EMERALD A.

VERZOSA
2017-0517
hence, etc.)
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC 2. Premise (Indicators: because, since, for,
by Francis Julius Evangelista inasmuch as, etc.)
and David Robert Aquino
(Atty. Berne Guerrero | Thurs. 5:30PM-9:30PM) What is Explanation?
- it is an attempt to show why something is the
case, while an argument is an attempt to show that
something is the case.
CHAPTER 1 - this is not meant to prove or justify the truth of a
Introduction particular claim.

What is Logic? What are the Conditional Statements?

- it is the study of the principles and methods of
good reasoning. It is a science of reasoning which
aims to determine and lay down the criteria of good
(correct) reasoning and bad (incorrect) reasoning.
It is indispensable in the field of law.
What does Logic probes?
It probes the fundamental concepts of the
following:
1. Argument
2. Inference
3. Truth
4. Falsity
5. Validity
What is Legal Reasoning?
- it is expressed through arguments, and it is with
arguments that logic is chiefly concerned.
What are the importance of Legal Reasoning?
- discuss the fundamental notion of argument;
- its basic elements and structures;
- what makes it distinct from other verbal
utterances and expressions.
What is Argument?
- it is a group of statements in which one statement
is claimed to be true on the basis of another
statement/s. Although not all groups of statements
are arguments.
In Logic, arguments are categorized as either:
1. Logical or illogical
2. Valid or invalid
3. Sound or unsound
What are the two basic elements in an
argument?
1. Conclusion (Indicators: therefore, so, thus,
- not an argument because there is no claim that
one statement is true because of the other
statement.
Two basic components:
1. Antecedent (or the if-clause)
2. Consequent (or the then-clause)
What are the Components of Legal Reasoning?
1. Issue (“What is being argued?”)
2. Rule (“What legal rules govern the issue?”)
Three parts of Rules (by Richard Neumann)
a. A set of elements, collectively called a test;
b. A result that occurs when all the elements are
present (and the test is thus satisfied); and
c. A casual term that determines whether the result
is mandatory, prohibitory, discretionary, or
declaratory.
3. Fact (“What are the facts that are relevant to the
rule cited?”)
4. Analysis (“How applicable are the facts to the
said rule?”)
5. Conclusion (“What is the implication of applying
the rule to the given facts?”)
What are the general criteria in evaluating Legal
Reasoning:
1. Truth
2. Logic
What are the main processes involved in Legal
Reasoning:
1. Presentation of facts which pertains to the
question of truth; and
2. Inference (deriving a legal claim or judgment
from the given laws and facts) which pertains to the
question of logic.

1
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC (1st Sem – ’18-’19) EMERALD A. VERZOSA (2017-0517)
ATTY. BERNE GUERRERO THURS | 5:30pm-9:30pm | RH 203

CHAPTER 2 What is Inductive Reasoning?

Fundamental Concepts in Legal Reasoning - it is when our premises are intended to provide
good (but not conclusive) evidence of the truth of
What is Burden of Proof? our conclusion.
- it is the duty of any party to present evidence to Indicators:
establish his claim or defence by the amount of probably one would expect that
evidence required by law which is preponderance likely it is plausible to suppose that
of evidence in civil case. chances are it is reasonable to assume that

What is Evidence? What is syllogisms?

- it is the means sanctioned by the Rules of Court, - it is a three-line argument that is an argument
of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth which consist of exactly two premises and a
respecting a matter of fact. conclusion.

What are the factors of an evidence’s What are the two types of syllogisms?
admissibility and relevance? 1. Categorical syllogisms – it is composed of
1. Admissibility categorical statements alone.
2. Relevance Categorical statements are statements that assert
something or state a fact without conditions.
What is testimony? 2. Hypothetical syllogism – it includes categorical
- it is generally confined to personal knowledge. and hypothetical statements.
- Expert testimony refers to statements made by Hypothetical statements are compound statements
individuals who are considered as experts in a which contain or propose a tentative explanation.
particular field.
What are the parts of Categorical syllogism?
What are the manner of examination of an 1. Minor premise
individual witness under the Rules of Court? 2. Major premise
1. Direct examination by the proponent 3. Conclusion
2. Cross examination by the opponent
3. Re-direct examination by the proponent What are the rules for the validity of Categorical
4. Re-cross examination by the opponent Syllogisms?

Rule 1: Syllogism must not contain two

negative premises.
CHAPTER 3
Deductive Reasoning in Law Invalid syllogism:
No Socialist country is capitalist.
The Philippines is not socialist.
What is Deductive Reasoning? Therefore, it is a capitalist country.
- it is when our premises intend to guarantee the
truth of our conclusion. Valid syllogism:
Indicators: No military action whose harmful effects cannot be
certainly it is logical to conclude that controlled is morally permissible
definitely this logically implies that All military uses of biological weapons are military
absolutely this entails that actions whose harmful effects cannot be controlled.
conclusively it must be the case that Therefore no military uses of biological weapons
are morally permissible.

2
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC (1st Sem – ’18-’19) EMERALD A. VERZOSA (2017-0517)
ATTY. BERNE GUERRERO THURS | 5:30pm-9:30pm | RH 203

Rule 2: There must be three pairs of univocal 1. Conditional syllogism

terms 2. Disjunctive syllogism
3. Conjunctive syllogism
Invalid syllogism:
What is natural is good. What is Conditional syllogism?
To make a mistake is natural. - it is a syllogism in which the major premise is a
Therefore, to make a mistake is good. conditional statement. A conditional statement is a
compound statement which asserts that one
Valid syllogism: member is true on condition that the other member
Selling cigarettes to a person below 18 years of age is true.
is unlawful.
That store sold cigarettes to a student below 18 What is Enthymemes?
years of age. - it is an argument in which one premise is not
Therefore, that store has violated the law. explicitly stated.

Rule 3: The middle term must be universal at What is Polysyllogism?

least once - it is a series of syllogisms in which the conclusion
of one syllogism supplies a premise of the next
Invalid syllogism: syllogism.
Libel is a form of defamation.
Reyes untrue accusation is a form of defamation.
Therefore, Reyes untrue accusation is a libel.
CHAPTER 4
Valid syllogism: Inductive Reasoning in Law
No military actions that intentionally kill innocent
civilians are just.
Some Malaysian military actions in Sabah What is inductive generalization?
intentionally killed innocent civilian. - it is an argument that relies on the characteristics
Therefore, some Malaysian military actions were of a sample population to make a claim about a
not just. population as a whole.

Rule 4: If the term in the conclusion is What are the manner of evaluating Inductive
universal, the same term in the premise must Generalization?
also be universal 1. Is the sample large enough?
2. Is the sample representative?
Invalid syllogism:
Felonies are criminal offenses. What is Analogical Argument?
Misdemeanors are not felonies. - it depends upon an analogy or similarity between
Therefore, misdemeanors are not criminal two or more things. It is very useful in law
offenses. particularly in deciding what rule of law to apply in
a particular case and in settling disputed factual
Valid syllogism: questions.
All acts that inflict more harm than good are unjust.
All terrorist acts inflict more harm than good. What is Analogical reasoning as a three-step
Therefore, all terrorist acts are unjust. process?
1. Establish similarities between two cases
What is Hypothetical syllogism? 2. Announce the rule of law embedded on the first
- it is a syllogism that contains a hypothetical case
statement as one of its premises. It has three kinds: 3. Apply the rule of law to the second case

3
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC (1st Sem – ’18-’19) EMERALD A. VERZOSA (2017-0517)
ATTY. BERNE GUERRERO THURS | 5:30pm-9:30pm | RH 203

CHAPTER 5 Fallacies of Irrelevance

Fallacies in Legal Reasoning - do not have a problem with language but with the
connection of the premise and conclusion. They
are misleading because the premises are
What is fallacy? psychologically relevant, so the conclusion may
- it is not a false belief but a mistake or error in seem to follow from the premises although it does
thinking and reasoning. not follow logically.
- legal profession generally use the term “fallacy” in
a narrower sense to describe an error in reasoning 1. Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
rather than a falsity in a statement or claim. A.) Abusive
B.) Circumstantial
2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
What are the instances where we can encounter 3. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
Fallacies? 4. Petition Principii (Begging the Question)
1. Political Speeches A.) Arguing in Circle
2. Commentaries B.) Question-Begging Language
3. Newspaper editorials C.) Complex Question
4. Legislative debates D.) Leading Question
5. Advertisements
6. TV Talk shows Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
7. Class discussions - same with the latter, do not have a problem with
8. Ordinary conversations language but with the connection of the premise
and conclusion. It occurs because the premises fail
What is Formal Fallacies? to provide evidence strong enough to support the
- those that may be identified through mere conclusion. Although premise is relevant, it is not
inspection of the form and structure of an sufficient to cause a reasonable person to accept
argument. the conclusion.
- an argument of this fallacy is illogical. 1. Argumentum ad Antiquum (Appeal to the Ages)
- regardless of the content of the argument as long 2. Argumentum as Verecundiam (Appeal to
as its form violates the rules of logic, the argument Inappropriate Authority)
commits a formal fallacy. 3. Accident
4. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
What is Informal Fallacies? 5. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Arguing from
- those that can be detected only through analysis Ignorance)
of the content of the argument. 6. False Dilemma

What are the categories of Informal Fallacies?

Fallacies of Ambiguity
- are committed because of a misuse of language. CHAPTER 6
They contain ambiguous or vague language which Rules of Legal Reasoning
is deliberately used to mislead people.
1. Equivocation What are the Rules of Collision?
2. Amphiboly 1. Provisions vis-à-vis Provisions
3. Improper Accent 2. Laws vis-à-vis the Constitution
4. Vicious Abstraction 3. Laws vis-à-vis Laws
5. Composition 4. General Laws vis-à-vis Special Laws
6. Division 5. Laws vis-à-vis Ordinances

4
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC (1st Sem – ’18-’19) EMERALD A. VERZOSA (2017-0517)
ATTY. BERNE GUERRERO THURS | 5:30pm-9:30pm | RH 203

What are the Rules of Interpretation and

Construction?
1. Verba Legis
2. Semper in dublis benigniora praeferenda.

What is Rules of Judgment?

- as the Constitution vests judicial power in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law – judicial power, by its nature, is
the power to hear and decide causes pending
between parties who have the right to sue and be
sued in the courts of law and equity.

What are Rules of Procedure?

- be it at the judicial or quasi-judicial level refers to
the process of how a litigant would protect his
right through the intervention of the court or any
other administrative body.
- it should be viewed as mere tools designed to
facilitate the attainment of justice.