New Era

University

Final Paper Requirement in

PHILOSOPHY 1
LOGIC (TF 4:00-5:30PM M302)

Submitted by:
Siara Hyden S. Porbasas
3rd Year BSBA-Legal Management

Submitted to:
Prof. Christopher B. Figueroa
Philosophy 1 Professor

A compilation of literary works sought from various

sources regarding:
The Application of LOGIC in the
Legal Education & Legal Profession

How is Logic Useful in the Study of Law? By Patrice Lesco

In the practice of their profession, lawyers consistently use arguments,

both verbally and in writing. Arguments require logic to be clear and
acceptable to a judge and jury. Consequently, the study of logic is essential
to the study of law.
Deductive Reasoning. Lawyers use deductive reasoning in case
analysis. Deductive reasoning mandates that you develop a general, broad
theory about the case and then attempt to prove the theory by relating it to
a specific person or fact in the case. When the general theory applies to that
person or fact realistically, then the theory is considered valid and the
outcome of the deductive reasoning is true. Lawyers must prove the truth of
their arguments to judges and juries.
Syllogism. A syllogism is the logical process in deductive reasoning
that determines the outcome of the argument a lawyer is making. The
syllogism is useful in the study of law because it helps law students learn
how to formulate a hypothesis about a case and map the paths of their
arguments.
Polysyllogisms. A polysyllogism is two or more syllogisms used to
formulate an argument in a case. Multiple syllogisms support one another in
an argument and increase in specifics as the argument progresses. This
pattern of logic is useful in the study of law because it allows the student to
understand the use of multiple arguments to reveal the truth.
Inductive Reasoning and Generalizing. Unlike deductive reasoning
that is supported by a chain of facts and proved to be valid, inductive
reasoning using generalization only suggests that the outcome could occur.
The key for the student studying law is gathering enough known broad facts
to support an outcome that could be true or applied to specific facts, thereby
gaining support for the argument.
Inductive Reasoning and Analogy. Inductive reasoning using
analogy is helpful in the study of law because it teaches students to apply
known case law to current cases. Using the principles of inductive reasoning
with analogy, the law student applies the rulings of one case to a new case-thus encouraging a judge and jury to make a similar ruling in the new case.

The Significance of Logic for Law By Prof. Douglas Lind

Ever since Justice Holmes asserted that [t]he life of the law has not
been logic: it has been experience, lawyers and judges in the United States
have minimized the importance of formal logic for understanding law and
legal reasoning. Many legal scholars and practitioners have feared that to
acknowledge that logic is central to law would risk a return to the
rationalistic excesses of the formalistic jurisprudences that dominated
nineteenth century legal thought. It was, after all, against that formalist
tradition that Holmes wrote. And it was in spirited opposition to that tradition
that members of the Legal Realist movement in America, as well as the Free
Law movement in Europe, directed much of their energies early in the
twentieth century.
There is good reason to remain skeptical of overly rationalistic
accounts of law and judicial practice. The weave of historical doctrine, legal
principle, and factual nuances that goes into each judicial decision is far too
intricate to permit critical appraisal under any single evaluative method,
including the principles of logic. So we are rightfully apprehensive when we
recollect the formalistic visions of nineteenth century jurists visions which
found the essence of adjudication in the logical derivation of conclusions
necessarily required by predetermined legal principles.
Yet it is somewhere between strict formalistic jurisprudence and an
outright disregard for logic and argumentative form where the law and
judicial practice really find repose. Though all that is typically repeated of
Justice Holmes view is the pithy remark quoted above, his jurisprudential
writings together with his judicial opinions show clearly that he never
intended to suggest that logic is not a central aspect of law or judicial
decision making. He, as well as the legal realists and other critics of legal
formalism, well recognized that evaluating and creating arguments lie at the
heart of the crafts of lawyering and judging.
It is thus worthwhile for practitioners and students of the law alike to
possess an understanding of the basic principles of logic that are used
regularly in legal reasoning and judicial decision making. This understanding
requires, in important part, skill in navigating the processes of inductive
reasoning the methods of analogy and inductive generalization by
which inferences are drawn on the basis of past experience and empirical
observation. The common law method of case law development, as well as
the general prescript often referred to as the Rule of Law that like cases
be decided alike are grounded logically in inductive reasoning.
Equally important is a second basic category of argumentation
deductive logic, especially the deductive argument forms known as
syllogisms. These are the classic forms of deductive argument consisting of

a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. It was this aspect of

logic that a century ago stirred such virulent opposition to formalism. And it
is this aspect of logic which was so severely downplayed throughout the
twentieth century. Yet even a rudimentary understanding of deductive logic
gives lawyers, judges, and students of the law a valuable tool for
determining whether an argument in a legal opinion or brief is valid or
fallacious.
In essence, the domain of the law and, within that domain, perhaps
most especially the practice of judicial decision making are exercises in
practical reasoning. Law, to be sure, involves more than logic. Yet the myriad
of factors that contribute to good lawyering and fair judging suggest that the
life of the law, while not logic alone, is a manifold of activities that all use
and depend upon reason in specialized ways. The precision of detail required
in the drafting of contracts, wills, trusts, and other legal documents is a
rational precision; the care in planning and strategizing demanded of trial
attorneys in deciding how to present their cases is a rational care; the skill in
written and oral argumentation required for appellate practice is, quite
obviously, a rational skill; the talent expected of administrative law judges in
crafting coherent findings of fact and conclusions of law is a rational talent;
and the ability of trial and appellate court judges to separate, dispassionately
and without bias, the kernel of argument from the rhetorical and emotive
chaff of adversarial presentation, so as to render judgments that are justified
under the law, is a rational ability.
While it is true that many other factors from self-interest to moral
values, from psychology to science enter into the decision making of
lawyers and judges, all such factors bear the ever-present tincture of reason
and logic. Trial attorneys may appeal to the psychology or sentiments of the
jury, but only so far as they reasonably expect to influence the jury to draw
rational inferences in their clients favor. Self-interest may be the sole driving
motive for each party in the drafting of a contract, yet the recognition,
grounded in reason, that insisting on onerous provisions will likely undermine
the entire contractual arrangement has the tendency to hold everyones selfinterest in check. And while adjudicative practice calls for a good deal of
value judgment in the choice, interpretation, and application of legal
principles, such value judgments are not free of the constraints of reason. As
stated by one appellate court, [E]very legal analysis should begin at the
point of reason, continue along a path of logic and arrive at a fundamentally
fair result. (Sunrise Lumber v. Johnson, Appeal No. 165). To criticize, reverse,
or overrule an administrative or judicial decision as arbitrary, capricious,
unsupported by law, or contrary to precedent is to say nothing more, but
nothing less, than that the decision is deficient in logic and reason.

Use Logic to Win Arguments: A Primer for Lawyers By Nana Lenz

Arguments are the primary tools of our trade and we cannot use them
effectively unless we understand and obey the rules of logic. Despite their
import, most students do not have an opportunity to study the principles of
logic in law school. I find this tragic and believe that logic should be a
required course for all law students.
In the meantime, lawyers and law students must take it upon
themselves to learn the principles of logic necessary to craft persuasive
arguments. In this post, I offer a basic primer on three tools of logic that are
particularly important in the practice of law: deductive reasoning, inductive
reasoning by generalization, and inductive reasoning by analogy.
Deductive reasoning. To underscore the importance of deductive
reasoning in law, Judge Aldisert outlines syllogisms from several watershed
Supreme Court opinions, including the following syllogism from Marbury v.
Madison:
The Judicial Departments province and duty is to say what the law
is.
The Supreme Court is the Judicial Department.
The Supreme Courts province and duty is to say what the law is.
As lawyers, we should ensure that all deductive arguments in our briefs
and memos are supported by sound syllogisms. The Judge offers the
following generic model, used by prosecutors in criminal cases, as a starting
point to create your own syllogisms:
[Doing something][violates the law.]
[The defendant][did something.]
[Therefore the defendant][violated the law.]
Syllogisms are tools to help you evaluate and tighten your legal
analysis. They are useful in outlining your arguments or deconstructing the
arguments of others. But to be logically sound, your arguments do not need
to be expressed through syllogisms. The truth of a premise may be so

obvious that writing the premise would make your writing tedious,
particularly given that we write for sophisticated audiences.
Inductive reasoning by generalization. When you cannot rely on
universals or settled law to provide a major premise to compel your
conclusion, you need to build your own major premise through inductive
reasoning. Inductive reasoning by generalization uses several specific facts
to create a theory that explains relationships between those facts and
supports your conclusion. The Judge offers the following example:
Plato was a man and Plato was mortal.
Julius Caeser was a man and Julius Caeser was mortal.
George Washington was a man and George Washington was mortal.
John Marshall was a man and John Marshall was mortal.
Therefore, all men are mortal.
To use inductive reasoning successfully, you need to ensure that your
supporting facts represent an appropriate sample size and are
representative. With inductive reasoning, you can never be certain that your
conclusion is true, but through your supporting facts, you should be able to
establish that your conclusion is highly probable.
Inductive reasoning by analogy. Another form of inductive reasoning
common in law is analogy, in which you make one-to-one comparisons and
draw similarities between two different things. Rather than reasoning from
the general to the specific (deductive reasoning) or from the specific to the
general (generalizations), analogy requires reasoning from the specific to the
specific.
Analogy is a common part of everyday life and legal practice. For
instance, I am a lawyer and I find Lawyerist to be useful to my practice, so I
assume other lawyers will find Lawyerist useful to their practice, as well. The
Judge offers the following formula for an analogy:
A has characteristic Y.
B has characteristic Y.
A also has characteristic Z.
Because A and B both have characteristic Y, we conclude that B also
shares characteristic Z.
To use analogy in law, the Judge suggests that you (1) establish
similarities between two cases; (2) announce the rule of law embedded in
the first case; and (3) apply the rule of law to the second case. Successful

analogy depends on the relevancy of the comparison. It is therefore

important to detail the similarities between the cases and to acknowledge
their differences. You must establish that the relevant similarities outweigh
the relevant differences and therefore the outcomes should be the same.

Logic and Law By Nicholas F. Lucas

There is, no doubt, an intimate relation between logic and law. This fact
is apparent from expressions we frequently hear after the trial of a wellcontested case where the best legal talent has been employed on both sides.
We often hear expressions as this: "The lawyer for the defense gave a very
logical argument to the jury." "The plaintiff's attorney introduced his
evidence in a logical manner." The purpose of this article is to show that
there is a relationship between Logic and Law, the influence of the one upon
the other, and that the aforementioned expressions are not groundless.
Before entering upon an article such as this, it is necessary first to give a
short outline of the scope and basis of logic.
Logic may be defined as the science of the principles and conditions of
correct thinking; or, in other words, the science which directs our mental
operations in the discovery and proof of truth. Logic is a science in the sense
that it is organized knowledge involving principles. The various sciences have
different fields for investigation, but all of them agree in their purpose, which
is the establishment of satisfactory information, bound together and
illuminated by laws. Thus, physics studies the most general characteristics of
the physical world and seeks to reduce to order and interpret the facts it
discovers; botany examines the structures, functions and histories of plants,
and psychology gives its attention to the behavior of creatures possessing
consciousness. All these sciences seek to replace the loose and hazy notions
of popular thought by exact and systematic knowledge. Logic has the same
purpose, but its field is peculiar. It can not be classed among the physical
sciences which depend upon perception and measurement, nor among the
biological sciences, nor, finally, among the social sciences. In a very real
sense modern logic presupposes all these sciences and is somehow a
science removed from things. It is a science about the mental aspect of the
sciences. The mediaval logicians pointed out that the mind first "intends" or
directs itself upon the external world, and that only afterwards does it direct

itself upon the mental processes and methods it has used. We may say that
logic involves a thinking about thinking.
Because man is naturally outward-looking and desirous of practical
results he is seldom clearly conscious of his methods and of MARQUETTE
LAW REVIEW the mental processes involved in thinking. It requires an effort
for him to take this new attitude and to think about thinking, about these
mental operations which make knowledge possible. But when he does so, he
finds that the mind does work in an orderly fashion. It is the nature of this
orderliness that logic seeks to bring into clear consciousness.
Hence the utility and necessity of logic. It would be a mistake to
imagine that, above and beyond what is called Natural Logic of sound
common sense, the study of the Science of Logic is absolutely necessary for
right reasoning. Men reasoned rightly before Aristotle ever formulated a
canon of logic. It was, in fact, by an analysis of such reasonings that he
discovered those canons; they could never have been discovered otherwise.
Here as elsewhere the art came before the science; theory followed practice.
A man may reason rightly without knowing a single rule of the syllogism; or
conversely know all the details of logic and be an indifferent guide to truth just as a first-rate geometrician may be a failure as an engineer. But still, just
as his knowledge of geometry will enable the geometrician to detect the
defects of a piece of engineering, so will an explicit knowledge of the canons
of reasoning enable us to discover more readily where the fallacy of a
misleading argument lies. Without professing to guard us infallibly from error,
logic familiarizes us with the rules and canons to which right reasoning
processes conform, and with the hidden fallacies and pitfalls to which such
processes are commonly exposed. Hence, one obvious benefit derivable from
a careful study of logic: a facility in detecting error in reasoning processes
and a consequent likelihood of avoiding such errors, and of thinking and
reasoning about difficult matters with clearness and consistency-a capacity
much rarer, even among educated people, than is commonly suspected.
But there is another - and perhaps greater- utility in the study of logic:
the advantage of the admirable mental discipline which the study of the
science indirectly and unconsciously involves. It is by this mental training
rather than by the explicit, positive knowledge of its technical rules, that
logic gives us the power and habit of thinking clearly. Probably more than
any other science, a careful study trains and develops the reasoning powers,
not merely the power of thinking consistently, but the power of discovering
the truth.

An eminent jurist of the Supreme Court of California, in his article on

the influence of Logic on Law said, "The logic referred to is the Aristotelian
logic and not the logic that is taught in our universities." In Aristotle's logic,
Demonstration as the clearly perfect means of reaching Science, is his
supreme concern. His view of logic is, therefore, not the narrower but the
wider view. He paid more attention, however, to the application of the
syllogisms to necessary matter of metaphysics and mathematics than to
contingent matter of physical and concrete social life. His theory, therefore,
has developed in the aftertime, especially by the scholastic philosophers of
the middle ages, tended towards a predominantly deductive and formal
treatment of our thought processes.
It must be owned that the subject of Induction received far less
attention than it deserved, but it is a mistake to assert, as so many English
textbooks on logic do, that Aristotle and the schoolmen knew nought of
inductive process save mere enumeration which they called "Perfect and
Imperfect Induction." This error seems to have arisen from the fact that the
most famous scholastics, Albertus Magnus (Albert the Great), St. Thomas,
Scotus and Roger Bacon, following the terminology of Aristotle, term our
scientific induction the argument from Experience. Induction for them had a
wider meaning. It remained for the later generation to restrict this term to its
present signification, when the physical sciences almost forced the logicians
to treat this topic more fully and thus brought about the chief, if not the only
advancement of the science of logic to the modem times. Although the logic
of induction has its place in all investigation of fact and evidence, yet its
principal application in Law concern the judge and the professor of law rather
than the lawyer and hence does not concern us here.
The influence of logic upon law arises from one fundamental fact, that
laws are not self-applicable - and a rule of law isolated from a world of fact is
no more than a speculative ghost. Principles "live, move and have their
being" as indicators of controlling facts.
Law, accurately speaking, is organized principle, and from a political
point of view, is the chart by which human action, in terms of fact is
regulated. Manifestly, the inertia of such a nonautomatic machine calls for a
force to give it vitality and action as well as a supplementary art of
manipulation. Such energy must be supplied by human life. Briefly, then, the
function of logical reasoning and the connection with the law is to secure the
efficient application of legal principles. Dr. Johnson's definition of lawyers, as
reported by Boswell, contains much of the meat of the matter. "Lawyers," he
says, "are a class of the community who by study and experience have

acquired the art and power of arranging evidence, and applying to the points
at issue what the law has settled." From what follows we will see how
accurate Dr. Johnson's definition is, and the art and power of arranging
evidence, and of applying to the points at issue what the law has settled, is
the ability to do this in a logical manner. In other words, it is the efficient
application of legal principles.
It is sometimes said that law is applied logic. Obviously this
epigrammatic statement has a foundation of truth, for the practice of law is
fundamentally argumentative. It deals with subjects in controversy, and its
primary aim is the settlement of disputes - sometimes by persuasive
methods out of court and sometimes in fiercely contested legal battles - in
either instance the instrument of reasoning playing a dominant part. And
first of all, the initial sine qua non to the process of correct reasoning and
argumentation is the proposal of a proposition. Argumentation is a process to
determine the truth or falsity of some relation. To do this successfully
requires that the particular relation be set out carefully for that purpose -it
must be clear, single and alone. The only known method of securing such a
result is to embody the relation in that formula of thought and language, that
is to affirm a given thing to belong to a given subject. This is known as a
proposition, or the outline of a mental operation. The Proposition is peculiarly
essential to law, since the very earliest attempts at judicial procedure in
England recognized the necessity of reducing a dispute to an issue which
was defined to be a Proposition affirmed on one side and denied on the
other.
Now, the results sought by the process of argumentation are either to
prove the truth or falsity of a given proposition, or with less absoluteness to
induce the mind to believe at least in its truth or falsity, or still less, merely
to accept the same on general principles. The first degree of impression
constitutes the effect of absolute certainty, the second moral certainty, while
the third amounts to some degree of probability only.
The forms of argument are, therefore, methods of adducing evidence,
and are valuable not only in- giving system and order to the compilation
process, but also because they become a means of discovering and
disclosure of evidence otherwise overlooked. One of the most important
forms is argument by deduction. Deductive logic is a mental operation the
lawyer must employ many times a day. Deduction is a movement of the mind
from an object as a whole to some point therein; a movement from the
general to the particular-; an inference from the all to anyone included within

the all. We are familiar with the axiom or law of thought, that two things that
are equal to the same thing are equal to each other.
For example, if we know the relation of A to X, and B to X, we can
discover the relation of A to B. Here, then, are the preliminary relations - A to
X and B to X - and thereupon the conclusion follows of the relation of A to B.
Obviously, therefore, in making this inference we will have three things to be
related, three relations resulting, and three propositions. The total
arrangement of these things, relations and propositions, in order to show
how the inference is thereby developed, is called a syllogism. The language
structure, whether it be composed of a single word, or words, a phrase,
clause, or a whole paragraph, in short, whatever taken together is necessary
to express the complete idea of the thing related, when used in a syllogism,
is called a "term". The first proposition, because it contains the larger term,
is named the Major Premise, or literally the larger principle laid down; the
second, because it contains a smaller term, is named the Minor Premise, or
the lesser statement laid down; while the third proposition, because it follows
from the Major and the Minor Premise, is named the Conclusion. The
following typical syllogism will illustrate this simple idea:
All men are mortal;
Socrates is a man;
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The three terms are Socrates, mortal and man. It is evident that
Socrates and mortal, the two terms brought in the conclusion, are
established in their relation by means of a third term to which both are
related. This is the mechanism of the syllogism -a process which plays a
large role in every argument before the court and jury, but which still fills a
more conspicuous function in its relation to the system of pleadings. Bliss, in
his authoritative work on Code Pleading, gives several pages to a discussion
of the importance of the syllogism in the relation to pleading, in which he
says, "Every statement of fact constituting a cause of action or a defense, is
but part of a logical formula."
To illustrate how true the above statement is, the following will show
how in succession the issues raised in legal controversies necessarily
arrange themselves into the frame work of a deductive syllogism:
Thus, suppose, in an action for trespass upon real property, the plaintiff
complains. Having looked up the general law governing trespass, we find the
statute or common law to be in substance as follows:

COMPLAINT.
i. Major Premise: Anyone, who forcibly and against the owner's will
enters upon the lands of another is guilty of trespass and is liable in
damages.
Concluding that this general rule covers his case, he therefore makes
out his pleading as follows:
2. Minor Premise and Complaint: The defendant did upon a certain day
and at a certain place, forcibly and against the will of the owner, enter upon
the plaintiff's land, etc.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, the plaintiff was injured and damaged in the
sum of X dollars (another way of saying that the defendant committed a
trespass to the damage of the plaintiff).
Now, in the above statements, there is exposed a complete syllogism
of which the first proposition constitutes the Major Premise or the general
rule of law; the second proposition constitutes the Minor Premise by alleging
certain facts to come within the rule; the third proposition draws the
conclusion which the judgment of the court may afterwards affirm or deny.
The plaintiff's complaint thus expresses the Major Premise by implication and
the Minor Premise by direct allegation and the conclusion by an indirect
allegation of damages and a prayer for judgment. Suppose that the
defendant, upon inspection of the above complaint, comes to the conclusion
that the facts as alleged do not come under the general rule of law, he
thereupon raises an issue of law, by demurring on the ground that the
complaint does not state a cause of action. What is the course of reasoning:
ANSWER
i. Major Premise: Any set of facts which does not come within the
general rule of law governing such facts is not actionable.
2. Minor Premise and Answer: This set of facts does not come within
the rule of law.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, this set of facts is not actionable. Or, suppose
again, that the defendant finds that the alleged facts do come within the
general rule of law, but that the so alleged facts are not true as alleged and
consequently he decides to deny their truthfulness and thus raises an issue
of fact. The reasoning will run as follows:

i. Major Premise: Alleged facts which are not true constitute no cause
of action.
2. Minor Premise: The defendant denies each and every allegation in
the plaintiff's complaint. Equivalent to- the facts are not true.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, there is no cause of action.
An action at law, as a whole, does not then merely constitute an
analogy to a syllogism, but is one, and is subject to all its rules and fallacies.
Deductive logic is the science of reasoning from a general rule to a particular
instance and the practice of law is precisely that- the application of a general
rule of law to a particular set of facts.
Correct pleading is, therefore, but little more than correct reasoning,
and since it is compelled by the nature of the mind to follow certain
immutable logical principles, a comprehensive knowledge of such principles
is indispensable.
We have doubtless said enough to show the necessity of a knowledge
of logic for the lawyer in his work where he must resort to argumentation. As
regards the other topics treated in logic, their utility is no less clear.
The Concept - the need of clear, precise ideas and exact terms - must
be evident to any reflecting mind.
Variations of language call for a knowledge of the various forms of the
syllogism.
Though the day of the professed Sophist is past, yet even among
lawyers there will not be wanting men, who for a consideration will endeavor
to make the "Weaker cause appear the better." Hence the advantage of the
study of common fallacies -the hidden violation of logical rules or principles,
which might deceive the unwary. The old fallacious Dilemma, "Litigiosus,"
may find its counterpart today. It is related that Protagoras, the Sophist,
agreed to train one Euathlus in the art of rhetoric, the condition being that
only half the fee should be paid at the time, the payment of the remainder
was to depend on Euathlus's success in his first lawsuit. Should he fail, the
fee was to be forfeited. Euathlus delayed in undertaking any suit, and
eventually Protagoras himself summoned him before the court. He urged the
following dilemma against him:

If this case is decided in my favor, you must pay me by order of

the court; if it is decided in your favor, you must pay me under the
terms of our agreement.
But it must be decided either in my favor or in your favor.
Therefore, you are in any case bound to-pay me.
This argument was met by Euathlus as follows:
If the case is decided in your favor, I am free by the terms of the
agreement; if it is decided in my favor, I am free by order of the court.
But it must be either decided in your favor, or in my favor.
Therefore, I am in any case discharged of my debt.
The old judges of Greece, we are told, left the case undecided; but to
one who has studied logic to advantage, the fallacy of the arguments of both
contestants is self-evident.

The Application of LOGIC in my course, BSBA

Legal Management & in
the field of Law

The Application of LOGIC in my Course from a 3rd Year

Legal Management Students Point of View
Correct me if Im wrong, but I am quite certain to say that whichever
course or field of study we choose to major in, it undeniably requires the
application of logic. In my case, as a 3 rd year Legal Management student, I
can surely say that Logic is present in most, if not all, of the subjects that I
am taking especially in my law subjects.
Making this paper requirement brings back the memory of the moment
I decided to take up Legal Management. I remembered thinking back then,
Oh, this is a pre-law course which means all I have to do is memorize codals
and provisions and Republic Acts and Im good to go but fast forward to
Second Year when I found out that this course is not just all that. Me and my
fellow LM students are expected to master the Art of Case Digestion and
this is where Logic comes in.
In legal writing, it is not enough that I simply know the facts of the
cases I am going to digest. It is necessary to fully understand each fact so
that I may be able to stitch those facts together to make into a much more
understandable and less complex piece of writing. Logic, which the proper
way of thinking about or understanding something, is very much present in
that case.
After writing the facts, the next step to determine the issue/s present
in the case. This might be the easiest part of case digestion because the
issue is basically the reason why the petitioner filed a case in the first place.
Despite being the least difficult part, determining the issue/s of the case,
still, requires logic since without full understanding of the facts, the person
whos digesting the cases might be mislead and point out an issue which is
not relevant to the case that will only make case digestion complicated.
The final yet the most important part of digesting cases is writing the
Ruling of the Court. This is the part where Logic is needed the most since this
is where the decision is stated. Whenever I digest cases, I have to read the
case more than once to make sure that I truly understand the Ruling. Without
full understanding, it is impossible to understand the reason why the court
settled on with such decision. A little wrong understanding of the writer of
the case digest might cause a great confusion to the reader. And that is why
logic must, at all times, be present in every part of case digestion.
...

Probably the most obvious application of logic in my course is during

our recitation. I would be a liar if I will tell you that I master all the reading
assignments I am assigned to read. But whenever I am called on to recite, I
have to muster all the memory I have of every single thing that I have read
from the reading assignment. Our attorney-professors usually let us recite
cases and ask us what has been the Ruling of the Court for such case. Sadly,
there will always come a point when my memory just simple blacks out and
abandon me on my time of desperate need. When this happens, logical
thinking comes to the rescue. All I do is forget all thats written in the case
digest I wrote beforehand and simply understand the case at hand. I will
again state in my mind the facts of the cases and from my own logical
thinking, think of how the Court will handle such case and make a decision.
Logic is also evident during our debates. There will come times when
we get assigned to a topic which we dont fully understand or we are not
really in favor of. But for the sake of attaining unbiased information, we have
to think critically and reason out with all our might regardless of what we
personally believe in. Our opponents would sometimes score with extremely
agreeable reasons and its up to us to work our minds to defend the topic we
are upholding. It really is a fun experience to truly work our minds together
and bring out even the most unexpected reasons that we didnt really know
we could think of.
True enough, logic is applied in basically all part of my course as my
course really requires critical thinking. I could go on and on about the
application of logic in Legal Management. As the semesters go by and I study
more, I look forward to working my mind even more and be better at
reasoning which will mold me to being a great professional in the field I have
chosen.