Magallanes, Van John C.
Legal Logic
2017-0481
LOGIC
The study of principles and methods
of good reasoning. It is a science of reasoning
which aims to determine and lay diwn the
criteria of good (correct reasoning and bad
(incorrect) reasoning.
LEGAL REASONING
Legal reasoning, like any kind of
reasoning, is expressed through arguments,
and it is with arguments, that logic is chiefly
concerned. Thus, it is important in this
introductory chapter to discuss the
fundamental notion of argument, its basic
elements and structures, and what makes it
distinct from another verbal utterances and
expressions.
ARGUMENT
Argument is a claim put forward and
defended with reasons.
To be more precise, an argument is a
group of statements in which one statement is
claimed to be true on the basis of another
statement/s.
BURDEN OF PROOF
The duty of any party to present
evidence to establish his claim or defense by
the amount of evidence required by law,
which is preponderance of evidence in civil
case. Basic is the rule in evidence that the
burden of proof lies upon him who asserts it,
not upon him who denies, since by the nature
of things, he who denies a fact cannot
produce any proof of it.
EVIDENCE
Monday/Thursday, 5:30-8:30 pm
Evidence is the means sanctioned by the
Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a
judicial proceeding the truth respecting a
matter of fact.
ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCE
Evidence is deemed admissible if it is
relevant to the issue and more importantly, if
it is not excluded by provision of law or by
the Rules of Court. As to relevance, such
evidence must have such a relation to the fact
in issue as to induce belief in its existence or
non-existence. Evidence to be believed must
proceed not only from the mouth of a credible
witness but must be credible in itself as to
hurdle the test of conformity with the
knowledge and common experience of
mankind.
TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES
Testimony is generally confined to
personal knowledge; and therefore excludes
hearsay. Thus, a witness can testify only to
those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge which are derived from his own
perception, except as otherwise provided
under the Rules of Court.
EXPERT TESIMONY
Expert testimony refers to statements
made by individuals who are considered as
experts in a particular field.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY THE
PROPONENT
 Refers to the examination-in-chief of
a witness by the party presenting him on the
facts relevant to the issue.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE
OPPONENT
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 sufficient fullness
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 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 matters stated in his
re-direct examination, and also on such other
matters as may be allowed by the court in its
discretion.
DEPENDENCE ON PRECEDENTS
“Stare decisis et non quieta movere”.
This is bedrock of what we now refer to as
precedents.
It is a general rule that, when a point
has been settled by a decision, it becomes a
precedent which should be follwed in
subsequent cases before the same court.
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS ET
NON QUIETA MOVERE
When a court has once laid down a
principle, and apply it to all future cases,
where facts are substantially the same,
regardless of whether the parties and
properties are the same. Follow past
precedents and do not disturb what has been
settled. Matters already decided on the merits
cannot be subject of litigation again.
It is based on the principle that once a
question of law has been examined and
decided, it should deemed settled and closed
to further argument.
LEGIS INTERPRETADO LEGIS VIM
OBTINET
The interpretation placed upon the
written law by a competent court has a force
of law.
The interpretation or construction
placed by the courts establishes the
contemporaneous legislative intent of the
law.
DEDUCTIVE REASONING
When appellate courts, for instance,
would determine whether the correct rules of
law were applied to the given facts or whether
the rules of evidence were properly applied in
establishing the facts, they employ deductive
reasoning.
INDUCTIVE REASONING
In cases when we want to determine
the facts of the case and to establish them
through causal arguments, probability or
scientific methods, the reasoning chiefly
relied upon is inductive.
SYLLOGISM
A syllogism is a three-line argument
– that is, an argument that consists of exactly
two premises and a conclusion.
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
A categorical syllogism is a syllogism
composed of categorical statements alone.
A categorical statement is a statement
that directly asserts something or states a fact
without any conditions. Its subject is simply
affirmed or denied by the predicate.
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
A hypothetical syllogism includes
both categorical and hypothetical statements.
A hypothetical statement is a
compound statement which contains a
proposed or tentative explanation. A
compound statement consists of at least two
clauses connected by conjunctions, adverbs,
etc., which express the relationship between
the classes as well as our assent to it.
UNIVERSAL STATEMENT
The statement is universal when what
is being affirmed or denied of the subject
term is its whole extension
PARTICULAR STATEMENT
The statement is particular when what
is being affirmed or denied of the subject is
just a part of its extension.
MINOR TERM (S)
The subject of the conclusion.
MAJOR TERM (P)
The predicate of the conclusion.
MIDDLE TERM (M)
The term found both in the premises
and serves to mediate between the minor and
the major terms.
MINOR PREMISE
The premise which contains the
minor term.
MAJOR PREMISE
The premise which contains the major
term.
CONCLUSION
The statement the premises support.
CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISMS
The conditional syllogism is a
syllogism in which the major premise is a
conditional statement.
CONDITIONAL STATEMENT
A conditional statement is a
compound statement which asserts that one
member (the then clause) is true on condition
that the other member (the if clause) is true.
POLYSYLLOGISMS
The polysyllogism is a series of
syllogisms in which the conclusion of one
syllogism supplies a premise of the next
syllogism.
INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION
Inductive generalization is an
argument that relies on characteristics of a
sample population to make a claim about the
population as a whole.
ANALOGY
Analogy is a comparison of things
based on similarities those things share.
FORMAL FALLACIES
Formal fallacies are found only in
deductive arguments that have identified
forms.
INFORMAL FALLACIES
Informal fallacies are those that can
be detected only through analysis of the
content on the argument.
EQUIVOCATION
A fallacy that consists in leading an
opponent to an unwarranted conclusion by
using a term in its different senses and
making it appear to have only one meaning.
AMPHIBOLY
A fallacy that consists in presenting a
claim or argument whose meaning can be
interpreted in two or more ways due to its
grammatical construction.
IMPROPER ACCENT
A fallacy that consists in misleading
people by placing improper emphasis on a
word, phrase or particular aspect of an issue.
VICIOUS ABSTRACTION
This fallacy consists in misleading the
people by using vague or abstract terms. This
fallacy occurs when vague words are
misused.
COMPOSITION
This fallacy consists in wrongly
inferring that what holds true of the
individuals automatically holds true of the
group made up of those individuals.
DIVISION
This fallacy consists in wrongly
assuming that what is true in general is true
in particular. This is reverse fallacy of
composition.
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
(PERSONAL ATTACK)
This fallacy ignores the issue by
focusing on certain personal characteristics
of an opponent
ABUSIVE ARGUMENTUM AD
HOMINEM
This fallacy attacks the argument
based on the arguer’s reputation, personality
or some personal shortcoming.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL ARGUMENTUM
AD HOMINEM
This fallacy consists in defending
one’s position by accusing his or her critic or
other people of doing the same thing.
ARGUMENTUM AD
MISCRICORDIAM (APPEAL TO PITY)
The appeal to pity is familiar in many
trials, whether they are civil or criminal. The
judge is persuaded to accept an argument not
for its strength but because of the counsel’s
emotional appeal to pity.
ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM
(APPEAL TO FORCE)
This appeal consists in persuading
others to accept a position by using threat or
pressure instead of presenting evidence for
one’s view.
PETITIO PRINCIPII (BEGGING THE
QUESTION)
Some arguments are designed to
persuade people by means of the wording of
one of its premises.