge and inductive generalizations ae of litle Tp ned, you mt rely onthe power of analogy to convince the court that maruana ist be Weated as a healing he. To defend your stand, you must coset that mavjuana, tke other hb that are not prohibited by Tay, te non-toneItdoes at oan substances that kl brain eli or increase rks of cance ‘There ve been no desths associated with marana use. On ‘he contrary ke legal het, marjana provides more heath benais than iss It hepe in curing sheumatid ath, betes, PISD, eplepy, antibiotioreistant infections and reurologiel diorder. ‘The procs of drewing these ‘Smpartons and explaining why they are Important heart ‘of easoning by analogy The idea isto ind enough smarts between the case a hand and exiting rules precedents to ‘vince a court thatthe teakment oF judgment must be the Legal, practtiners lo. sely hesely on analogical _ssoning when sting isu actual inues Was an income ‘lagnoni,and subsequent injuy tothe patent the result of he physiclan’e cacelesanss? Other doctors may testify that the ‘xmptoms veld upon in that ease lost invarisly do lead in ‘ther essas to the dingnosi givens Us very sar case its concluded, the physician did precely what is normally done, tnd what shoal have been dong n spit ofthe unfortunate reel Arguments having this analogical structure ae also the ones presented by psychiatrists when testifying ebout what formally i the mental health condition of a pean given the ‘behaviours being exhibited, Moat expect testimony has preciely ‘his forms The expert would say “In my experienc, cst ‘fecrand-auch Radha ural le (or rely el eal ofthe nd enone here. Targa expt hs als, 9 Fdgant tht ei as he recall a(ora not fh probefect of jst suck exes” The expert draws an analogy: an Srgument sed upon thet analogy leads to the conchison about ‘rus connection that aime to reolve the dispute at and ‘Analog reasoning also the basis of what we know st In prosecuting a defendant for a crime of thet, for instance, the legal counsel may not be able to provide direct ‘evidence proving thatthe acsased personaly stale the Hem bat bemay proent evidences that are entirely circumstantial such ‘he defendant ingerprnts at the some ofthe cvze an the fact, thatthe defendant was found with a large amount of money ‘without being abl to give any acepable reason. The judge will raw conctsion fom such evidences about who ha tlen the lem based upon his/her knowledge ofthe Mistry of people's ations nother cases Ccumstantl evidence i int for ‘onviction If a) There Is more than one circumstance; b) The {ce from which the infrenoer are derived se paver’ ane) ‘The combination ofall the ercuotance i auch ast produce 8 conviction beyond reasonable doubt * raluaing Analogical Arguments Just as there ae good orbs analogies there are also good snd bad analogical arguments, One of the fallacie of reasoning, ‘Sealed fallacy of ane analogy (which wil be diseused later the chapter on fallaces) It rsuls from comparing two (or ‘ore things that aze not relly comparable, Tis a matter of ‘himing that wo things share 2 cra soa on the basis of ‘her similarities, while overlooking important dinates ‘gM Ca Ct Coen, moses Le 00). ria M Cs Ca Cota, rosin a Lane 1083 ow can we determine tan analog arguments good? ‘There ae certain tra that can guide our evaluation of the argumentssoundncss. ‘The ist criterion to be considered in the evaluation of an analogical angarent ithe elevanc of slants, Coie, Sor ‘ramplethefllowing analogical angument Arizana signed into Ina the toughest ton sega inigrtion i gnerations, malig fie Carry immigration documents crime, We eam expect hu News Mei wl son ps a sila tas. Afr al [New Mexico aot ie Azo, ies that bot hace lage populations, and Bath we bored by In ths example, Neve Mexio i compared to Arizona. The arguer has ident two ways in hic they are sir: hey both have alge population of migrants and ae bordered by Mexica, In evaluating. this anwogical argument, we mist ‘consider whether theses cited betezn the to tes are felevent or ielevant to the conclusion of the angument. The fEnue i whether New Medco wil Skaly. pase sirar Imunigration le Widh respect to this ise, the sialaritos denied by the axguer are selevan to the cancsion of the argument. However suppose one will make the same concuson ‘sed on the premise that Arizona and Nev Mico re both ‘under @ Republican governor and both have several ational forests and paths, This wil not be a good argument becuse, ‘hough thee ee itd similarities between the hwo sates these simsartis have litle bearing om the sue of passing a stct imagen law Consider another example. Ina previous case (Cas 1) Roger tole Soany’s bicycle and sold to Cesar whe know that it hd been stolen Say sued Cenar to recover the bey. Sony ‘beta don 8 Pu Neary Cite TAU’ 2.‘won Ina cate at hand (Case 2), Govannt bought Mike's bleyde ing = payment counterflt mony. Glovaan Knew it was & ‘hory money. Mike discovered te fraud and sued Giovani for the eta ofthe big, Wil Mike alo orn the case? Yee Wht the allay inthe two cases? The ovo persone blag sud ‘oth dishoresty acquired possession of another's prope. Tis similarity is relevant on the question of whether or not the defendant has aeqived ownership rights of the property. Another important erieron by which analogical fagument may be judged hus to do with the relevant ssiulres between the enties belng compared. Consider ‘Bisecmple President Clinton's actions ate “no at abou ex,” but consiture “stration of justi,” ust as former President Nico’ actions were. Bath Nixon and (Clinton lied about thee conduct in tying to cover up ar improper conduct and Clinton even did it under oath, If Nin’ actions were impeachable, Clinton's should aso be. ‘his seams to be a good analogical argument as the simuluity ted has a bearing on the issue of whether oF not ‘Glintor’s actions are impeactabe. However, one can refute an analogical argument by ting 2 evant diference that exis between the enfies compared which can. weaken the arguments conclusion. Inthe case above, Clinton’ side can Segoe that Nicos ee wene made nan attempt to cover up a ‘minal action breakin, destruction of propery and other ats related 10 abuses of presidential) power or abuses of the siden oie, wheress Clinton's actions are related 9 ensensual sex, were not an abuse of presicential power and everyone les about sex, 50 that his acts did ot se to an Jimpeachable fens. Let us put twist seganting the awe of the bicyde ‘owner's tempt to recover the propery ‘Ths wil Be Case 3. Questar wo Case 2 suppore Govan bland the Bye by fd, mnepesening some lnaportant acts that inde ke o afer the te fh ey but before ke en set eve the Bey, Clover sd {0 Mervin who ait no ow of Govan au and Mervin pall Glovaal the mae value of the bigle. Mike sued Meri forthe retin of fis propery. Can an analogical Argument sued In defending the caim tht Mike shou vin the cae and recover the ble i he bo precedent aes Comparing the present cave with the previous ese although thew ae sites among the caste present coe has ¢ ‘svat diflernce from the previo ces" Mervin has 80 Towle tat the itn we nude seed by Glove Im the previous eases, the legal bate was between the Innocent owner andthe wrongdeer (he thie or the defraud). But in the patent cat, the batle & between two innocent penons~ it i between the innocent owner and the innocent yer That isa selovan difference tt can ty the buyer's ownership of hebigjae Lats pt another brit a Gase suppose thatthe In Case 1 Roger ole Somey’s Dey except that, ke in Case 3, before Sonny can se for ts retin Roger sold it to Ces Alo ike in Cave 3, Ces 'Wwas “eaorare that twas stolen and paid Roger i ul market vale ‘Sonny ed to recover the bicycle Wil Casar also Be fee of any lability or Sonny can orn the case and recover the Sem? Although thee ae similares between Cases 3 and 4, the outcome can be diferent. The ongial owner can recover the ‘lye from the buyer despite the fact thatthe buyer had good fa in buying the item and was unaware of Is dishonest sepustonWhat relevant dlitfernce do Cases 3 and ¢have? “The relevant lierence was how the eye was acquired ‘rom the origina) ower = theft an fnlet indcement. Ix {he case of thet (Cases 1 and 4) the original owner (Sony) ‘ever inended to afer the ele 19 Roger the propery was taken without Sonny’s knowledge an without his intent to pass the tle, That means tht no tle watever passed, and Roget sequen ete Or stated liferenty, he acquired a void title, And he could not pas onto someone ele a beter ie than he himself has In the case of fraudulent inducement (Cass 2 and 3), Mike lid inter and acto tranaer the ite although the owner wat ‘Bled by Giovane’s fraudulent inducement So, Giovann did cule the tie, ough twas “ide” (as opposed to "i”) ‘te This means thot Mike consti recover the Biel fh acted quickly while Giovare sil had the item becuse he cou sll avo the tie ut If before Mike acted to avold the te, Giovanni sll to an innocent buyer who paid full vahe (a Bona Pde Perchaser he Bie that he had transferred othe BEP became 8 00d ie tno longer could be “eve.” Hire we se that in the examples given its important in nalogia ewonig to check how simular and how different the face aren various cass Ihe fact ar substntally similar the ‘tame ofthe cae will not be ferent. Bet if the facts Rave relevant dilfrencen, the cutee in one cae will not be the ‘mein another x. Arguing that the conclusion ofthe analogical reasoning follows despite relevant difeences between the ents being compare leads to the fallacy of false analogy asthe following tase eample would show. “There is nour motive a impli in he statement of the petitioner. There 1s conviction on the pat of the five remaining justices who dlsentod onthe fist case and the two new members thatthe previous naling was erroneous. The {question ofthe petoners of “tly todd tis e302” lsequally ‘buted bythe question “Why shoul th ot be 37” because, a8 explained in the decison de fst dedsion was eroncous and ‘olga doctrine we inthe way ofits reexamination Kilosbayen vt. Morato® In 1995, PCSO and PGMC signed an [Equipment Lease Agreement wherein PGMC ested online lotiery equipment and sccstories o PCSO ‘wherein thst percent ofthe net seeps salted to charity, Term of lease was for 8 years and PCSO wan to employ ts own personnel as. well a5 ‘eeponsile forthe facies, ‘Upon the expiration of lease, CSO may purchase the equipment for P25 lion, The following mont petion was filed to declare the sgremnent invalld because te volalive of PCSOs charter and the aw regarding publ idaing, More Importantly, votes Sec. 202) of Art. 8-D ofthe 1967 Constinton nd that standing can no lorgee bbe quenoned berause it hts Become the la ofthe “The respondent answered that the agreement {is itfeent fom the Contact of Lente an thete is ‘no bidding required. The power to determine i the =e core He 9605)sgrement advantageous svete in the Board of Disectors of PCSO. Do ptioners hc sending? The High Court held in the negative decasing that stare decisis cannot apply. The previous mulng susaining the standing of the Pttoner sa departure rom the sed rulings on Fal partes In interest because no consttiona Sous were actualy Involved, Moreover the Iaw of the case cannot also sppiy since the present case 16 nat the same one Tigated by the partes before in Kilxbaar Guingona ~ the ring canna be in any sense be regan atthe lye of his cae. The partes ae the same but the cases are not. Ths the Rule on Concusiveness cnet ppp ‘The petoners asked a quewon to ehich ‘hey made up an. answer Their allompt at psychoanalysis, detecting 2 Freudian alip where ‘one ess, may be more reeaing of their own expres wish to find motives where there ae ‘none which they ean impute #9 some members of the Court ‘An sue actualy and disci passed upon and determine in a former sat cxnot again be ‘raw in question in any free action between he ‘same partes involving diferent cause of acon. ‘But the rule doesnot apply tissues of aw a least hen substantially iavelated claims aze {avolved. When the second preceeding invoives an instrament or transaction Adenia! wih But 8 = foxm separable from the one dealt with inthe fst ‘promeding, the ‘Coutt is fee Inthe second proeeding to make an independent examination of the legal matters at iene Since the matter in question is a diferent contrat, the previous decision doesnot prelude Aletrinaton ofthe pttoners standing. Standing is a concept in contiutional law and hee 0 enattlonal quorton ie actualy evolved. The tmore approprisn isn 6 whether the pions te eal partes in intext.Chapters Follaies in Legal Reasoning en yo fro eat i plain fo ta fom rh ison Miner In ordinary conversation, you may have heard someone refer to aie yot commonly acepted belie as falley. The belt for example, that sleeping whe your hal wet wiflead to blindness is considered by others as a fallacy becuse theres ‘no sinc bass for strat. Thee the lay sence in which he ten used In loi fallacy i nota false beet bat « mistake ‘rer in thinking and restoring. A ptage may be compored of enliely te staements or be but tie fallacy he kind of thinking of reasoning used in that passage ogie or Judges and Iwyerssometines use the term in the lay sense odesrbe something thats not supported by the fac 38 shown these statements fom come cases cited by Albers This court finds that the wiped evidence ctalshed tat ifnmae ie maried to ax Asan ‘eric woman who we descred as being strong ‘oll The out fds tat ts fat evens he lacy of he Pastis tory at Hinman ws biased opin! Asin Aarican women and expect the to be mak fd sbi Respondent gues this interetton permits tuto frm he gr part gr acme ofall tase pylon the space me. The ily of this aypmert 5 ovis. Al tases pac on the combine income are ot deducted fom he income of he igor pen? Notwithtanding its poplar or ay we, exemplified by the foregoing escorpis from legal ase, logins andthe legal ‘profession generally use the ter “fallacy” in a marower seme {o dese an extor in seasoning rather than a falsity in & statement or chim, in this chapter we wil ook io the natice fof these loge and incoree ways of seasoning and the We encounter fallacies in politcal speashes, ‘commentaries, newspaper editorial, legislative debates, Advertisements, TV talk shows, dass discussions and ordinary Conversations. Fallacies are deceptive and misleading snc, “hough they are logical oe incomes they seem to be cont land acteptable Although they ae not logis sound, they ae ‘often peycologclly perussive and, thus, tend tobe followed. loracepte by poop In onder ao tobe deceived by thiskind of reasoning, we dave tobe aware what thee fallacies ae, I we do not know our appenents, we ate mor likly tbe defeat by them. Same ‘hing goes with falar, knowing thew makes i easier For ws 0 void them or atack them and, thus, spares us from being fooled or mise.[FORMAL AND INFORMAL FALLACIES ‘iadonly, fallacies ate divided into two main groups: formal and informal fallacies "Formal fallacies are those that may be identified through mee inpecion af the form ane fXitue ofan argument Fallacies of this kind are found only in deductive enguments that have Mentifable form Chaoter Thon which i manly concerned wih deuctiondacused thse foveal fallacies. For example the deductive reasoning: Al eres arenes. “Allfogae nt tres ‘Theor fogs arent opis This deductive argument asthe following fem: Through mere inspection ofthis form, one can se thatthe sgoment opi, The fact that ILA are Band All Caren ‘Aare tre doesnot guarantee that AllCare not ao Wwe. As Ins been mentioned in Chase Thre this formal fallacy ical flay ofilict major. Regards ofthe content ofthe argument, 1 long as ls form violates the rules of loge, the agument ‘nails a formal lic. Informal facies are tho that can be detected only through analysis of he content ofthe argument”) Corser the following example "Retention ALage Sak Ws jut ight ie thi aden psig mark You ‘Sesh rable by sri oly prolens at proent ef afd her eueation i er at ho ss her tain fe If ah fast M02, she Ing cb parted anymore by her aut Examining thls argument, we can simplify iin this way and pt in the fain forme AI cuderts with serous farilyproio sol nat bo inn fing mark. (isa sue with sons foiy pele. There, shoul ot ger lg mark Its ymbolic form wl be: Al Aare, Acar A, ‘Therefore all Care 8 Since this fonts Is valid, one might conclude that the sngument is logical Bt the argument I ot logical becuse of Iscontent. Looking al the content of te argument (parscularly inthe int premise) one woul find ot the eronaous reasoning, Cnained ithe argument which sys tht the Bois in giving {he student a pasting or fling marks his/her family situation sather han his/her performance inthe das. Since Chapter Three as alten dealt with the various formal flac ths chapter will only focus on informal fallacies, The various informal fallacies accomplish thelr ‘purgoe f misleading or logically persuading people to believe for acept something in so many diferent ways. This leads Tegians to group informal fallacies into various categories. In this book hese fallacies will be discussed under theecategories fallacies of ambiguity flac of ielevant evidence anu fallacies of isufcen evidence, We would ke toad cavest at this point Since we are mainly ansyzing legal reasoning, we wil ot atimpt to discuss A the fallacies ry each ofthe tree ategores. Rather we wll concentrate on tose faces that of find expression in te Fallacies of ambignty ate commited becouse of misuse of language. They contain ambiguous or vague language which 5s dlberately used 16 mislead people, Fallacies of ielevanee do not have a problem with language but with the connection of the premise and conclusion. They occur becuse the premises 21e not ogi eleva t the concision. They ze misleading because the premises ate peycholopilly weevent, 0. the condasion may seem to follow from the premises although it oes not follow logically. Fallacies of neuen evidence ke the second elegy of fallacies, do rot havo a problem with Ianguage bu with he connection of the premise and conclasien ‘The difrence is that fallacies of insulent evidence oct not ‘because the promises ae not logically evant othe conclusion but because the premises fal provide evidence strong enough to support the conciusionAldnough the premises have some sslevance to the concusion, they are not sulfcent to cause 8 ‘easonuble peron io scxpt he concsion = FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY 1. Bquivecation ‘TAs fallacy consists in leading an opponent to. an unwarranted eoncuson by sng aterm in is cfferent senses and making it appear to have only one meaning, In @ goad fgument, the words or pluases used must retain the same paSen ASR iting § Stet as TS meanings toughout the argument unless we spc that we tne shifting tom one meaning of word to snoter One who omits tis faiacy ether intentionally o catsey allowed & key word to shit im meaning in the middle ofthe argument, ‘whe giving the impression tht al instances of he word have the sme meaning, This Kind of deception ie petculary dificult to detec in lng argument ia which de tension in meaning, fenotnosceble The following ean example ofthis fallacy. Ty to ently which er was used wih diferent meanings. Gmbing soul be galiza Benue its smeting we a eid. a segrl part of ura exec, ope gamble eer ine fy et nthe caso ide fa get maid The fst use of “gambling” in thie argument fr legalized gambling refer to games of chance and/or the we of gaming levies, whereas the second refers to the isk feature of ie ith. What the agument tris todo isto direct people into thinking that gambling is something unavoidable and tat being theese, ‘etould be legal But that oncusion doesnot low since wit is being argued to be lgal s ot the same sense of gambling ‘which peope natualy do Congreso cn recto ati es. Tiel of spy nd des isle. Treforest aw of supply ed demand ‘his argument slso commits the fallacy of equvocation ‘ince the ten “ew” hasbeen used in two ferent sonces, In the fist promise, st seers 10 “re binding on a. prtialar commu or society" while in the second premin, i refers £9 “gemat principle ded fom ace” Lumping these two