Memory Aid for Legal Technique and Logic

DEDUCTIVE REASONING

(Midterms)
FOUR WAYS CLASSES CAN RELATE TO ONE ANOTHER:

Formal Deductive Logic

- This is an act of the mind in which, from the relation
of two propositions to other, we infer that we
understand and agree to a third proposition.

1.
2.

Premises:
The name of the two proposition which would lead one to
thing of the conclusion.
Major Premises:
This is the broad proposition which forms the starting point
of the deduction.
This represents the all or general part.
Minor Premises:
This is the second preposition which is someone or
something included in the all.

3.

4.

Relationship of containment every member of one

class is said to be a member of another class.
No relationship no member of one class is said to
be a member of the second class.
Relationship of partial containment some, but
perhaps not all, members of one class are said to be
members of another class.
Relationship of partial non-containment some, but
perhaps not all, members of one class are said not to
be members of another class.

FOUR STANDARD FORMS OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION:

A) Universal Affirmative Proposition

Every member of the first class is also a member of
the second class.
All S is P
E) Universal Negative Proposition
No member of the first class is also a member of
the second class.
No S is P.
O) Particular Affirmative Proposition
Some members or at least of the members of the
first class are also member of the second class.
Some S is P.
U) Particular Negative Proposition
Some members or at least one of the first class are
also members of the second class.

Logical Argument
- This is a means of determining the truth or falsity of
an alleged conclusion.
Syllogism
- This is an argument containing premises and a
conclusion.
- This is a discourse in which, certain things being
stated, something other than what is stated follows of
necessity from their being so.
Example:
All men are mortal Major Premise
Categorical Socrates is a man Minor Premise
Syllogism
Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Conclusion

Major Term: Mortal

Minor Term: Socrates
Middle Term: Men/Man

Enthymemes
- This is an argument where one of the premise or
even the conclusion is not expressed but still can be
understood by the readers or listeners.

Term
- A word or group of words contained in a premise or
conclusion.
Major Term:
The predicate part of the major premise and the
conclusion.
Minor Term:
The subject of the minor premise and of the conclusion.
This is called minor since this is less conclusive than the
middle term.
Middle Term:
This appears both in major and in the minor premise but
does not appear in the conclusion.
It is the medium of comparison between the major and the
minor term.

Example:
Categorical Syllogism
Good girls get a star,
Lisa is a good girl,
Thus, Lisa gets a star

vs.

Enthymemes
Lisa gets a star on her
her forehead because
she is a good girl.

Polysyllogisms
- This is a series of syllogisms in which the conclusion
of one premise is the premise of the next argument.
Prosyllogism:
This is syllogism whose conclusion becomes a
succeeding premise.
Episyllogism:
A syllogism in which one premise is the conclusion of a
preceding syllogism.

Difference between Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning moves by inference from the
general and moving to the particular. While, inductive
reasoning moves from the particular moving up to the
general, or from particular to particular.

RULES OF THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM:

Rule 1: A Valid categorical syllogism must contain exactly three

terms, each of which is used in the same sense throughout the
argument.

Categorical Syllogism
- This a deductive argument which consists of:
1) Three categorical propositions.
2) Containing exactly three times.
3) In which each of the three terms occurs in exactly
two of the proposition.

Otherwise, any syllogism that contains more than three

terms committed the formal fallacy of four terms.
Rule 2: In a valid categorical syllogism, the middle term must be
distributed in at least one premise.

Otherwise, any violation is said to commit the formal

fallacy of undistributed middle.
Rule 3: In a valid categorical syllogism, no term can be

Categorical Proposition:
These are statements about classes.

distributed in the conclusion which is not distributed in the

premise.
1

 If a term is undistributed in one of the premises, the

conclusion must not be distributed because the
conclusion would go beyond the data.
Rule 4: If either premise of a valid categorical syllogism is

2)
3)

negative, the conclusion must be negative.

In a valid categorical syllogism, the middle term must

be distributed in at least one of premise.
In valid categorical syllogism, no term can be
distributed in the conclusion which is no distributed in
the premise.
No categorical syllogism is valid which has two
negative premise.
If either premise of a valid categorical syllogism is
negative, the conclusion must be negative.
No valid categorical syllogism with a particular
conclusion can have two universal premise.

To entail an affirmative conclusion both premise must

assert class inclusion.
If either premise is negative, the conclusion cannot be
affirmative, it must also be negative. Otherwise, the
fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion is
committed.

4)

INDEDUCTIVE REASONING

The Fallacy of Four Terms

This form of formal fallacy violates the first rule where it
uses only three terms, each of which is used in the
same sense throughout the argument.

5)
6)

Inductive Generalization
- It is the method of using particular facts to arrive in
general or universal proposition.

Example:
Every Ruminant is cloven-footed
Every cow is multi-stomached.

Analogy
- This is the term used to describe a reasoning from
particular to particular.
- This does not seek proof of an identity of one thing
with another, but only a comparison of resemblances.
- This depends on the quality of resemblances
between things.
- The success of analogy lies in demonstrating
resemblances or similarities in the facts.

The Fallacy of Undistributed Middle

This is a violation of the second rule, wherein a
conclusion is made of a major and minor premise, does
not make sense anymore because the middle term
which connects the major and minor premise is missing
or the middle term failed to connect both premise.

Example:
My old shoes were purchased at the same store as my new shoes.
My old shoes wore very well.
Therefore, my new shoes will probably wear very well.

Example:
Because business executive read the wall street journal, a man who
reads the journal is a business executive.

The Fallacy of Illicit Process of the Major and Minor

Term

FALLACIES
For ordinary use, fallacy can be used to describe a wrong or false idea.
In legal term, fallacies refers to logical form of syllogism, in legal
notion it expresses a false or erroneous syllogism

ILLICIT MAJOR

Fallacies are used by judges and lawyers alike to

describe something which is supported by facts or
evidence. Members of the bar, use this to dispute
allegations.

This fallacy occurs when the major term in the major

premise is undistributed but is distributed in the
conclusion.
Example:
All judges are good tempered ---- major premise
No poets are judges.
No poets are good tempered

Formal Fallacy
Any violation of any of the six rules of the
categorical syllogism or the rules of hypothetical or
disjunctive alternative syllogism.

ILLICIT MINOR

When the minor term is undistributed in the minor

premise but distributed in the conclusion.
Example:
Those who lack good reasoning should first study logic.
Many first year student lack good reasoning.
All first year law student should study logic.

Informal/Material Fallacy
- This occurs when at least one of the premise in an
argument is not true, or if rules of inference is not
respected.

The Fallacy of Negative Premise

This breach of syllogism occurs when one premise is
negative, the conclusion must be negative. Thus, to
prove a negative conclusion, one of the premise must
be negative if this happens anything about their relation
cant be determined.
This type or reasoning is unacceptable because of the
difficulty in sustaining a factual proposition merely by
negative evidence.

Difference between Formal and Informal Fallacy

Formal fallacy can be detected simply by examining the
form or structure of the argument. On the other hand,
informal fallacy cant just simply be detected through
structure, one of the premise of the argument must not
be true or without basis, before an informal fallacy can
be inferred.

Example:
James is not a lawyer.
Lawyers are not steelworker.
James is a steelworker.

FORMAL FALLACIES
RULES IN CONSTRUCTING A CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM:

1)

Correct Form:
Every ruminant is cloven-footed.
Every cow is a ruminant.
Therefore, every cow is cloven-footed.

A valid categorical syllogism must contain exactly three

terms each of which is used in the same sense
throughout the argument.
2

INFORMAL FALLACIES
Part 1: Irrelevance and Distraction

Fallacies of Hypothetical Syllogisms

A syllogism with one conditional premise and one
categorical premise. This has two forms; modes
ponens and modes tollens.

Fallacy of Irrelevant Evidence

This argument misses the central point at issue and
sometimes called the fallacy of missing point.

Antecedent:
The component proposition following if
Consequent:
The component proposition following then

Fallacy of irrelevance or Ignoratio Elenchi

An argument purporting to establish a particular
conclusion but is instead directed to proving
another conclusion.

MODES PONENS

This is valid if the categorical premise affirms the

antecedent of the conditional premise and the
conclusion affirms the consequent of the conditional
premise.

Correct Form:
If A, then B
A therefore, B

Example:
Proving that A is brother of B when the real issue is whether C is the
son of A from his ex-wife D.

Fallacy:
If A, then B
B therefore, A

Fallacy of Distraction
This kind of fallacy shifts the attention from reasoned
argument to other things that are always irrelevant,
always irrational and often emotional.

MODES TOLLENS

This is valid if the categorical premise denies the

consequent of the conditional premise and the
conclusion denies the antecedent.

Correct Form:
If A, then B
Not B therefore, not A

Fallacy:
If A, then B
Not A, therefore, not B

1)

Fallacies in Disjunctive Syllogism

Disjunctive Proposition
Either or statements
This statement is compound in the sense that
every disjunctive proposition or disjunction,
consists of two component proposition.

Example:
Saying in the closing remarks of an argument that Consider the
situation of this woman, who have known hardship all through her, she
did not have any parents to guide her

Disjunctive Syllogism
It is a syllogism in which one premise takes the
form of a disjunctive proposition and the other
premise, and the conclusion are categorical
proposition which either deny or affirm past or
disjunctive proposition.

2)

Mood by denying the affirm

A categorical proposition affirming that the other
disjunct is true.
Example: A is either B or C
A is B
Therefore, A is C

Argumentatum ad Verecundiam or The Appeal to

Prestige
This fallacy makes an appeal to authority in the
matter at hand.
This appeal is made to the partys reputation
instead of pertinent data in order to win assent to a
conclusion.
This appeal equates prestige with reasoned
argument.

Example:
According to Kris Aquino, eating apples and drinking apple juice 4
times a day will make you lose weight faster and is good for your skin.

Mood by affirm denies

A categorical proposition denying the other disjunct
is true.

This is Argumentum ad Verecundiam since Kris Aquino is not an

expert in skin care nor a nutritionist.

Example: A is either B or C
A is B
Therefore, A is not C

3)

Fallacies Associated with Disjunctive Syllogisms:

1. Fallacy of Missing Disjunct
It goes to the incompleteness of a disjunction and
is committed whenever a disjunctive proposition
asserts the truth of at least one of a pair or set of
disjuncts when in fact there are other possible or
alternative disjuncts when enumerated.
2.

Argumentum ad Misericordiam or The appeal to Pity

This done when a jury or a judge is asked to
accept an argument not for its strength but
because of the speakers emotional appeal.
This fallacy evades the pertinent issue and makes
a pure emotional appeal to the altruism or the
mercy of the readers or listeners.

Argumentatum ad Hominen or The Appeal to Ridicule

This fallacy shifts an argument from one point
being discussed to irrelevant personal
characteristics of an opponent.
Instead of addressing the issue presented by an
opponent, this argument makes the opponent the
issue.
Shifts the attention from the argument to arguer.

Example:
Why would we believe such statements coming from someone who
was not even able to graduate in elementary.

Fallacy of Nonexclusivity
This fallacy applies only to the second mood. It
occurs whenever one assumes that affirming one
disjunct shows the other to be false, when it fact it
is possible for both to be true.

4)

Argumentatum ad Populum or The Appeal to the

Masses
This argument departs from the question under the
discussion and attempts to win assent to a
proposition by making an appeal to the feelings
and prejudices of the multitude.

II.

It replaces the task of presenting evidence and

rational argument with expressive language and
other device calculated to excite enthusiasm, anger
or hate.

Example:
Manny Villar saying I grow up in the slums, I grew up without anything,
I understand how all of you feel. That is why I will be a good
represantive

5)

Example:
According to Kris Aquino, eating apples and drinking apple juice 4
times a day will make you lose weight faster and is good for your skin.

1)

Non Cause Pro Causa

This form mistakes is not the cause of a given
effect as the real cause.
The events could be so related because both
caused by a third party, unexamined event
although neither caused by the other.

2)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc or After this, therefore in

consequence of this
This fallacy consists of reasoning from sequence to
consequence.
It is reasoning from what happened in sequence to
the assumption of a causal connection.
This fallacy is committed whenever we argue that
because a certain event was preceded by another
event, the preceding event was the cause of the
latter.

3)

Non sequitur: It does not follow

It is an argument that contains a conclusion that
does not necessarily follow from the premise or
any antecedent statement offered it its support.

Argumentum ad Antiquitam or The appeal to the Ages

This fallacy holds the determinations and customs
of our fathers and forbears must not be changed.
It always presents the question of bowing down
before propositions inherited from our ancestors.

Example:
Our elders believed that to have a great family, the mother needs to
stay at home and take of her children and serve her husband.

6)

Argumentum ad Terrorem or The appeal to Terror

This argument makes an appeal to fear of
exaggerated consequence in the event an
adversarys argument prevails.

Example:
If you would not do as I say, a terrible thing will happen to your family,
which you will regret not following my instructions.

7)

Argumentum ad Ignoratiam or The appeal to Ignorance

The fallacy is committed when it is argued that a
proposition is true simple on the basis that it has
not been proved false, or that it is false because it
has not been proved true.

Example:
Trees have no life and they are not important. We should cut them
down since they have no purpose.

The difference between the past hoc and the non sequitur
fallacies is that the past hoc fallacy lacks a causal
connection, the non sequitur fallacy lack logical connection.

Part 2: Context and Content

The fallacies in context and content takes place in the

context and content of the arguments premise and not
in the arguments logical form.

I.

Fallacies of accident and Hasty generalization

a) Fallacy of Accident or Dicto Simpliciter
This fallacy occurs when the general rule to
special circumstances.
General rules are developed from
consideration of common experience, if the
situation is exceptional because of its
accidents, an exception to the rule must exist.

4)

Compound (Complex) Questions

The fallacy of the compound question occurs when
an argument is phrased as a single question rather
than two or more separate questions actually in the
interrogatory.

This occurs when:

a. Two or more questions are asked at once, and a
single answer is required.
b. A question is phrased as to beg another questions.
c. The question makes a false presumption.
d. The assertion frames a complex question but
demands a simple answer.

Example:
He who thrusts a knife into another person should be punished, a
surgeon operating a patient, does so, then he should be punished.

b)

Fallacy of False Course

This is an argument that treats as the cause of a
thing something that is not really its cause. The
fallacy of false cause has to forms.

5)

The converse fallacy of accident or Fallacy of

Selected Instances or Hasty Generalization
This fallacy occurs when we generalize
something carelessly and hastily.
This usual happens when one construct a
general rule from an inadequate number of
incidents.
The fallacy appears when one or two decisions
are used to make a conclusion derived from an
application of a general rule.

Petitio Principii: Begging the Question

This a question-begging that assumes as true what
is to be proved. It is to assume the truth of what
one seeks to prove in the effort to prove it.
Example:
In order to A, B is used as proof, but since B requires support, C
is used as a defense of B but C requires support and A is used to
substantiate C.

6)

Tu Qeoque: You, yourself do it

An informal fallacy where an individual who is
being criticized will defend his actions by accusing
his or her critic of doing the same thing himself.

7)

Linguistic Fallacy

Example:
The teacher has been absent every Tuesday for 2 consecutive week,
therefore the teacher will be absent this coming Tuesday.

When different senses are utilized, linguistic fallacy

occurs.

a.

Equivocation
This fallacy refers to the use of terms which
are ill-defined, vague and signify a varieties of
ideas, none of which can be made clear either
by definition or by context.
Fallacy of Amphibology
The fallacy lies in having a double meaning
due to the syntax or grammatical construction
of a sentence.
Fallacy of Composition
This consist of reasoning improperly from a
property of a member of a group to a property
of the group itself.
Fallacy of Division
This takes place when the properties of the
whole are also the properties of parts making
the whole or that properties of a collection are
also properties of the members thereof.
Fallacy of Vicious Abstraction
The removal of a statement in a context,
thereby changing the meaning of the
argument.
Argumentum ad Nauseum
The unnecessarily long brief or a windbag oral
argument where the advocate seeks to sustain
his position by repetition piled upon repetition
rather than by succinct, effective reasoned
proof or logical development.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.