You are on page 1of 31

LEGAL LOGIC

Logic derived from the Greek word


logike or logos which means
argument, idea, possessed of reason.
- Study of the principles of valid
demonstration and inferences.
Argumentation theory Study of
logic as they relate to every day and
practical situation.

Logic is the lifeblood of law.


In case after case, prosecutors, defense
counsel, civil attorneys, and judges call
upon the rules of logic to structure
their arguments, law professors, for
their part, demand that students
defend their comments with coherent,
identifiable logic.
Our modest claim is that a person
familiar with the basics of logical
thinking is more likely to argue
effectively than one who is not.

THE ELEMENTS OF
REASONING
I. Words - The smallest units of meaningful,
natural language are words.
II. SENTENCE/STATEMENT
III. ARGUMENTS
A group of statements some of which, called the
premises, purport to provide support for the truth
of a controversial statement called the conclusion.

IV. JUDGMENT/REASONING
Act of making statement: in logic, the mental act
of making or understanding a positive or negative
proposition about something
It is generally expressed in declarative statement
ANDsometimes in exclamatory sentence.

WORD
Words vs. Term
Word has a general meaning than term. The
later is used to mean special words in
particular fields or subjects.
The Reference of word ( what the word
refers to) - is the range of application of
the word or the class of all things that the
word applies to.
The Meaning of a word is the cognitive
significance conveyed by word. It is
captured by conveying the class of all the
characteristics that are shared by the things
that are in the extension of word.

WORD: MEANING AND


DEFINITION
To define a word is to provide another word or
group of words that captures what we do or should
understand by w0rd.
Kinds of Definitions:
1. Reportive (lexical) defining the word by
explaining how it is used in the language. It reports
the ordinary meaning of word.
2. Stipulative it is useful when a brand new term
was introduced to our vocabulary, and stipulate
that from this point on, the word will have special
meaning. It is common in the law. The legislature is
free to stipulate at will how they understand the
term. It is a tool for convenience.

3. Prcising to take an ordinary word


that has: a) well-established usage,
b) BUT a fuzzy range of applicability
and specify that in the context the
word will be understood to mean
precisely what we say it will mean.
example: death has different
definition if applied to law on
euthanasia and abortion.

SENTENCE, LANGUAGE
USES

Not all kinds of sentences have a truth value.


(eg. Question, command, apology, joke etc.)
CLAIM or STATEMENT
A sentence about which it makes sense to ask
whether it is true or false. It has a truth value.
It is the stuff of logic, the focus of attention
in reasoning.
KINDS OF STATEMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.

NECESSARY vs. CONTINGENT


NORMATIVE vs. DESCRIPTIVE
SINGULAR VS. CATEGORICAL
SIMPLE vs. COMPOUND

NECESSARY vs.
CONTINGENT
NECESSARY
STATEMENT

CONTINGENT
STATEMENT

Whose truth value depends on Statements whose truth value


language and logic alone.
depends upon facts about the
word
It does not convey any new
information

It is informative

Must be either always true or


always false.
A. Tautology a
necessary statement that is
always true.
B. Contradiction a
necessary statement that is
always false.

May be true or may


be false

Ex. Either Renato Puno is a

Ex. Renato Puno is a

NORMATIVE vs.
DESCRIPTIVE
NORMATIVE
STATEMENT
It does not convey any
information about how
things are but rather
prescribes how things
ought to be.
Ex. People ought to
obey the laws.

DESCRIPTIVE
STATEMENT
It describes or tells us
truly or falsely about
something or the world.

Ex. Sometimes people


disobey the law.

SINGULAR vs.
CATEGORICAL
SINGULAR
CATEGORICAL
STATEMENT

STATEMENT

Statements which are


about a single thing or
situation.

Statements which are about


classes or categories of things or
situation. They assert that a
particular class is either in part or
as a whole related to another
class.

Ex. 1. The SC rules on


the constitutionality of
statutes.
2. ERAP has been
found guilty of Plunder.
3. The death penalty
is cruel and unusual
punishment.

Ex. 1. All judges are Filipino


Citizens. (pattern All S are P)
total inclusion
2. No foreign nationals are
eligible to serve as president. (No
S are P) total exclusion
3. Some decisions of the
Supreme Court are controversial.
(Some S are P) partial inclusion
4. Some lawyers are not UB
graduates. (Some S are not P)

SIMPLE vs. COMPOUND


SIMPLE
STATEMENT
It does not contain any
other statement as a
component.

COMPOUND
STATEMENT
It contains at least one
simple statement as a
component.

Ex. GMAs impeachment Ex. GMA is the president


proceedings were
and KABAYAN is the
closely monitored by
vice-president.
many people.

TRUTH-FUNCTIONAL COMPOUNDS

KINDS OF COMPOUNDS
I. CONJUNCTIONS
These are formed with the word and 0r one of its
cognates (but, although, also, yet, however etc).
RULE:
For any 2 statements A and B, the conjunction A
and B is true when and only when both component
statement A, B are true. Otherwise it is false.
A and B are placeholders which represent any
statement.
Ex. Pedro was found guilty in the criminal trial of physical
injuries and he was held liable in the civil trial to pay the
damages resulted therein.

TRUTH-FUNCTIONAL
COMPOUNDS
II. DISJUNCTION
These are formed with the word or and one of its
cognates (either, unless).
RULE:
For any 2 statements A and B, the disjunction A or
B, is false when and only when both component
statements A,B are false. Otherwise it is true.
Inclusive Disjunction this or that and perhaps
both
Exclusive Disjunction this or that but not both

Ex. 1. Either Atty. A cross-examined the


witness or Atty. B cross-examined the witness.
2. Guilty or not guilty.

TRUTH-FUNCTIONAL
COMPOUND
III. CONDITIONALS
These are formed with the form If _____, then
_______. where the blanks are filled by simple
statements.
The 1st blank is called the antecedent and the 2nd
blank is called the consequent of a conditional.
RULE:
For any 2 statements A and B, the conditional If
A then B is false when and only when the
antecedent is true and the consequent is false.
Otherwise it is true.
Ex. If Pedro marries again, then he will have a
spouse.

TRUTH-FUNCTIONAL
COMPOUND
IV. BICONDITIONALS
These are also called equivalence, and
they are formed with the expression if and
only if.
RULE:
For any 2 statements A and B, the
biconditional A if and only if B is true when
both A and B have the same truth value.
Ex. Pedro is a criminal if and only if he
committed a crime.

TRUTH-FUNCTIONAL
COMPOUND
V. NEGATION
The truth value of a negative statement depends
on the truth value of the affirmative statement.
It is formed with the word not, it is not the
case that, or it is false that.
It is also formed with the expression
neither.nor. (negation of a disjunction)
RULE:
If the statement A is true, then not A is false,
and if A is false then its negation not A is true.
Ex. Neither X will be arrested nor Y will be
arrested.

A
B
T

SUMMARY OF TRUTH
CONDITIONS FOR
COMPOUNDS
A and
B

(Conjunctio
n)

A or
B

(Disjunctio
n)

If A
A if and
then B only if B
(Conditional
s)

(Biconditionals)

A/B
then
not A/B
(Negation)

T
F
T
T
F
F
F

RELATIONS OF
STATEMENTS
A. EQUIVALENCES
RULE: Two statements are equivalent if
they have exactly the same truth value.
PATTERNS:
1. If A then B is EQ to If not A then
not B
2. If A then B is EQ to Not B unless A
3. If A then B is EQ to It is not the
case that
A and not B
Ex. If Pedro committed the crime then he will
go to prison.

RELATIONS OF
STATEMENTS
B. CONTRADICTIONS
RULE: Two statements are contradictory
if they have exactly opposite truth
values.
PATTERNS:
1. Any statement A and its negation not A.
2. All S are P and Some S are not P.
3. No S are P and Some S are P.

RELATIONS OF
STATEMENTS
C. CONTRARIES
RULE: Two statements are contraries if
they cannot be true, yet they may
both be false.
Example:
1. JR is the single murderer of Juan.
RJ is the single murderer of Juan.
2. A is a better lawyer than B.
B is a better lawyer than A.
3. All murderers get the death sentence.
No murderer gets the death sentence.

III. ARGUMENTS
A group of statements some of which, called
the premises, purport to provide support for
the truth of a controversial statement called
the conclusion.

ARGUMENTS IN LOGIC
Not every group of statements is an
argument.
Requirements:
1. Premise/s a claim that is uncontroversial,
and which is offered as a supporting reason
for the truth of the conclusion.
2. conclusion a claim that is controversial
enough to need justification.

Pattern:
A. Epichreme a complete argument
All men are mortal. - premise 1 (major
premise)
Socrates is a man. premise 2 (minor
premise)
Thus, Socrates is mortal. - conclusion

B. ENTHYMEMES
Also called as incomplete arguments because
some premise/s or even the conclusion is missing.
The order of statements is not always that the
premises appear first and the conclusion last.
Ex. Juan should be in prison, since he murdered
Maria.
The missing premise is Murderers should be in
prison.
Arguments are sometimes expressed in this way
because the speaker believes that the missing
part is so obvious that the audience will readily
supply it on their own.

Conclusion and premise indicators


Conclusion indicators: therefore, hence,
thus, so, consequently, it follows that,
accordingly, as a result, we may infer that,
for this reason, it is entailed that.
Premise indicators: since, because, for,
as, given that, inasmuch as, follows from,
for the reason that, in view of the fact
that.
These indicators are usually reliable but
sometimes these are missing.

Outline method for analyzing


arguments

1. Locate the passages over all conclusion.


What is the point the author is trying to make?
2. In what way/s is this conclusion supported?
The answer to this yields to the premise.
For example:

We need to build more prisons in order to cope


with the continuous increase in crime. In view of
the currently overcrowded prison conditions,
many criminals are confined in prison for a much
lesser time than they should be. But it is
common knowledge that the criminals tend to
repeat their crimes when they are out of prison.

Example: To qualify as a citizen of a


state for purposes of diversity jurisdiction,
a party must (1) currently reside in that
state and (2) intend to remain there
indefinitely. (Major premise; states a rule
of law.) Here, the plaintiff does not
currently reside in North Carolina. (Minor
premise; makes a statement of fact.)
Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be a
citizen of North Carolina for jurisdictional
purposes. (Conclusion; correctly applies
the law to the facts.)

Kinds of
Arguments/Reasoning
First, all prospective lawyers should
make themselves intimately familiar
with the fundamentals of deductive
reasoning. - is based on the act of
proving a conclusion by means of
two other propositions.

Second, students should acquaint


themselves with the principles of
inductive generalization. Inductive
generalizations, used correctly, can help
students resuscitate causes that seem
hopeless. This involves drawing a general
conclusion from a number of particular
instances. It is based on the concept of
probability. The conclusion reached is not
considered a truth, rather it is probably
true than not.

Third, reasoning by analogy,


another form of inductive reasoning
is a powerful tool in a lawyers
arsenal. It help solve problems not
controlled by precedent. It is based
on the argument that because the
two examples are like in many ways
they are also alike in one further
specific way.

Kinds of Arguments
BASIS OF
DISTINCTIO
N

DEDUCTIVE

INDUCTIVE

Necessity
vs.
probabilit
y

In a good deductive
argument, the truth of
the premises
necessitates the truth
of the conclusion.

In a good inductive
argument, by contrast,
the truth of the
premises merely makes
the conclusion
probable.
Ex. The sun has risen
every morning to this
day. Thus, probably, the
sun will rise tomorrow.

Ex. All men are mortal, and


Socrates is a man. Thus,
Socrates is mortal

Criteria
of
Appraisa
l

Appraising Validity
Valid is one that, on the
assumption that the
premises are true, has a
true conclusion that follows
with necessity from the
premises

Appraising
Strength
Test/scale of strength
that has very weak
arguments at the low
end and extremely
strong argument at the

BASIS OF
DISTINCTIO
N

Methods
of
Appraisal

DEDUCTIVE
(Validity)
I. Practical test of
validity.
II. Validity as a matter
of
form/pattern.
III. Showing invalidity
by
analogical
counterexample
IV. Equivocation and
circular
arguments

INDUCTIVE
(Strength)

I. Reasoning
from
authority
II. Causal
Reasoning
III. Analogical
Reasoning