Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
UGAY, STEPHANIE RUTH L.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC
2
UGAY, STEPHANIE RUTH L.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC
3
UGAY, STEPHANIE RUTH L.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC
4
UGAY, STEPHANIE RUTH L.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC
CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5
Inductive Arguments Fallacy
- Arguments in which the premises are - A mistake of error in thinking and
intended to provide support, but not reasoning
conclusive evidence, for the conclusion - Two kinds:
1. Formal
Inductive Generalizations ➢ Those that may be identified
- An argument that relies on characteristics through mere inspection of the
of a sample population to make a claim form and structure of an
about the population as a whole argument
➢ Found only in deductive
Evaluating Inductive Generalizations arguments that have identifiable
forms
- Two important questions:
2. Informal
1. Is the sample large enough?
➢ Those that can be detected only
• Converse Accident through analysis of the content of
(Hasty Generalization) the argument
➢ Occurs when a person ➢ 3 categories:
erroneously creates a general i. Fallacies of ambiguity
rule from observing too few a. Committed because
cases of misuse of
2. Is the sample representative? language
• Random Sample b. Contains ambiguous
➢ One in which all members of the or vague language
target have an equal opportunity used to mislead
to be in the sample people
Note: Inductive generalizations should not ii. Fallacies of irrelevant
overstate their conclusions evidence
a. Occur because the
Analogical Arguments premises are not
logically relevant to
- Claim that certain similarities are
the conclusion
evidence that there is another similarity
b. Premises area
or similarities
psychologically
Analogy irrelevant, so the
conclusion may
- A comparison of things based on seem to follow from
similarities those things share the premises
although it does not
Analogical Reasoning
follow logically
- Three step process: iii. Fallacies of insufficient
1. Establish similarities between two evidence
cases a. Occur because the
2. Announce the rule of law embedded premises fail to
in the first case provide evidence
3. Apply the rule of law in the second strong enough to
case support the
- Acts as basis for circumstantial evidence conclusion
• Sufficient for conviction if:
Fallacies of Ambiguity
a. There is more than one
circumstance Equivocation
b. The facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven - Consists in leading an opponent to an
c. The combination of all the unwarranted conclusion by using a term
circumstances is such as to in its different senses and making it
produce a conviction beyond appear to have only one meaning
reasonable doubt - Ambiguity comes from changing
meanings of the word
Evaluating Analogical Arguments
Amphiboly
- Two Criterion
1. Relevance of similarities - Consists in presenting a claim or
2. Relevant dissimilarities argument whose meaning can be
interpreted in tow or more ways due to its
grammatical construction
- Ambiguity comes from the way the
sentence is constructed
5
UGAY, STEPHANIE RUTH L.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC
6
UGAY, STEPHANIE RUTH L.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC
7
UGAY, STEPHANIE RUTH L.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC