Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION - always has conclusion and a

premise.
Logic
- The study of the principles and The statement that being claimed to be true
methods of good reasoning. is called the conclusion and the statement
- a science of sound and correct that serves as the basis or supports the
reasoning which aims to determine conclusion is called the premise.
and lay down the criteria of good
(correct) reasoning and bad Conclusion indicators – therefore, so , thus,
(incorrect) reasoning. hence, etc.

Psychology vs Logic Premise indicators – because, since, for,

inasmuch as, etc.
Psychology Logic
-interested in and - studies the Explanation vs Argument
studies reasoning. principles of good Explanation Argument
-concerned with reasoning. -An attempt to - An attempt to
how people reason. -does not merely show why show that
-demands looking describe how something is the something is the
for patterns of people reason but case. case.
behavior, speech or to discover and -not meant to prove -meant to prove or
neurological activity make available or justify the truth of justify the truth of a
that takes place in those criteria that a particular claim particular claim
the process of can be used to test
Reasons usually Reasons are
reasoning. arguments for
the causes or intended to provide
correctness.
factors that show grounds to justify a
how or why a thing claim, to show that
Legal reasoning came to exist. it is plausible or
true.
- is what we use when we apply laws,
rules, and regulations to particular
facts and cases; Unsupported opinion
- it is what we use when we interpret - statements of belief or opinion that a
constitutions and statutes when we speaker or writer happens to
balance fundamental principles and believe. Such statements can be
policies and when we evaluate true or false, rational or irrational, but
evidences and make judgements to they are parts of arguments only if
render legal decisions. the speaker or writer claims that they
- expressed through arguments follow from, or support, other claims.

Argument Conditional Statements

- a claim put forward and defended - contains if-then relationship.

with reasons. - Made up of two basic components:
- is a group of statements in which first, antecedent (the if-clause) and
one statement claims to be true on the second, consequent (the the-
the basis of another statement/s. clause).
 - Are not arguments because there is - -this part supposed to show the link
no claim that one statement is true between the rules and the facts we
because of the other statement. presented to establish what we are
claiming in the argument.
Components of legal reasoning
Conclusion
Issue
- What is the implication of applying
- What is being argued? the rule to the given facts?
- any matter of controversy or
- The conclusion is the ultimate end of
uncertainty; a point of dispute, in
a legal argument. It is what the fact,
doubt, in question, or simply up for
rules, and the analysis of the case
discussion or consideration.
amount to.
- -always formulated in an
interrogative sentence. Evaluating legal reasoning
- the relevance of the premises
Criteria
depends on the very issue the
argument is addressing. 1. Truth
2. Logic
Rule
Process
- what legal rules govern the issue?
- Has three parts: (1) a set of 1. Presentation of facts which pertains
elements, collectively called a test; to the question of truth; and
(2) a result that occurs when all the 2. Inference (deriving a legal claim or
elements are present (and the test is judgement from the given laws and
thus satisfied); and (3) a causal term facts) which pertains to the question
that determines whether the result is of logic.
mandatory, prohibitory,
discretionary, or declaratory.
- There are so many rules so an
argument has no weight unless it
says exactly which rule is being
relied upon. (laws, cases, principles)
Fact
- What are the facts that are relevant
to the rule cited?
- For the purpose of legal analysis, we
look for “material” facts – these are
the facts that fit the elements of the
rule.
Analysis
- How applicable are the facts to the
said rule?
- This is the part where argumentation
and illustration come out.
Chapter 2 - FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS - Section 36, Rule 130 of the Revised
IN LEGAL REASONING Rules of Evidence, states that a
witness can testify only to those
facts which he knows of or comes
Burden of proof from his personal knowledge, that is,
which are derived from his
- is the duty of any party to present perception,.
evidence to establish his claim or - One of the exceptions is the entries
defense by the amount of evidence in official records made in the
required by law, which is performance of duty by a public
preponderance of evidence in civil officer.
case
- basic is the rule in evidence that the
burden of proof lies upon him who
Expert testimony
asserts it, not upon him who denies,
since by nature of things, he who - Refers to statements made by
denies a fact cannot produce any individuals who are considered as
proof of it. experts in a particular field.
- Under the Rules of Court, the
Evidence
opinion of a witness on a matter
- is the means sanctioned by the requiring special knowledge, skill,
Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a experience, or training which he s
judicial proceeding the truth shown to possess, may be received
respecting a matter of fact. in evidence.
- “best evidence rule” as encapsulated - Under the same rule, a published
in Rule 130 Section 3, of the treatise, periodical, or pamphlet on a
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure subject of history, law, science or art
applies only when the content of is admissible as tending to prove
such document is the subject of the that truth of a matter stated therein if
inquiry. the court takes judicial notice, or a
witness expert in the subject
Admissibility and Relevance testifies, that the writer of the
- Evidence is deemed admissible if it statement in the treatise, periodical
is relevant to the issue and more or pamphlet is recognized in his
importantly, it is not excluded by profession or calling as expert in the
provision of law or by the Rules of subject.
Court.
- As to relevance, such evidence must
have such a relation to the fact in Examination
issue as to induce belief in its
- Direct examination by proponent –
existence or non-existence.
refers to the examination-in-chief of
Testimony of Witnesses a witness by the party presenting
him on the facts relevant to the
- Testimony is generally confined to issue;
personal knowledge; and therefore - Cross-examination by the opponent
excludes hearsay. - upon the termination of the direct
 examination, the witness may be
cross-examined by the adverse
party as to any matters stated in the
direct examination, or connected
therewith, with the sufficient fulness
and freedom to test his accuracy
and truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias, or the reverse, and
to elicit all important facts bearing
upon the issue.
- Re-direct examination by the
proponent- after the cross-
examination of the witness has been
concluded, he may be re-examined
by the party calling him, to explain or
supplement his answers given
during the cross-examination. On re-
direct examination, questions on
matters not dealt with during the
cross-examination, may be allowed
by the court in its discretion.
- Re-cross examination by the
opponent – upon the conclusion of
the re-direct examination, the
adverse party may re-cross-examine
the witness on matter stated in his
re-direct matters as may be allowed
by the courts in its discretion.
Note, however, that after the examination of
a witness by both sides has been
concluded, the witness cannot be recalled
without leave of the court. The court will
grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as
the interests of justice may require.
Dependence on precedents
Stare decisis et non quietamovere – this is
the bedrock of what we now refer to as
precedents.
This is the doctrine that, when a court has
once laid down a principle, and apply it all
future cases, where facts are substantially
the same, regardless of whether the parties
and properties are the same.
CHAPTER 3 - DEDUCTIVE REASONING -->there are times conclusion is not
IN LAW certain. However, not necessarily a
weakness, the most that we can expect of
"Had there been a lunatic asylum in the an argument is to support its conclusion
suburbs of Jerusalem, Jesus Christ would with a degree of probability.
infallibly have been shut up in it at the
outset of his public career. That interview -(ii)Three is a prime number;
with Satan on a pinnacle of the Temple Five is a prime number;
would alone have damned him, and Seven is a prime number;
everything that happened after could have Therefore, all off numbers between two and
confirmed the diagnosis." - Havelock Ellis eight are prime numbers.
(The New Spirit) -->Thus, what makes an argument
deductive or inductive is not the pattern
of particularity or generality in the
premises and conclusion. Rather, it is
*DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION the type of support the premises are
1.) DEDUCTIVE claimed to provide for the conclusion.

a) When appellate courts, for instance, (iii). Determination:

would determine whether the correct rules certainty
of law were applied to the given facts or definitely
whether the rules of evidence were properly it is logical to conclude that
applied in establishing the facts. this logically implies that
absolutely
b) Some arguments try to prove the truth of conclusively
their conclusions beyond any doubt. this entails that
it must be the case that
c) In other words, we are reasoning NOTE: When no indicator words are
deductively when our premises intend to present to help us determine whether an
guarantee the truth of our conclusion argument is deductive or inductive, we just
have to base our judgment on the content
d) moves from general premises to of the premises and conclusion of the
particular conclusions argument - is the conclusion intended to
follow with strict necessity from the
EXAMPLES:
premises or is it intended to simply
-(i)All misdemeanours are criminal offenses; follow from the premises with a degree
Driving under the influence of alcohol is of probability.
misdemeanour;
Hence, driving under the influence of 2.) INDUCTIVE
alcohol is a criminal offence.
-If quartz scratches glass, then quartz is a) When we want to determine the facts of
harder than glass; the case and to establish them through
Quartz scratches glass; causal arguments, probability or scientific
Therefore, quartz is harder than glass. methods.
--> established by the premises with
absolute certainty.
b) Try to show that their conclusions are -->Thus, what makes an argument
plausible or likely or probable to be true deductive or inductive is not the pattern
given the premise(s). of particularity or generality in the
premises and conclusion. Rather, it is
c) In other words, when our premises are the type of support the premises are
intended to provide good (but not claimed to provide for the conclusion.
conclusive) evidence for the truth of our
-(iii) Determination:
conclusion. Probably
likely
d) moves from particular premises to chances are
general conclusions. one would expect that
it is plausible to suppose that
EXAMPLES: it is reasonable to assume that
NOTE: When no indicator words are
-(i)Neil, a student in a Legal Logic class, has present to help us determine whether an
good study habits and is always attentive in argument is deductive or inductive, we just
class discussions; have to base our judgment on the content
He is a consistent dean's lister and has of the premises and conclusion of the
never failed in any subject he has taken in argument - is the conclusion intended to
law school; and follow with strict necessity from the
Therefore, it is very probable that Neil will premises or is it intended to simply
not fail in his Legal Logic class. follow from the premises with a degree
-->Although it is a strong argument, it of probability.
does not provide an absolute guarantee that
Neil will not fail in his Legal Logic class.
-->There is still remote possibility that HOW THEY DIFFER?
he will fail in the subject.
-->IF the premises are true then the -Although all reasoning or arguments to
conclusion will very likely, or probably, note provide support- that is, evidence and
true; but the truth of the premises cannot
absolutely rule out the possibility that the reasons - fort their conclusions they differ
conclusion will be false. greatly in the amount of support they intend
-->In other words, the conclusion might to provide.
turn out to be false even though the
premises are true. -Inductive arguments simply claim that their
-The car can't start even though there is conclusions are likely or probable given the
plenty of gasoline in the tank; and premises offered.
It is likely that the battery is already
exhausted.
-In the last five years, the passing rate in the SYLLOGISM
bar exam has always been less than 25%; -Deductive arguments are often expressed
and as syllogisms.
So we can say that this year's successful -It is a three-line argument – that is, an
bar examinees will probably not go beyond argument that consists of exactly two
25%. premises and a conclusion.
-This form of reasoning is what is lurking
-(ii)All of J.K Rowling’s previous books have below the surface of most judicial opinions
been bestsellers (general premise); and and briefs.
Therefore, her next book will probably be a
bestseller. (particular conclusion)
-“One of the most beautiful, and one of the Deductive argumenrsmay either be valid or
most important , made by the human mind.” invalid.
– Gottfried Leibniz -A valid deductive argument is an argument
-“In every criminal case, a judge should in which the conclusion really does not
come to a perfect syllogism: the major follow necessarily from the premises.
premise should be the general law; the -if the premises are true, then the
minor premise, the act, which does or does conclusion must be true or the truth of the
not conform to the law; and the conclusion, premises guarantee the truth of the
acquittal or condemnation.” – Cessare conclusion.
Becaria (one who recognized syllogism in
the 18th century) Examples:
-But for all its power, the principle of (VALID ARGUMENT)
syllogisms is surprisingly straightforward: A. Insulators are not electric
What is true of the universal is true of the conductors.’
particular. If we know that all torts are civil Rubbers are insulators; and
wrongs and defamation is a tort, thus Therefore rubbers are not
defamation is a civil wrong. electric conductors.
EXAMPLES: B. All wars the inflict more harm
The Constitution prohibits that good are unjust.
non-Filipinos to acquire or hold lands of the All nuclear was inflict more harm
public domain; than good.
Signing this dead of sale will Therefore, all nuclear wars are
enable MR. Jackson, an unjust.
American to acquire the title C. Mammals have lungs.
of this land Fish are mammals.
of the public domain; and Therefore, fish have lungs.
Therefore, signing this deed (INVALID ARGUMENT)
of sale is unconstitutional. A. Fraud is a criminal offense;
Amalilio committed a criminal
Judicial power includes the offense; ands
power to determine whether Therefore, Amalilio committed
or not there has been a fraud.
grave abuse of discretion on B. All felonies are criminal offenses;
the part of any branch or All felonies are punishable by
instrumentality of the incarceration.
Government; Therefore, all criminal offenses
The Supreme Court is are punishable by incarceration.
granted judicial power; and C. Chines are Asians;
Therefore, the Supreme Americans are not Chinese.
Court has the power to Therefore, Americans are not
determine whether or not Asians.
there has been a grave -The validity (or invalidity) of arguments
abuse of discretion does not depend on the truth of the
amounting to lack or excess premises or the conclusion. Argument C
of discretion on the part of has obviously false premises and false
any branch or instrumentality conclusion but it is valid.
of the government. -It should be emphasized, however, that no
-Being able to construct syllogisms is one valid argument can have all true premises
skill, being able to form good syllogisms is and a false conclusion. This important truth
another skill. Not all syllogisms are logical. follows from the very definition of a valid
argument.
-Since a valid argument, by definition, is an TYPES OF SYLLOGISM
argument in which the conclusion must be Two types:
true if the premises are true, no valid 1) Categorical- is a syllogism composed of
argument can have all true premises and a categorical statements alone.
false conclusion. -It directly asserts that something or states a
fact without any conditions. Its subject is
-Looking at the examples of invalid simply affirmed or denied by the predicate.
argument, invalid arguments may have true EXAMPLES:
premises and a true conclusion as seen in Senators are elected public officials.
the argument F. The Philippines is not a communist state.
-These examples show that what Some crimes are against national security.
determines the validity (or invalidity)of the The Supreme Court has the sole power to
argument is not the truth (or falsity)if its admit individuals to the practice of law.
premises or conclusion but the relationship Some offenses are not public wrongs.
between its premises and conclusion that is,
whether the conclusion follows necessarily 2) Hypothetical- includes both categorical
from the premises(or put another way, and hypothetical statements.
whether the premises guarantee the truth of -It is a compound statement which contains
the conclusion). a proposed or tentative explanation.
*COMPOUND STATEMENT- consists of at
-Thus, the basic question in determining the least two clauses connected by
validity of an argument is NOT; Is the conjunctions, adverbs, etc., which express
premise true? Or is the conclusion true? But the relationship between the classes as well
rather: DOES THE CONCLUSION as our assent to it.
FOLLOWE NECESSARILY FROM THE -The clauses are simple statements or
PREMISES? statement that contains one subject and one
(Or do the premises guarantee the truth of predicate.
the conclusion?) If the answer is yes, then EXAMPLES:
the argument is valid. If NO, then the If the country is in serious danger due to
argument is invalid. invasion or rebellion, the President can
declare Martial Law.
NOTE: If a party to a contract fails to perform its
-Terms “valid” or “invalid” do not apply in the obligations in the contracts, then there is a
inductive arguments, since it od not claim breach of contract.
that their conclusion follows from the The breach of contract is either actual or
premises with strict necessity (for that anticipatory.
matter, all inductive arguments are
technically invalid) CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
a. PROPERTIES OF A
-Determination of VALIDITY or INVALIDITY CATERGORICAL STATEMENT
of an argument: Whether its conclusion Every categorical statement has
necessarily follows from its premises quality and quantity as its
properties.
*QUALITY:
i. Affirmative- in the absence of the
terms mentioned below. EXAMPLES:
Some crimes are punishable
by imprisonment.
The accused denied the
charges against him.
 ii. Negative – a statement that has  Predicate of an affirmative
the terms “no”, “not”, none” and “never”. statement is generally particular.
EXAMPLES: However, in statements
No one is above the law. where the subject and the
The accused is not guilty of predicate are identical, the
the crime. predicate is universal.
*QUANTITY:
i. Universal- if the statement is what The predicate of a negative
is being affirmed or denied of the subject statement is always
term is its whole extension. universal.

QUANTIFIERS: a. In the following

all statements, the
every predicates are particular:
each
no The Philippines is a
none democratic country.
EXAMPLES: Some senators are
All senatorial candidates must be at oppositionists.
least 35 years of age on the days of the
election. b. In the following
All law students are holdes of a statements, the
bachelor’s degree. predicates are universal:
No statutes that are in conflict with
the Constitution are valid. Manny Villar did not win
in the 2010 presidential
ii. Particular-when what is being election.
affirmed or denied of the subject is just a Some senators are not
part of its extension. QUANTIFIERS: lawyers.
Some A mother is a female
Most parent. (Although this
Several statement is affirmative,
Few the subject and the
Almost all predicate are identical)
Not all
Many II.PARTS OF A CEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
EXAMPLES: Three kinds of terms in a categorical
Servants of vigilantisms are syllogism:
unjustified.  Minor Term (S) – The subject of
Not all senatorial candidates are the conclusion (Also called the
eligible to run. subject term)
Some criminal offenses are heinous  Major Term (P) – The predicate
crimes. of the conclusion (Also called the
predicate term)
I. QUANTITY OF THE PREDICATE  Middle term (M) – The term
-the predicate terms has its own quantity found in both premises and
which is not identical to or not dependent on serves to mediate between the
the quantity of the subject term. minor and the major terms
TWO RULES: Three kinds of statements in a categorical
syllogism:
  Minor premise 0 the premise All military uses biological weapons are
which contains the minor term military actions whose harmful effects
 Major premise – the premise cannot be controlled.
which contains the minor terms Therefore, no military uses of biological
 Conclusion – the statement the weapons are permissible.
premises support
Two that illustrate the different terms and Civil offenses are not criminal offenses.
statements in a categorical syllogism Slander is not a criminal offense.
EXAMPLES: Therefore, slander is a civil offense.
M P -The SECOND one is only a valid syllogism.
All torts are civil wrongs. The other two violate the first rule and, thus,
(major premise) are invalid. Both of the premises in each
syllogism are negative statements.
S M
Negligence is a tort. (minor RATIONALE:
premise) when the premises are both negative, the
middle term fails to serve its function of
S mediating between the major and minor
P terms. The violation of this rule is called the
Therefore, negligence is a fallacy of exclusive premises.
civil wrong. (conclusion)
RULE 2: There must be three pairs of the
P univocal terms
M The terms in the syllogism must
All contracts with the vague have exactly the same meaning and must
are void. (major premise) be used in the exactly the same way in each
occurrence. A term that has different
S M meanings in its occurrences in an equivocal
This contract is not void. term. A univocal term has the same
(minor premise) meaning in different occurrences.
EXAMPLES:
S
P What is natural is good.
Therefore, this contract does To make a mistake is natural.
not contain vague terms. (conclusion) Therefore, to make a mistake is good.
NOTE: Both syllogisms above are valid
syllogisms. The Congress can create or abolish laws.
The law of supply and demand is a law.
III. RULES FOR THE VALIDITY OF Therefore, the Congress can abolish the law
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGIMS of supply and demand.

Rule 1: The syllogism must not contain two Selling cigarettes to a person below 18
negative premises. years of age is unlawful.
That store sold cigarettes to a student below
No socialist country is capitalist. 18 years of age.
The Philippines is not socialist. Therefore the store has violated the law.
Therefore, it is a capitalist country.
Which syllogisms above are invalid? The
No military action whose harmful effects first and the second. In the first argument,
cannot be controlled is morally permissible. the term “natural” is used with two different
meanings; as something pure (not artificial)
and as something normal or usual. IN the -EXCEPTION:
second example, the term “law” has two Even if the middle term is particular in both
different usages in the first and second premises, but is quantified by “most” in both
premises. In the third syllogism, each of the premises and the conclusion is quantified by
terms has been used in the same sense. “some,” the syllogism does not violate this
The violation of the second rule is called the third rule.
fallacy of equivocation. Equivocation usually This is so since the combined extension of
occurs in the middle term. the middle term is more than a universal.
EXAMPLE:
RULE 3: The middle terms must be Most mayors political parties.
universal at least once. Most mayors are corrupt.
Therefore, some people who have political
Most mayors have political parties. parties are corrupt.
Mr. Herras is a mayor.
Therefore, Mr. Herras has a political party. RULE No. 4: If the term in the conclusion is
universal, the same term in the premise
Libel is a form of defamation. must also be universal.
Reyes’ untrue accusation is a form of EXAMPLE:
defamation. Examine the following arguments:
Therefore, Reyes’ untrue accusation is a
libel. All lawyers read the Philippine Daily
Inquirer.
No military actions that intentionally kill All lawyers are literate.
innocent civilians are just. Therefore, all who read the Philippine Daily
Some Malaysian military actions in Sabah Inquirer are literate.
intentionally killed innocent civilians.
Therefore, some Malaysian military actions All acts that inflict more harm than good are
were not just. unjust.
-INVALID: First two examples because they All terrorist acts inflict more harm than good.
violate Rule No. 3. Therefore, all terrorist acts are unjust.
-Their middle terms are particular in both
premises. Felonies are criminal offenses.
-The middle term in the first item is “mayor” Misdemeanours are not felonies.
and in second it is “form of defamation.” Therefore, misdemeanours are criminal
-REASON: when the middle term is offenses.
particular in both premises it might stand for
a different portion of its extension in each -Only second argument is VALID.
occurrence and, thus, be equivalent to two -In the first syllogism, the minor term “those
terms, and, therefore, fail to fulfil its function who read the PDI” is universal in the
of uniting or separating the minor and major conclusion but particular in the premise.
terms. Such violation is called the fallacy of Such violation is called the fallacy of illicit
particular middle. minor.
-in the third syllogism, the major term
-In the third syllogism which is a valid “criminal offenses” is universal in the
syllogism, the middle term (“military actions conclusion but particular in the premise.
the intentionally kill civilians”) is universal in Such a violation is called illicit major.
the first premise, although particular in the -RATIONLE: In deductive reasoning, the
second premise. conclusion should not go beyond what the
-To determine if the middle term is universal premises state. Thus, the conclusion must
or particular, refer to the discussion on the not be wider in extension than the premises.
quantity of the statement and predicate.
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM Being teenager these days means that you
-it is a syllogism that contains a hypothetical have to face a tremendous amount of peer
statement as one of its premises. They are pressure.
of three kinds:
a. Conditional syllogisms The fact that she is a native of Bohol implies
b. Disjunctive syllogism that she knows where the chocolate hills
c. Conjunctive syllogism are.
A. Conditional Syllogism
- a syllogism in which the major premise is a Anyone who cheers for Ginebra must be a
conditional statement. Mark Caguioa fan.
*Conditional Statement- is a compound
statement which asserts that one member Unless you are born again by water and
(the then clause) is true on condition that spirit, you will not enter the Kingdom of
the other member (the if clause) is true. For Heaven.
example, if it rains, then the ground will be
wet. The if clause or its equivalent is called Whenever heavy rains pour in Sampaloc,
the antecedent, while the then clause or its Espana Avenue is flooded.
equivalent is called the consequent.
- what is important in the conditional In case one of the grantees changes his/her
statement is the sequence between the mind, you will get the scholarship.
antecedent and the consequent, that is, the
truth of the consequent follows upon the If written in the if-then forms, their meaning
fulfilment of the condition stated in the remains the same.
antecedent. It does not matter whether
individually the antecedent or consequent is If you are a teenager these days, then you
true or false; what matters is the relationship face a tremendous amount of peer
between them. pressure.

*The statement --- If the If she is a native of Bohol, then she knows
Philippines is in Asia, then Melchora where the chocolate hills are.
Aquino is a Filipina does not make
sense although each clause, taken If he If cheers for Ginebra, then he must be
singly, is true. The Philippines is a Mark Caguioa fan.
indeed in Asia and Melchora Aquino
is a Filipina. But the fact that If you are born again by water and spirit,
Melchora Aquino is a Filipina is not a then you cannot not enter the Kingdom of
consequent of the Philippines being Heaven.
in Asia. On the other hand, the
statement if Melchora Aquino is not If heavy rains pour in Sampaloc, Espana
an Asian, then she is a Filipino is a Avenue is flooded.
true statement although the clauses,
taken singly are false. The statement If one of the grantees changes his/her mind,
is true because being an Asian is then you will get the scholarship.
essential to being a Filipina. -The conditional syllogism can be
symbolized by the following:
-Conditional statements can A- for the antecedent
be expressed not only if then C-for the consequent
clauses but also in a wide variety pf ~- for the negation of the statement
different sentences. >- for “implies”
EXAMPLE: -- for therefore
RULES FOR CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM: more than one logical step is needed to
Two valid forms of conditional reach the desired conclusion.
syllogisms. Anything that contains information
a. Modus PoNens available for inspection by the public is a
-When the minor premise affirms the public document
antecedent, the conclusion must PDS contains information available
affirm the consequent. for inspection by the public.
If it rains, then the ground will be Therefore, PDS is a public
wet. A>C document.
It rained.
A Vargas falsified her PDS.
Therefore, the ground it wet. PD is a public document
C Therefore, Vargas falsified a public
b. Modus Tollens document.
- When the minor premise denies
the consequent, the conclusion Falsifying a public document is a
must dent the antecedent. criminal offense.
- If it rains, then the ground will be Vargas falsified a public document.
wet. A>C Therefore, Vargas committed a
- The ground is not wet. criminal offense.
~C
- Therefore, it did not rain. Anyone proven to commit a criminal
~A offense should be dismissed from
government service.
-FALLACY OF DENYING THE Vargas committed criminal offense.
ANTECEDENT Therefore, Vargas ought to be
A conditional syllogism is invalid of dismissed from government service.
the minor premise denies the antecedent.
-FALLACY OF AFFIRMING THE
CONSEQUENT
The minor premise affirms the
consequent.
If it rains, then the ground will be
wet. A>C
The ground is wet.
C
Therefore, it rained.
A

ENTHYMEMES
POLYSYLLOGISM
-Aside from not explicitly expressing
arguments and opinions in standard
syllogisms, legal writers also have the
tendency to pile on syllogism on top of
another.
- Polysyllogism is a series of syllogisms in
which the conclusion of one syllogism
supplies a premise of the next syllogism.
Typically, polysyllogisms are used because
Chapter 4 – INDUCTIVE REASONING Random Sample
IN LAW - is one in which all members of the target
Inductive Arguments have an equal opportunity to be in the
sample.
- are arguments in which the premises are
intended to provide support, but not Analogical Arguments
conclusive evidence, for the conclusion. Analogy
- it gives us truth or information more than - is a comparison of things based on
what the premises are saying. similarities those things share.
Analogical reasoning is very useful in law
Inductive Generalizations particularly in deciding what rule of law to
apply in a particular case and in settling
- is an argument that relies on disputed factual questions.
characteristics of a sample population to
make a claim about the population as a Edward Levi, the foremost American
whole. authority on the role of analogy in the law,
described analogical reasoning as a three
Example: step process:
All law students are required to study 1) establish similarities between two cases,
taxation.
2) announce the rule of law embedded in
Hearsays are not admissible in courts. the first case, and
- An inductive generalization uses evidence 3) apply the rule of law to the second case.
about a limited number of people or things
of a certain type (the sample population), to
make a general claim about a larger group
Analogical reasoning is also the basis of
of people or things of that type (the what we know as “circumstantial evidence”.
population as a whole).
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
Evaluating Inductive Generalizations
conviction if:
There are two important questions we must a) There is more than one circumstance;
ask when it comes to determining whether
inductive generalizations are strong or weak b) The facts from which the inferences are
derived and proven; and
1. Is the Sample Large Enough?
c) The combination of all the circumstances
2. Is the Sample Representative? is such as to produce a conviction beyond
Converse Accident (Hasty reasonable doubt.
Generalization)
Evaluating Analogical Arguments
- it occurs when a person erroneously If the facts are substantially similar the
creates a general rule from observing too outcome of the cases will not be different.
few cases. But if the facts have relevant differences,
the outcome in one case will not be the
same in another case.
Chapter 5 The various informal fallacies
accomplish their purpose of misleading
Fallacies in Legal Reasoning
or illogically persuading people to
What is fallacy? believe or accept something in so many
different ways. This leads logicians to
- A fallacy is not a false belief but a group informal fallacies into various
mistake or error in thinking and categories which are: fallacies of
reasoning. ambiguity, fallacies of irrelevant
-Logicians and legal profession evidence and fallacies of insufficient
generally used the term “fallacy” in a evidence.
narrower sense to describe an error in
reasoning rather than a falsity in a (since Chapter 3 has already dealt with
statement or claim. the various formal fallacies, this chapter
 A passage may be composed of will only focus on informal fallacies)
entirely true statements or beliefs
but it is a fallacy if the kind of
thinking or reasoning used in that
passage is illogical or erroneous.
 Fallacies are deceptive and
misleading since, although they are
illogical and incorrect, they seem to
be correct and acceptable. Although
they are not logically sound, they are
often psychologically persuasive
and, thus, tend to be followed or
accepted by people.

Fallacy are Divided into Two Main

Groups:
1. Formal Fallacies
- are those that may be identified
through mere inspection of the form
and structure of an argument.

- fallacies of this kind are found only

in deductive argument that have
identifiable forms.

2. Informal Fallacies
- are those that can be detected only
through analysis of the content of
the argument.
 FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY FALLACIES OF FALLACIES OF
IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
- are committed - do not have a - do not also have a
because of a misuse problem with problem with
of language language but with the language but with the
- they contain connection of the connection of the
ambiguous and premise and premise and
vague language conclusion conclusion
which is deliberately - they are misleading - the difference is that it
used to mislead because the occur not because
people premises are the premises are not
psychologically logically relevant to
relevant, so the the conclusion but
conclusion may seem because the premises
to follow from the fail to provide the
premises although it evidence strong
does not follow enough to support the
logically conclusion
- although the
premises have some
relevance to the
conclusion, they are
not sufficient to cause
a reasonable person
to accept the
conclusion

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY This kind of deception is particularly

difficult to detect in long arguments,
1. Equivocation
in which the transition in meaning is
- this fallacy consist in leading an
not noticeable.
opponent to an unwarranted
conclusion by using a term in its
2. Amphiboly
different senses and making it
-this fallacy consist in presenting a
appear to have only one meaning.
claim or argument whose meaning
- In a good argument, the words and
can be interpreted in two or more
phrases used must retain the same
ways due to its grammatical
meanings throughout the argument,
construction.
unless they specify that they are
-in amphiboly, ambiguity comes from
shifting from one meaning of a word
the way the sentence is constructed,
to another.
unlike in equivocation, ambiguity
- One who commits this fallacy either
comes from changing meanings of
intentionally or carelessly allowed a
the word.
key word to shift in meaning in the
- a statement is amphibolous when
middle of the argument, while giving
its meaning is indeterminate
the impression that all instances of
because of the loose or awkward
the word have the same meaning.
way in which its words are
 combined. 6. Division
- an amphibolous statement may be - this fallacy consists in wrongly
true in one interpretation and false in assuming that what is true in
another. generals is true in particular.
- when it is stated as premise with - this is the reverse of the fallacy of
the interpretation that makes it true, composition.
and a conclusion is drawn from it on
interpretation that makes it false,
FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE
then the fallacy of amphiboly has
been committed. 1. Argumentum ad Hominem
(Personal Attack)
3. Improper Accent - this fallacy ignores the issue by
-this fallacy consist in misleading focusing on certain personal
people by placing improper characteristic of an opponent.
emphasis on a word, phrase or - instead of addressing the issue
particular aspect of an issue or presented by an opponent, this
claim. argument presented by an
- the fallacy of accent also includes opponent, this argument makes the
the distortion produced by pulling a opponent in issue.
quoted passage out of context, - it shifts attention from the argument
putting it in another context, and to the arguer; instead of disproving
then drawing a conclusion that is not the substance of what is asserted,
drawn in the original context. the argument attacks the person
who made the assertion.
4. Vicious Abstraction
- this fallacy consists in misleading This fallacy is of two kinds:
the people by using vague or A. Abusive
abstract terms. -this fallacy attacks the argument
- this fallacy occurs when vague based on the arguer’s reputation,
words are misused. Vague words personality, or personal
are misused when these words are shortcomings.
very significant in the premises used -the attack of his character is
to establish a conclusion. However, simply irrelevant to the point of
a premise that is not understood issue.
cannot be accepted as providing (Ex. Huwag kayong maniwala sa
support for a conclusion. kanya, lumaki sya sa squatter’s
area.)
5. Composition
- this fallacy consists in wrongly B. Circumstantial
inferring that what holds true of the - this fallacy consists in
individuals automatically holds true defending one’s position by
of the group made up of those accusing his or her critic or other
individuals. people of doing the same thing.
(Ex. Ikaw din naman
 nangungurakot, bakit ako hindi be proven in the conclusion.”
mangungurakot?) - this circular argument makes use
of its conclusion to serve its premise,
the argument presupposes the truth
2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam of its conclusion, thus its premise
(Appeal to Pity) fails to provide evidence since it is
- the appeal to pity is familiar in not different from the conclusion and
many trials, whether they are civil or as questionable as the conclusion it
criminal. purports to support.
- the judge is persuaded to accept
an argument not for its strength but B. Question-Begging Language
because of the counsel’s emotional - this fallacy consists in ”discussing
appeal to pity. an issue by means of language that
- this fallacy convinces people by assumes a position of the very
evoking feelings of compassion and question at issue, in such a way as
sympathy when such feelings, to direct the listener to that same
however understandable, are not conclusion.”
logically relevant to the arguer’s - this prematurely assumes that a
conclusion. matter that is or may be at issue has
already been settled.
3. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal - the listener is subtly being
to Force) “begged” to infer a particular
- this fallacy consists in persuading conclusion, although no good
others to accept a position by using reasons are presented for doing so.
threat or pressure instead of
presenting evidence for one’s view. C. Complex Question
- the strength of this fallacy lies on - this fallacy consists in asking a
the fear that it creates to people question in which some
which leads them to agree with the presuppositions are buried in that
argument. question.
- another term used to refer to this
4. Petitio Principii (Begging the fallacy is loaded question, which
Question) suggests, like the term “complex,”
- some arguments are designed to that more than one question is being
persuade people by means of the asked in what appears to be a single
wording of one of its premises. question.
-there are the arguments that are -in this deceptive way of arguing,
said to beg the question. one of the question is explicitly
expressed but the others are implicit.
This fallacy has three different types: (Ex. Binayaran mo na ba yung utang
A. Arguing in Circle mo sa taong tinakbuhan mo? Or,
- this type of begging-the-question Kinuha mo ba yun wallet bago mo
fallacy states or “assumes as a siya banatan?)
premise the very thing that should
 D. Leading Question general rule to a particular case
- this fallacy consists in directing the when circumstances suggest that an
respondent to give a particular exception to the rule should apply.
answer to a question at issue by the -this fallacy occurs when such
manner in which the question is general rules are applied to special
asked. circumstances, the application of the
- a leading question usually involves general rule is inappropriate
asking only one question. because of the situation’s
-this question contains an “accidents” or exceptional facts.
unsupported claim, in that it unjustly -to avoid committing the fallacy of
assumes a position on what is accident, it is very important to
probably a debatable, or at least an understand the nuances of the law
open, issue. to determine what are the cases
- the arguer makes us accept a where a certain provision applies
conclusion based on a premise that and the cases it is not applicable of.
is assumed by the conclusion. (See exceptions to the law,
(Ex.Kumain ka na diba? Instead of especially in Criminal cases.)
Kumain ka na ba?)
4. Hasty Generalization (Converse
Accident)
FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENT - this fallacy consists in drawing a
EVIDENCE
general or universal conclusion from
1. Argumentum ad Antiquum insufficient particular case.
(Appeal to Ages) -as such it is also known as
-this fallacy attempts to persuade converse accident because its
others of a certain belief by reasoning is the opposite of the
appealing to their feelings of fallacy of accident – we take a
reverence or respect for some particular case (which may be an
tradition, instead of giving rational exception) and make a general rule
basis for such belief. or truth out of that. (Ex. Magaling
mag recite yung estudyante na ito,
2. Argumentum ad Vericundian siguro buong klase magaling din.)
(Appeal to Inappropriate
Authority) 5. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
-this fallacy consists in persuading (Arguing from Ignorance)
others by appealing to people who - this fallacy consists in assuming
command respect or authority but do that a particular claim is trues
not have legitimate authority in the because its opposite cannot be
matter at hand. (Ex. Sabi daw ng proven.
pari magkakasakit ang mga taong -arguing from ignorance means
gumagamit ng contraceptives.) using the absence of evidence
against a claim as justification that it
3. Accident is true or using the absence of
- this fallacy consists in applying a evidence for a claim as evidence
 that it is false.
-it is treating the absence of
evidence as if it were the presence
of evidence.

6. False Dilemma
-this fallacy arises when the premise
of an argument presents us with a
choice between two alternatives and
assumes that they are exhaustive
when in fact they are not.
-this often derives from the failure to
distinguish contradictories from
contraries
-Contradictories exclude any
gradations between extremes, there
is no middle ground (legal or illegal,
prohibited or mandatory); Contraries,
on the other hand, allow a number of
gradations between their extremes,
there is plenty of middle ground
between a term and its opposite.
Chapter 6 B. Laws vis-a-vis the Constitution
Rules of Legal Reasoning 1. Statutes should be given a meaning
that will not bring them in conflict
with the Constitution
1) Rules of Collision 2. Being the fundamental law of the
land, all laws must take its cue from
- Single or two laws dealing with the same the Constitution
subject matter but with conflicting provisions
as far as the treatment and application of a C. Laws vis-a-vis Laws
right
1. Where two statutes are of contrary
tenor or of different dates but are of
A. Provisions vis-a-vis Provisions equal theoretical application to a
particular case, the case designated
- Conflicting clauses and provisions therefor specially should prevail over
the other.
1. The statute must be construed as a 2. Every new statute should be
whole and attempts must first be construed in connection with those
made to reconcile these conflicting already existing in relation to the
provisions in order to attain the same subject matter and all should
intent of the law. be made to harmonize and stand
2. To interpret and to harmonize laws together, if they can be done by any
with laws is the best method of fair and reasonable interpretation.
interpretation. 3. Each legislative act is to be
3. MANILA RAILROAD V interpreted with reference to the
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - other law relating to the same matter
Where there is in the same statute a or subject.
particular enactment and also a 4. AZNAR v YADIANGCO - Between a
general one which in its most common law principle and a
comprehensive sense would include statutory provision, the latter must
what is embraced in the former, the prevail
particular enactment must be 5. An amendment act is ordinarily to be
operative, and the general construed as if the original statute
enactment must be taken to affect has been repealed, and a new and
only such cases within its general independent act in the amended
language as are not within the form had been adopted instead.
provisions of the particular 6. DAVID V COMELEC - A later law
enactment. repeals an earlier one because it is
4. DOCTRINE OF ASSOCIATED the later legislative will. It is
WORDS - where a particular presumed that the lawmakers knew
word/phrase in a statement is of the older law and intended to
ambiguous in itself or is equally change it
susceptible of various meanings, its 7. Implied repeals are not favored. An
true meaning may be made clear implied repeal must have been
and specific by considering the clearly and unmistakably intended
company in which it is found or with by the legislature. The test is
which it is associated. whether the subsequent law
encompasses entirely the subject
matter of the former law and they
 cannot be logically or reasonably b. must not be unfair or
reconciled. oppressive,
c. must not be partial or
discriminatory,
D. General laws vis-a-vis special laws d. must not prohibit but may
1. A general law does not nullify a regulate,
specific law e. must be general and
2. A general clause does not extend to consistent w public policy,
those things which are previously f. must not be unreasonable
provided for specially 1. Provisions of the Constitution prevail
3. A particular provision of a general over an administrative order
law will prevail over a general 2. A law is construed higher than an
provision of a special law, in case of ordinance thus the later cannot
conflict repeal nor amend the former
4. The enactment of a later legislation 3. Basic law prevails over a rule or
which is a general law cannot be regulation issued to implement said
construed to have repealed a special law
law
5. Special law > General law,
regardless of dates of enactment
6. A subsequent general law does not 2. Rules of Interpretation and
repeal a prior special law on the Construction
same subject matter unless it clearly
appears that the legislature has - Interpretation refers to how a law or
intended by the latter general act to provision thereof is to be properly applied.
modify or repeal the earlier special Principles and concepts under statcon are
law referred to to aid proper interpretation and
7. DUQUE V VELOSO - General laws construction.
are universal in nature, it is a sole
basis for it speaks for the common - Verbalegis, refer to the plain language of
good, unless it is otherwise stated, the law if the law is clear.
and special laws are said to have
exception and not everyone can 1. Interpretation before construction
adhere to its provisions also unless 2. Interpretation draws the true nature,
otherwise stated. meaning and intent of the law; it
relies on the contents of the law,
through an examination of its
E. Laws vis-a-vis Ordinances language, words, phrases, and style.
(Intrinsic aids)
- Ordinance, a local legislative measure 3. Construction relies on tools,
passed by the local legislative body of a references extant from the law to
local government unit ascertain its nature, meaning and
intent.
- For an ordinance to be valid, it must be 4. PEOPLE V KOTTINGER: Words are
within the corporate powers of the local presumed to have been employed
government unit to enact and pass accdng by the lawmaker in their ordinary
to the procedure prescribed by law, it must and common use and acceptation.
also conform to the ff: 5. VICENCIO V VILLAR: If the words
are clear, plain, free from ambiguity,
a. must not contravene the whatever is written under the law will
Constitution or any statute, be given its literal meaning
 6. Natl Federation of Labor v Eisma: in construing laws as saying what
Interpretation and Construction they obviously mean
come only after it has been 6. Utmost effort should be exerted lest
demonstrated that application is the interpretation arrived at does
impossible or inadequate without violence to the statutory language in
them. its total context
7. ABAD V GOLDLOOP 7. The courts cannot assume some
PROPERTIES: If the contract is purpose in no way expressed and
determined to be ambiguous, then then construe the statute to
the interpretation of the contract is accomplish this supposed intention.
left to the court, to resolve the
ambiguity in the light of intrinsic
evidence. 5. RULES OF PROCEDURE
8. FOUR CORNERS RULE, courts are - process of how a litigant would protect his
allowed to search beneath the
right through the intervention of the court or
semantic surface for clues to
meaning. any other administrative body
3. Rules of Judgment 1. May be interpreted liberally or
1. LAMB V PHIPPS: judicial power is strictly, depending on the rules of
the power to hear and decide procedure gone through
causes pending between parties 2. RoP should be viewed as mere tools
who have the right to sue and be designed to facilitate the attainment
sued in the courts of law and equity of Justice
2. DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL 3. RoP must be faithfully followed in
SUPREMACY - Judicial branch of the absence of persuasive reason to
the govt as the only empowered by deviate therefrom.
Constitution to interpret and 4. Liberality of application of RoP may
construe laws.No judge or court not be invoked if it will result in the
shall decline to render judgment by wanton disregard of the rules/ cause
reason of silence, obscurity or undue delay in the administration of
insufficiency of the laws. justice. It cannot be gainsaid that
3. ARCETA V MANGROBANG - Court obedience to the requisites of
may exercise its power of judicial procedural rule is needed if we are
review only if the ffreqs are present: to expect fair results therefrom
i. actual and appropriate case
and controversy exists,
ii. personal and substantial
interest of the party raising
constitutional question,
iii. exercise of judicial review
pleaded at earliest
opportunity,
iv. constitutional question
raised is the very lismota of
the case
4. ANG TIBAY V CIR - Cardinal reqs of
due process of administrative
proceedings
5. JUSTICE HOLMES: There is no
canon against using common sense