Legal Technique and Logic

INFORMAL/PRACTICAL REASONING

OBJECTIVES
Informal Reasoning Concept Distinction from Formal Logic Tolmiens Model of Reasoning Essential Three Parts Claim, Support & Warrant Other Parts Backing, Rebuttal & Qualifier Fallacies Fallacies of Ambiguity Fallacies of Relevance Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence Practical Exercise / Case Analysis

Concept of Informal Reasoning

Informal logic has yet to come together as a clearly defined discipline, one organized around some well-defined and agreed upon systematic techniques that have a definite structure and can be decisively applied by users.

Concept of Informal Reasoning

It is the attempt to formulate, to test, to clarify, and to systematize concepts and principles for the interpretation, the evaluation, and the sound practice of reasoning. Informal logic is an attempt to develop a logic that can assess and analyze the arguments that occur in natural language discourse.

Concept of Informal Reasoning

Common Misconceptions It is philosophical analysis too broad! It is merely a study of informal fallacies too restrictive! It is formal logic without the formality no, where formalism illuminates, informal logic employs it! It only mediates between formal logic and reasoning in the natural language no, it tackles implications that are not entailments, and other aspects of argument analysis and evaluation that are not amenable to such formal treatment.

Concept of Informal Reasoning

Concept of Informal Reasoning

Premise 1: If a man holds the hand of another man, then he is gay. Premise 2: Her husband is holding the hand of another man. Conclusion: Her husband is gay.

Distinction from Formal Logic

Formal logic is a step by step progression from premise to conclusion. Informal logic assumes a body of knowledge and premises the argument from that body of knowledge. i.e. it proceeds stepwise from stipulation to conclusion. Formal logic tells us that this argument is valid, in virtue of being an instance of a general schematic form. Informal logic, on the other hand, could rather conclude that this argument lacks relevance or is informally fallacious or invalid, as it would be frowned upon in a specific debate.

Distinction from Formal Logic

Formal logic looks at the schematic structure of the argument and its validity. Informal logic looks at the content of the propositions in the argument, determining its validity given the current set of facts.
All handsome people are actually angels from heaven. I am handsome. Therefore, I am an angel from heaven. (valid but not sound)

All law students are graduates of a college course. No graduate of a college course is below 15 years of age. Therefore, no law student is below 15 years of age. (valid and sound)

Toulmins Model of Reasoning

Toulmins Model of Reasoning

AHey B! If youre not married before the normal marrying age of 20, then you are not normal. Hmph! You are normal. I dont want to be you. Therefore, I dont want to be normal.

B-

Toulmins Model of Reasoning

Why Limited practical value of the absolutism of formal logic, and radical uncertainty of relativism How Identify the basic parts of the argument What For To identify and analyze sources by identifying the basic elements of the arguments being made To test and critique the argument

Toulmins Model of Reasoning

A is a married woman while B is single. AHey B! If youre not married before the normal marrying age of 20, then you are not normal.

B-

Hmph! You are normal. I dont want to be you. Therefore, I dont want to be normal.

Toulmins Model of Reasoning

AHey B! There are so many women here who get married by the age of 20 that a lot of people pester us to find ourselves husbands . And since everyone is so keen to marry us off, we are forced to reevaluate our lives if we go past that age and are still single (like yourself).

Toulmins Model of Reasoning

Toulmins Model of Reasoning

Claim the conclusion; the position being argued for Data the supporting evidence to back up the claim Warrant the principle, provision or chain of reasoning that connects the data to the claim

Toulmins Model of Reasoning

Claim we are forced to re-consider our lives if we go past the age of 20 and are still single. Data there are so many women who get married by the age of 20; the majority, in fact. Warrant you care about how the community values the norm of women getting married by the time they are 20.

Toulmins Model of Reasoning

Qualifier a statement of how strong your claim is by acknowledging its limits or conditions, if there are any Rebuttal exceptions to the claim; description and rebuttal of counter-examples and counter-arguments. Backing support, justification, reasons to back up the warrant.

Toulmins Model of Reasoning

Qualifier Bs re-evaluation of her life is the most important activity she can do to stop being pressured. Rebuttal There are people who are careeroriented and have planned beforehand to marry late; thus, re-evaluation is not needed. Backing Your parents will be ridiculed by your community if you dont consider marrying soon. Also, you will die an old maid.

Toulmins Model of Reasoning

Informal Fallacies
These are patterns of reasoning that are obviously incorrect for reasons other than a flaw in the structure of the argument. Sometimes, even if the premises are true, it does not follow with 100% certainty that their conclusions is true. Even a good inductive argument with true premises might have a false conclusion; that the argument is a good one and that its premises are true only establishes that its conclusion is probably true.

The study helps to determine when a valid argument that is not sound is accepted as sound. Only when an argument is also sound is it 'true' according to some fact of knowledge acceptable to all.

Fallacies of Ambiguity
B would not want to marry if she loves women. B loves women. Therefore, B would not want to marry.

Fallacies of Ambiguity
Arguments that make use of a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth. They contain ambiguous words or phrases, whose meanings shift and change more or less subtly in the course of the argument and thus render it fallacious

Fallacies of Ambiguity
Fallacy of Equivocation It is committed when a key word or phrase is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument. Love of women could mean different things: - Eros, or romantic love - Phileo, or love between friends or people who share a common interest, belief, etc. The use of the word love subtly changes over the course of the argument.

Fallacies of Ambiguity
Fallacy of Amphiboly This occurs when the arguer misinterprets a statement that is ambiguous owing to some structural defect and proceeds to draw a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation.

Mrs. A said that she will make an effort to go around the community to stress the need for the early marriage of women. It follows that the community has a number of women who need to be encouraged to marry early.
Differences from Equivocation: (1) source of ambiguity and (2) the mistake of the author vs. the intent of the author

Fallacies of Ambiguity
Fallacy of Division The exact reverse of composition, division goes from whole to parts. It is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of a characteristic from a whole onto parts. Humanity is the most intelligent of all living things. Every human is the most intelligent compared to all non-human living thing. Congress voted in favor of the bill. Therefore, each member of congress voted in favor of the bill.

Fallacies of Ambiguity
Fallacy of Composition This occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a certain characteristic, it follows that the whole has the characteristic, too, and the situation is such that the characteristic in question cannot be legitimately transferred from the parts to the whole. Every person in the community can sing beautifully. Therefore, the community can sing beautifully. A prick of a needle is tolerable. Therefore, to be pricked by a million needles is likewise tolerable.

Fallacies of Ambiguity
Fallacy of Accent This occurs when the arguer illegitimately stresses one or more words in the given statement and then proceeds to draw a conclusion based on the resultant interpretation. It arises from the mistaken interpretation of a statement but the mistake is due to the ambiguity in the way the statement is spoken. B said that (she) does not (want to marry) (her) (boyfriend) (within this week).

B could mean that: (1) Somebody else wants to marry her boyfriend, (2) She just wants things to stay as is, (3) She wants to marry someone elses, (4) She wants to marry someone not her boyfriend, or (5) She wants to marry but at a later time.

Fallacies of Relevance
These are attempts to prove a conclusion by offering considerations that simply dont bear on its truth. Arguments that commit fallacies of relevance do not offer relevant supporting evidence; the considerations that they offer in support of their conclusion are irrelevant to determining whether that conclusion is true. The considerations offered by such are usually persuasive, however, even if they dont have any evidential value.

Fallacies of Relevance
Ad Hominem / Genetic Fallacy It attempts to discredit a point of view by discrediting the person or source that holds it. The character of the person or source that holds a view, though, entails nothing about the truth of that view. Bandwagon Fallacy It is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. The arguer takes the mere fact that an idea suddenly attracting adherents as a reason for the listener to join in with the trend and become an adherent of the idea himself. Fallacists Fallacy It involves rejecting an idea as false simply because the argument offered for it is fallacious. Having examined the case for a particular point of view, and found it wanting, it can be tempting to conclude that the point of view is false. This, however, would be to go beyond the evidence.

Fallacies of Relevance
Gamblers Fallacy It is assuming that short-term deviations from probability will be corrected in the long-term. Moralistic Fallacy It moves from statements about how things ought to be to statements about how things are; it assumes that the world is as it should be.

Naturalistic Fallacy Opposite of the moralistic fallacy, it moves from descriptions of how things are to statements of how things ought to be

Fallacies of Relevance
Irrelevant Appeals These are attempts to sway the listener with information that, though persuasive, is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Some of the types are appeals to: Antiquity or Tradition, Authority, Consequences, Force, Novelty, Pity, Emotion, Popularity, Poverty, and Wealth. (consequences) B does not believe in marrying early; stating that if she did, then she would be depressed for being single for so long. (wealth) A told B that since Bs aunt is already rich, then it is easier for the aunt to bear her being single compared to B.

Fallacies of Relevance
Red Herring Fallacy It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. Weak Analogy Fallacy An argument by analogy is only as strong as the comparison on which it rests. It is committed when the comparison is not strong enough.

Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

These are cases where the proof or evidence provided in support of a claim are not enough to justify it, and that such lack is disguised by sweeping generalization or by withholding its limitations altogether.

Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

Fallacy of Exclusion Leaving out evidence that would lead to a different conclusion is called the fallacy of exclusion.
A tells B that since 2008, majority of the women in the community have been marrying early. Therefore, early marriage is espoused by it. (excluded: from 1900 to 2007, women have married late)

Fallacy of Oversimplification In this fallacy, in which the relationship of causation between events is misconstrued by either exaggerating the effect or reducing the effect to the point that it no longer reflects the genuine nature of that relationship.
B argues that since A has started to pester her to marry, she has been having identity and self-esteem issues.

Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

Fallacy of Exclusion A hasty generalization bases a conclusion on too little evidence.
A tells B that more women married early this year than last year. It follows that her advice to B is becoming more accepted.

Appeal to Ignorance It asserts a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true.
B tells A that a Mr. Right who is perfect for her does not exist because his existence has not been proven.

Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

Slippery Slope Fallacy
It asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.
B tells A that she cant follow As advice to marry early. If she did, A would then pressure B to have 12 children. The next thing she knows, A will dictate in what schools Bs future children will study in.

Practical Exercises

Practical Exercise
Claim Data Warrant Qualifier Rebuttal Fernando Poe, Jr. is a Filipino citizen and is eligible to run for the presidency. His father was covered by the en masse Filipinization of 1902. Section 1, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution The same holds true even for illegitimate children of a Filipino parent as long as filiation is established. There is no proof that his father was in the Philippines during that time. The prevailing jurisprudence is that citizenship is inherited from Filipino parent/s, not where you were born.

Backing

References
Maurice A. Finocchiaro, Informal Logic and the Theory of Reasoning, University of Nevada, 1984 Ralph W. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair, Informal Logic: An Overview, University of Windsor, 2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/#Two http://rstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/11/getting -qed-part-1/ http://owlet.letu.edu/contenthtml/research/toulmin.html http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~digger/305/toulmin_model.htm http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logic/informal-logic/ http://www.artofmanliness.com/2011/05/26/classical-rhetoric-101-logical-fallacies/ http://online.santarosa.edu/homepage/bgear/FALLACYLIST.htm http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06a.htm http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ Basic Instructions comic by Scott Meyer Calvin and Hobbes comic by Bill Waterson