Legal Technique and Logic Reviewer

Guevarra | Block G03

Atty. Ayo
Term 3 SY 2013

SYLLOGISMS
Definition

o A deductive scheme of a formal argument consisting of a major and a minor

premise and a conclusion.1

o A kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion)
is inferred from two or more others (the premises) of a specific form2
Rules on Syllogisms
o There must be three terms.
o The middle term must be distributed at least once.
o No term may be distributed in the conclusion, if it was not distributed in the
premise.
o No conclusion may be drawn from two particular premises nor from two negative
premises.
o If one of the premises is negative, the conclusion must be negative.
o These rules concern the validity of a syllogism, but NOT its truth. Truth is
determined by whether or not we agree with the premises.
Kinds of Syllogism
o Conditional Syllogisms
Arguments used here are not always valid.
The basic of this syllogism type is:
if A is true then B is true as well. An example will follow to
elucidate the former.
Example
Major premise: If Johnny is eating sweets every day, he is
placing himself at risk for diabetes.
Minor premise: Johnny does not eat sweats everyday
Conclusion: Therefore Johnny is not placing himself at risk of
diabetes.

o Note: This conclusion is invalid because it is possible

that Johnny does not eat sweats every day but does
eats cake every day what also puts him at risk for
diabetes.
o

Disjunctive syllogisms
This syllogism type does not actually state that a certain premise (major
or minor) is correct, but it does state that one of the premises is correct.
The basic type for this syllogism is:
Either A or B is true, but they cant be true at the same time.
Example:
Major premise: Either the meeting is at school or at home.
Minor premise: The meeting is not at home.
Conclusion:
Therefore the meeting is at school.

o Note: The conclusion of the syllogism type may be

given, however most of the times the conclusion can be
drawn based up on own conclusions.
o

Categorical syllogisms
The third and most commonly used type of syllogism.
The basic for this syllogism type is: if A is a part of C, then B is a part of
C (A and B are members of C)
Example:
Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion:
Socrates is mortal.
Note: Both premises are known to be valid, by observation or historical
facts. Because the two premises are valid, the conclusion must be valid
as well. Be aware that this conclusion is based on logical reasoning and
thus it doesnt have to represent the truth always.

1
2

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syllogism

Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia, Syllogisms, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

Legal Technique and Logic Reviewer

Guevarra | Block G03

Atty. Ayo
Term 3 SY 2013

PERSUASION
Definition
o A process aimed at changing a person's (or a group's) attitude or behavior
toward some event, idea, object, or other person(s), by using written or spoken
words to convey information, feelings, or reasoning, or a combination thereof.3
o The act of influencing by expostulation or request. While the persuasion is
confined within those limits which leave the mind free, it may be used to induce
another to make his will, or even to make it in his own favor; but if such
persuasion should so far operate on the mind of the testator, that he would be
deprived of a perfectly free will, it would vitiate the instrument.4
List of Methods
o Ethos (Credibility)
Ethical appeal
Convincing by the character of the author.
Tend to believe people whom we respect.
Central problems of argumentation is to project an impression of an
authority
Source's credibility, the speaker's/author's authority
o Pathos (Emotional)
Persuading by appealing to the reader's emotions.
Contemporary advertisements to see how pathos, emotional appeals are
used to persuade.
Language choice affects the audience's emotional response, and
emotional appeal can effectively be used to enhance an argument
especially if used to tap certain biases.
Emotional or motivational appeals; vivid language, emotional language
and numerous sensory details.
o Logos (Logical)
Persuading by the use of reasoning.
Most important technique
Deductive and inductive reasoning
Giving reasons is the heart of argumentation
Logic is used to support a claim
Can also be the facts and statistics used to help support the argument

3
4

Persuasion, Business Dictionary, Retrieved 9 May 2012.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856

Legal Technique and Logic Reviewer

Guevarra | Block G03

Atty. Ayo
Term 3 SY 2013

KINDS OF REASONING
DEDUCTIVE, INDUCTIVE, AND ABDUCTIVE REASONING
o Reasoning is the process of using existing knowledge to draw conclusions, make
predictions, or construct explanations. Three methods of reasoning are the
deductive, inductive, and abductive approaches.
o Deductive Reasoning: conclusion guaranteed
Top to down logic
Deductive reasoning starts with the assertion of a general rule and
proceeds from there to a guaranteed specific conclusion.
Moves from the general rule to the specific application: In deductive
reasoning, if the original assertions are true, then the conclusion must
also be true. For example, math is deductive:
If x = 4
And if y = 1
Then 2x + y = 9
Links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms
are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the
conclusion reached is necessarily true.
contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottom-up logic) in the following way:
In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached from general statements,
but in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached from specific
examples.

o Inductive reasoning: conclusion merely likely

Bottom to top logic

Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited
in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not
certain, in light of accumulated evidence.
Moves from the specific to the general. Much scientific research is
carried out by the inductive method: gathering evidence, seeking
patterns, and forming a hypothesis or theory to explain what is seen.
Conclusions reached by the inductive method are not logical necessities;
Evidence seems complete, relevant, and generally convincing, and the
conclusion is therefore probably true. Nor are inductive arguments simply
false; rather, they are not cogent.
Kind of reasoning that constructs or evaluates general propositions that
are derived from specific examples. Inductive reasoning contrasts with
deductive reasoning which specific examples are derived from general
propositions.

o Abductive reasoning: taking your best shot

Begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the

likeliest possible explanation for the set.

Daily decision-making that does its best with the information at hand,
which often is incomplete.
Characterized by lack of completeness, either in the evidence, or in the
explanation, or both. A patient may be unconscious or fail to report every
symptom, for example, resulting in incomplete evidence, or a doctor may
arrive at a diagnosis that fails to explain several of the symptoms. Still,
he must reach the best diagnosis he can.
Process can be creative, intuitive, even revolutionary.