What is Logic?

*In logic, people often mistake arguments from

passages that seem to be arguments but are not. One
- Logic is the study of the principles and
of the examples of passage that is being mistaken is
methods of good reasoning which aims to
explanation.
determine and lay down the criteria of good
(correct) reasoning and bad (incorrect) What is an Explanation?
reasoning.
- An explanation is an attempt to show why
- Logic is primarily concerned with how people
something is the case, while an argument is an
reason. It does not merely describe how
attempt to show that something is the case.
people reason but to discover and make
- In logic, explanations are not meant to prove
available those criteria that can be used to test
or justify the truth of a particular claim.
arguments for correctness.
What is the difference between argument and
What is a Legal Reasoning?
explanation?
- Legal reasoning, like any kind of reasoning, is
Although both arguments and explanations give
expressed through arguments, and it is with
reasons, the nature of these reasons differs. In
arguments that logic is chiefly concerned.
explanations, these reasons are usually the causes or
What is an Argument? factors that show how or why a thing came to exist. In
arguments, they are intended to provide grounds to
- Argument is a group of statements in which
justify a claim, to show that it is plausible or true.
one statement is claimed to be true on the
basis of another statement/s. (Take note that What is a conditional statement?
not all groups of statements are arguments).
- It contains an if-then relationship. It is made
- Arguments are categorized as logical or
up of two basic components: the first
illogical, valid or invalid, sound or unsound
component is called the antecedent (or the if-
depending on the acceptability of the premises
clause) and the second component is called
and the connection between the premise and
the consequent (or the then-clause).
the conclusion.
- Conditional statement is not an argument
- Argument is a claim put forward and
because there is no claim that one statement is
defended with reasons.
true because of other statement.
- Argument always has a conclusion and
premise. ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS THAT MUST BE
PRESENT IN A LEGAL ARGUMENT:
What is a Premise?
1. ISSUE
- The statement that serves as the basis or
a. An issue is any matter of controversy
support of the conclusion.
or uncertainty; is a point in dispute, in
What is a Conclusion? doubt, in question, or simply up for
discussion or consideration.
- It is the statement that is being claimed to be
b. It is always formulated in an
true.
interrogative sentence. In the law, it is
specifically pertains to a legal matter;

1
 it is not just any controversial a. The conclusion is the ultimate end of
question. a legal argument. It is what the fact,
the rules, and the analysis of the case
2. RULE amount to.
a. Richard Neumann has stated that
EVALUATING LEGAL REASONING
rules have at least three parts:
i. A set of elements, - There are two general criteria to
collectively called a test; distinguish correct from incorrect legal
ii. A result that occurs when all reasoning:
the elements are present (and 1. TRUTH
the test is thus satisfied); and a. The first process
iii. A causal term that determines deals with the question: Are the
whether the result is premises provided in the argument
mandatory; prohibitory, true or acceptable?
discretionary, or declaratory b. It is necessary for the conclusion of a
iv. Some rules have one or more legal argument to be grounded on
exceptions that, if present factual basis, for if the premises that
would defeat the result, even are meant to establish the truth of the
if the elements are present. legal claim (conclusion) is
questionable, the conclusion itself is
3. FACT questionable.
a. It is a material fact that is relevant to
NOTE: Only after the facts have been determined can
the rule cited in a legal argument. It
the legal rules (in the form of statutes, principles,
should fit the elements of the rule.
administrative regulations or jurisprudence) be
The latter would be satisfied if the
applied to those facts by the court. Therefore,
facts of the present case cover all the
determining what are the facts to be accepted is a
elements of the rule.
principal objective when any case is tried in court.
b. Sound reasoning demands that the
The legal reasoning that will prevail is that which is
facts to be considered should not be
grounded on truth or genuine facts.
one-sided.
2. LOGIC
4. ANALYSIS a. The second process – inference – is
a. This is a part where our mainly about the question of logic. Is
argumentation and illustration come the reasoning of the argument correct
out. This part is supposed to show the or logical? Does the conclusion of the
link between the rules and the facts argument logically follow from its
we presented to establish what we are premises?
claiming in our argument. The b. The premises of the argument must
concern here is whether the material. not only be factual but the connection
of the premises to the conclusion
5. CONCLUSION must be logically coherent, that is, the

2
 movement from the facts, to the - It is settled that the party alleging a fact has
analysis, and to the main claim must the burden of proving it and mere allegation is
be valid. not evidence. According to the equipoise
doctrine, when the evidence of the parties are
evenly balanced or there is doubt on which
The truth and logic can be explained by looking at the side the evidence preponderates, the decision
two main processes involved in legal reasoning: (1) should be against the party with the burden of
presentation of facts which pertains to the question of proof.
truth and (2) inference (deriving a legal claim or - The burden of proof is upon the party who
judgment from the given laws and facts) which alleges the truth of his claim or defense or any
pertains to the question of logic. fact in issue.

In accepting the truth of a premise or evidence, one

must consider its coherence to credible sources of Evidence
information as well as to the general set of facts
- Its is the means sactioned by the Rules of
already presented. One must also consider whether the
Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding
facts presented are clear and unambiguous or need
the truth respecting a matter of fact.
more clarification.
- The best evidence rules as encapsulated in
Rule 130, section 3, of the Revised rules of
Civil Procedure applies only when the content
Burden of Proof
of such document is the subject of the inquiry.
- It is the duty of any party to present evidence Where the issue is only as to whether such
to establish his claim or defense by the document was actually executed, or exists, or
amount of evidence required by law, which is on circumstances relevant to or surrounding
preponderance of evidence in civil case. Basic its execution, the best evidence rule does not
is the rule in evidence that the burden of proof apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.
lies upon him who asserts it, not upon him Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise
who denies, since by the nature of things, he admissible without need to account for the
who denies a fact cannot produce any proof of original.
it. - Evidence is deemed admissible if it is relevant
- In civil cases, the specific rule as to the to the issue and more importantly, if it is not
burden of proof is that plaintiff has the burden excluded by provision of law or by the Rules
of proving the material allegations of the of Court.
complaint which are denied by the answer; - As to the relevance, such evidence must have
and the defendant has the burden of proving such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
the material allegations in his answer, which belief in its existence or non-existence.
sets up new matter as a defense. Evidence to be believed must proceed not
- In administrative proceedings, the burden of only from the mouth of credible witness but
proof that respondent commited the acts must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test
complained of rest on the complainant. of conformity with the knowledge and
common experience of mankind.

3
 - Evidence may either be through testimony of - It refers to statements made bi individuals
a witness or through the present ation of an who are considered as experts in a particular
object or document. field.
- Under the Rules of Court, a published treatise,
periodical or pamphlet on a subject history,
Testimonies of Witnesses law, science or art is admissible as tending to
prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the
- It is generally confined to personal
court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert
knowledge; and therefore exclude hearsay.
in the subject testifies, that the writer of the
Thus, a witness can testify only those facts
statement in the treatise, periodical or
which he knows of his personal knowledge
pamphlet is recognized in his profession or
which are derived from his own perception,
calling as expert in the subject.
except as otherwise provided under the Rules
of Court.
- Section 36, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
Examination
Evidence, states that a witness can testify only
to those facts which he knows of or comes - Under the Rules of Court, an individual
from his personal knowledge, that is, which witness may be examined by the following:
are derived from his perception.
- A witness, therefore, may not testify, as to 1. Direct examination by the proponent
what he merely learned from others either a. It refers to the examination-in-chief
because he was told, or he read or heard the of a witness by the party presenting
same. Such testimony is considered hearsay him on the facts relevant to the issue.
and may not be received as proof of the truth 2. Cross-examination by the proponent
of what he has learned. This is known as the a. Upon the termination of the direct
hearsay rule. examination, the witness may be
- The law, however, provides for specific cross-examined by the adverse party
exceptions to the hearsay rule. One of the as to any matters stated in the direct
exceptions is the entries in official records examination, or connected therewith,
made in the perfomance of duty by a public with sufficient fullness and freedom
officer. In other words, official entries are to test his accuracy and truthfulness
admissible in evidence regardless of whether and freedom from interest or bias, or
the officer or person who made them was the reverse, and to elicit all important
presented and testified in court, since these facts bearing upon the issue.
entries are considered prima facie evidence of 3. Re-direct examination by the proponent
the facts stated herein. Other recognized a. After the cross-examination of the
reasons for this exception are necessity and witness has been concluded , he may
trustworthiness. be re-examined by the party calling
him, to explain or supplement his
answers given during the cross-
Expert Testimony examination. On re-direct
examination, questions on matters not

4
 dealt with during the cross- that circumstances attendant in a particular
examination, may be allowed by the case override the great benefits derived by
court in its discretion. our judicial system from the doctrine of stare
4. Re-cross-examination by the proponent decisis, can the courts be justified in setting
a. Upon the conclusion of the re-direct aside the same.
examination, the adverse party may
re-cross-examine the witness on
matters stated in his re-direct Deduction and Induction
examination, and also on such other
- We are reasoning deductively when our
matters as may be allowed by the
premises intend to guarantee the truth of our
court in its discretion.
conclusion while we reason inductively when
our premises are intended to provide good
Dependence on Precedents (but not conclusive) evidence for the truth of
our conclusion.
- It is a general rule that, when a point has been
- The basic difference between deduction and
settled by a decision, it becomes a precedent
induction is that deduction moves from
which should be followed in subsequent cases
general premises to particular conclusions,
before the same court. The rule is based
whereas induction moves from particular
wholly on policy, in the interest of uniformity
premises to general conclusions. Although
and certainty of the law, but is frequently
this is generally the case, it is wrong to use
departed from. The doctrine of adherence to
this as a basis of distinguising deduction from
precedents is called “stare decisis “.
induction since there are deductive arguments
that move from particular to general and
inductive arguments that move from general
Stare decisis et non quieta movere
to particular.
- It is embodied in Article 8 of the Civil Code - What makes an argument deductive or
of the Philippines. inductive is not the pattern of particularity or
- This is a doctrine that , when a court has once generality in the premises and conclusion.
laid down a principle, and apply it to all future Rather, it is the type of support the premises
cases, where facts are substantially the same, are claimed to priovide for the conclusion.
regardless of whether the parties and
properties are the same. Follow past
precedents and do not disturb what has been Deductive Argument
settled. Matters already decided on the merits
- It may either be valid or invalid.
cannot be subject of litigation again (Note that
- All deductive arguments claim, implicitly or
this rule does not elicit blind adherence to
explicitly, that their conclusions follow
precedents).
necessarily from their premises.
- It is based on the principle that once a
- Some deductive arguments have
question of law has been examined and
conclusions which do not follow necessarily
decided, it should be deemed settled and
closed further argument. Only upon showing

5
 from their premises. These arguments are
invalid deductive arguments. 2. If quartz scratches glass, then quartz is harder
than glass;
- A valid deductive argument is an argument in
Quartz scratches glass;
which the conclusion really does follow
Therefore, quartz is harder than glass.
necessarily from the premises.
- A valid argument is an argument in which: if
EXAMPLE OF AN INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT:
the premises are true, then the conclusion
1. Neil, a student in a Legal Logic class, has
must be true or the truth of the premises good study habits and is always attentive in
guarantee the truth of the conclusion. class discussions;
- An invalid arguments may have true He is a consistent dean’s lister and has never
failed in any subject he has taken in law
premises and a true conclusion. What school; and
determines the validity (or invalidity) of the Therefore, it is very probable that Neil will
argument is not the truth (or falsity) of its not fail in his Legal Logic class.
premises or conclusion but the relationship
between its premises and conclusion – that Note: Although inductive reasoning is a strong
is, whether the conclusion follows argument, it does not provide an absolute guarantee
necessarily from the premises (or put that Neil will not fail in his Legal Logic class. There
another way, whether the premises is still a remote possibility that he will fail in the
guarantee the truth of the conclusion). subject. If the premises are true then the conclusion
will very likely, or probably, be tru; but the truth of
Note: the basic question in determining the validity
the premises cannot absolutely rule out the
of an argument is not: is the premises true? Or is
possibility that the conclusion will be false. In other
the conclusion true? The basic question is: Does
words, the conclusion might turn out to be false even
the conclusion follow necessarily from the
though the premises are true.
premises? (Or do the premises guarantee the truth
of the conclusion?) if the answer is yes, then the
argument is valid. If the answer is no, then the EXAMPLES OF SOME COMMON DEDUCTIVE
argument is invalid. INDICATOR WORDS:

The terms “valid” or “invalid” do not apply to 1. Certainly

inductive arguments since inductive arguments, in 2. It is logical to conclude that
the first place, do not claim that their conclusion 3. Definitely
follows from the premises with strict necessity (for 4. This logical implies that
the matter, all inductive arguments are technically 5. Absolutely
invalid). 6. This entails that

EXAMPLES OF A DEDUCTIVE REASONING: 7. Conclusively

8. It must be tha case that
1. All misdemeanor are criminal offenses;
Driving under the influence of alcohol is a
misdemeanor;
Hence, driving under theinfluence of alcohol
is a criminal offense. EXAMPLES OF SOME COMMON INDUCTIVE
INDICATOR WORDS:

6
 1. Probably qualifiers, the statement is
2. One would expect that affirmative.
3. Likely o Quantity - the quantity of a
4. It is plausible to suppose that statement is either universal or
5. Chances are particular. The statement is universal
6. It is reasonable to assume that when what is being affirmed or
denied of the subject term is its whole
extension; the statement is particular
Syllogisms
when what is being affirmed or
- In logic, deductive arguments are often denied of the subject is just a part of
expressed in what we call “syllogisms.” its extension.
- It is a three-line argument - that is, an
THREE KINDS OF TERMS IN CATEGORICAL
argument that consists of exactly two
SYLLOGISM:
premises and a conclusion.
- The principle of syllogism is surprisingly a. Minor term (S) – the subject of the
straightforward: what is true of the universal conclusion (also called the subject term)
is true of the particular. b. Major term (P) – the predicate of the
- A clear, well-constructed syllogism ensures conclusion (also called the predicate term).
each conclusion is well-supported with c. Middle term (M) – the term found in both
evidence, and gives the judge a recognizable premises and serves to mediate between the
basis to evaluate the strength of the argument. minor and major terms.

Two Types of Syllogism THREE KINDS OF STATEMENTS IN A

CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM:
1. Categorical Syllogism
- It is a syllogism composed of categorical a. Major premise – the premise which contains
statements alone. the minor tern
- It is a statement that directly asserts b. Minor premise – the premise which contains
something or states of a fact without any the minor term
conditions. Its subject is simply affirmed or c. Conclusion – the statement the premises
denied by the predicate. support
- It is a deductive argumenrt consisting of three
categorical statements that together contain
RULES FOR THE VALIDITY OF
exactly three terms, each of which occurs in
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM:
exactly two of the constituents statements.
- It has quality and quantity as its properties. a. It must not contain two negative premises
o Quality – the quality of the statement b. There must be three pairs of univocal terms
may be affirmative of negative. A o It must have exactly the same
statement that has the terms “no,” meaning and must be used in exactly
“not,” “none” and “never” is the same way in each occurence.
negative. In the absence of such

7
 o A term that has different meanings in f. Many
its occurences is an equivocal term. g. Few
o A univocal term has the same
meaning in different occurences. 2. Hypothetical Syllogism
c. The middle term must be universal at least - It includes both categorical and hypothetical
once. statements.
d. If the term in the conclusion is universal, the - Hypothetical statement is a compound
same term in the premise must also be statement which contains a proposed or
univesal. tentative explanation. A compound statement
consists of at least two clauses connected by
DIFFERENT TYPES OF FALLACIES IN
conjunctions, adverbs, etc., which express the
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
relationship between the classes as well as our
1. Fallacy of exclusive premises assent to it. The clauses are simple statements
2. Fallacy of equivocation or statements that contain one subject and one
3. Fallacy of particular middle predicate.
4. Fallacy of illicit minor - It is a sillogism that contains a hypothetical
5. Fallacy of illicit major statement as one of its premises.

Quantity of the Predicate THREE KINDS OF HYPOTHETICAL

SYLLOGISM
- A predicate has its own quantity, which is not
identical to nor dependent on the quantity of 1. Conditional syllogism
the subject term. 2. Disjunctive syllogism
3. Conjunctive syllogism
Predicate of an affirmative statement is generally
particular. However, in statements where the subject
and the predicate are identical, the predicate is WHAT IS A CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM?
universal.
a. It is a syllogism in which the major
Quantifiers for universal statement premise is a conditional statement
a. All b. It is a compound statement which
b. No asserts that one member (the then
c. Every clause) is true on condition that the
d. Each other member (the if clause) is true.
e. None c. What is important in the conditional
statement is the sequence between the
Quantifiers for particular statement antecedent and the consequent, that
a. Some is, the truth of the consequent follows
b. Almost all upon the fulfillment of condition
c. Most stated in the antecedent. It does not
d. Not all matter whether individually the
e. Several

8
 antecedent, while the then clause or guarantee the truth of the conclusion. What
its equivalent called the consequent. inductive arguments claim is that their
conclusion, based on the premises, is likely or
probably true.
RULES FOR CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM

1. Modus Ponens
Inductive Generalizations
a. When the minor premise affirms the
antecedent, the conclusion must affirn - It is a simplest and most common type of
the consequent. inductive reasoning.
2. Modus Tollens - It is an argument that relies on characteristics
a. When the minor premise denies the of a sample population to make a claim about
antecedent, the conclusion must deny the population as a whole.
the consequent.
- It uses evidence about a limited number of
people or things of a certain type (the sample
population), to make a general claim about a
What is Enthymemes?
larger group of people or things of that type
- In enthmemes, the argument is incomplete, (the population as a whole).
but it can easily be completed and assessed
Evaluating Inductive Generalizations
with regard to it validly by supplying the
missing premise. 1. Sample Population
- It is an argument that not all parts of its a. The size of the population is an
syllogism are expressed. essential factor in determining
whether the conclusion about the
population as a whole is justified or
Polysyllogisms not. A sample is “large enough”
when it is clear that we have not
- It is a series of syllogisms in which the
rushed to judgmentt, that we not
conclusion of one syllogism supplies a
formed a hasty generalization. One
premise of the next syllogism. It is used
thing the we need to consider in
because more than one logical step needed is
determining the sufficiency of the
to reach the desired conclusion.
quantity of the sample is the quantity
- It has the tendency to pile one syllogism on
of the whole population.
top of another.
2. Sample Representative
a. A sample is representative if there is
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT diversity in our sample (that is, the
variuos subgroups of the whole
- In inductive argument, what is claimed in the
population are represented in the
conclusion goes beyond the evidence found in
seclected respondents). On way to
the premises. It is for this reason that
ensure sufficient relevant diversity is
inductive arguments do not claim that their
by making the sample random. A
conclusion is certain or that their premises
random sample is “on which all

9
 members of the target have an equal 1. Relevance of similarities
opportunity to be in the sample.” a. Similarities should have bearing on
b. The aim of creating a random sample the issue between the things being
is top ensure that the diversity of the compared.
target is reflected by the sample. It 2. Relevant dissimilarities between the entities
will not be a random sample if it being compared.
excludes part of the target. a. One can refute an analogical
argument by citing a relevant
difference that existd between the
ANALOGICAL ARGUMENT entities compared which can weaken
the argument’s conclusion.
- It is an another type of inductive argument.
- It is a comparison of things based on
similarities those thing share.
FORMAL AND INFORMAL FALLACIES
- It depends upon an analogy or similarity
between two or more things. It compares two - In logic, a fallacy is not a false belief but a
or more things; argument by analogy go one mistake or error in thinking and reasoning.
step further. It claims that another similarity - Fallacies are deceptive and misleading since,
exists, given the similarities already although they they are illogical or incorrect,
recognized. Whereas anolgies simply point they seem to be correct and acceptable.
out a similarity, arguments by analogy claim Although they are not illogically sound, they
that certain similarities are evidence that there are often psychologically persuasive and, thus
is another similarity (or other similarities). tend to be followed or accepted by people.
This type of reasoning has a simple structrure:
A and B have characteristic X. A has 1. Formal Fallacies
characteristic Y. Therefore, B has a. It may be identifed through mere
characteristic Y. inspection of the form and structure
of an argument. Fallacies of this kind
are found only in deductive
Evaluating Analogical Argument
arguments that have identifiable
1. Fallacy of False Analogy forms.
a. It results from comparing two (or
more) things that are not really 2. Informal Fallacies
comparable. It is a matter of claiming a. Those that can be detected only
that two things share a certain through analysis of the content of the
similarity on the basis of other argument. Although its form is valid,
similarities, while overlooking one might conclude that the argument
important dissimilarities. is not logical because of its content.
Looking at the content of the
argument, one woud find out the
Critrerion to be considered in the evaluation of an erroneous reasoning contained in the
analogical argument: argument – which says that the basis

10
 in giving the student a passing or a. It consists in leading an opponent to
failing mark is his/her family an unwarranted conclusion by using a
situation rather than his/her term in its different senses and
performance in the class. making it appear to have only one
meaning. In a good argument, the
words or phrases used must retain the
CATEGORIES OF AN INFORMAL FALLACIES same meanings throughout the
argument, unless we specify that we
1. Fallacies of Ambiguity
are shifting from one meaning of a
a. It is commited because of a misuse of
word to another. One who commits
language. It contains ambiguous or
this fallacy either intentionally or
vague language which is deliberately
carelessly allowed a key word to shift
used to mislead people.
from one meaning in the middle of
2. Fallacies of Irrelevant Evidence
the argument, while giving the
a. It does not have a problem with
impression that all instances of the
language but with the connection of
word have the same meaning.
the premise and conclusion. It occurs
2. Amphiboly
because the premises are not logically
a. It consists in presenting a claim or
relevant to the conclusion. It is
argument whose meaning can be
misleading because the premises are
interpreted in two or more ways due
psychologically relevant, so the
to its grammatical construction. The
conclusion may seems to follow from
ambiguity comes from the way the
the premises although it does not
sentence is constructed. The double
follow logically.
meaning lies not in the word but in
3. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
the syntax or grammatical
a. It does not have a proble with
construction. Some of the most
language but with the connection of
typical grammatical errors that render
the premise and conclusion. it occurs
a claim ambiguous are unclear
not because the premises are not
pronoun reference; elliptical
logically relevant to the conclusion
construction, where words are
but because the premises fail to
omitted but supposedly understood;
provide evidence strong enough to
unclear modifier careless use of only;
support the conclusion. Although its
and careless use of all.
premises have some relevance to the
3. Improper Accent
conclusion, it is not sufficient to
a. This fallacy is found not only in
cause reasonable person to accept the
advertisements and headlines but also
conclusion.
in other very common forms of
human discourse. It includes the
distortion produced by pulling a
FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
quoted passage out of context, putting

1. Equivocation it in another context, and then

11
 drawing a conclusion that is not therefore a characteristic of each of
drawn in the original context. the parts. A whole often represents
4. Vicious Abstraction something quite different from its
a. It consists in misleading the people by parts.
using vague or abstract terms. It
FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE
occurs when vague words are
misused. Vague words are misused 1. Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal
when these words are very significant Attack)
in the premises used to establish a a. It ignores the issue by focusing on
conclusion. however, a premise that is certain personal characteristics of an
not understood cannot be accepted as opponent. Instead of addressing the
providing support for a conclusion. issue presented by an opponent, this
such a premise cannot also be refuted. argument makes the opponent the
If we do not know exactly the issue. It shifts attention from the
meaning of a term due to its argument to the arguer; instead of
vagueness, we cannot know at what disproving the substance of what is
point counter evidence may do some asserted, the argument attacks the
damage to the claim in which it person who made the assertion.
appears.
This fallacy is of two kinds:
5. Composition
a. It consists in wrongly inferring that ABUSIVE
what holds true of the individuals
- It is called abusive argumentum ad hominem.
automatically holds true of the group
It attacks the argument based on the arguer’s
made up of those individuals.
reputation, personality or some personal
Although the assumption that what is
shortcoming. The idea here is to win other’s
true of the parts of a whole is true of
approval not on the basis of the merits of the
the whole may apply in some cases, it
case, but based on other’s disdain of the
does not merit our acceptance as a
character or position of those on the opposite
general claim. Thus, it is wrong to
side. It has been said that it makes no
proceed from ther attributes of the
difference whether it comes from a
individual members to attributes of
schizophrenic or a convicted felon; an
the collection of those members.
argument can and must stand on its own. The
6. Division
personality, character or background of the
a. It consists in wrongly assuming that
person should not count when we assess the
what is true in general is true in
strength of his or her arguments. It is
particular. This is the reverse of the
important to separate our evaluation of a
fallacy of the composition. Rather
person from our evaluation of the merit of that
than assuming that a characteristic of
person’s ideas or arguments.
the parts is therefore a characteristic
of the whole, it makes the CIRCUMSTANTIAL
unwarranted assumption that a
characteristic of the whole is

12
- It consists in defending one’s position by to beg the question. Eventhough the
accusing his or her critic or other people of conclusion is clearly not justified by
doing the same thing. This is also called tu the premises, the listener is, in effect,
quoque which means “you’re another” or you “begged” to accept it.
yourself do it. It is not logical to absolve
one’s self of his or her own guilt by saying
that the opponent has done the same thing nor This fallacy has different types:
to justify one’s behavior on the basis that the
ARGUING IN CIRCLE
other person or group exhibits the same
behavior. - This fallacy states or “assumes as a premise
2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to the very thing that should be proven in the
Pity) conclusion.” This circular argument makes
a. It convinces the people by evoking use of its conclusion to serve as its premise. In
feelings of compassion and sympathy short, the argument presupposes the truth of
when such feelings, however its conclusion. Thus, its premise fails to
understandable, are not logically provide evidence since it is not different from
relevant to the arguer’s conclusion. the conclusion and as questionable as the
3. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to conclusion it purports to support. This circular
Force) argument pretends to establish a claim. But it
a. It consists in persuading others to really falls short of proving its conclusion
accept a position by using threat or since the strength of the premise depends on
pressure instead of presenting the truth of the conclusion which cannot be
evidence for one’s view. The strength assumed. Once he has analyzed the basic
of this fallacy lies on the fear that it structure of a circular argument, he will see
creates to people which leads them to that it says nothing more than “A is true ,
agree with the argument. Threats and because A is true.”
other forms of intimidation can often
QUESTION-BEGGING LANGUAGE
bring about the acceptance of a
conclusion, but not because good - It consists in “discussing an issue by means of
arguments were presented. There is language that assumes a position of the very
no way that such arguments could question at issue, in such a way as to direct
qualify as good ones, becasue their the listener to that same conclusion.” It
premises have no bearing on the merit prematurely assumes that a matter that is or
of their conclusions. However, not all may be at issue has already been settled. In
threats involve fallacies. There are such cases, the listener is subtly being
times that it is just right to point out “begged” to infer a particular conclusion,
the dire consequences that a particular although no good reasons are presented for
course of action can bring about. doing so.
4. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)
COMPLEX QUESTION
a. It is designed to persuade people by
means of the wording of one of its
premise. It is the argument that is said

13
 - It consists in asking a question in which some giving rational basis for such belief.
presuppositions are buried in that question. This is illogical since pointing out
Another term used to refer to this fallacy is that a particular practice has the status
loaded question, which suggests, like the term of a tradition sheds no light on
“complex,” that more than one question is whether it should be followed or not.
being asked in what appears to be a single b. Given the social, cultural and even
question. In this deceptive way of qrguing, physical changes in our society and
one of the questions is explicitly expressed the world at large, what may be
but the others are implicit. acceptable in the past may not be
- The complex question begs the question when acceptable today, just as what was not
the unasked question is still an open one or acceptable then may be acceptable
when the question improperly assumes that a now.
series of different questions has the same
answer.
2. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to
Inappropriate Authority)
LEADING QUESTIONS a. It consists in persuading others by
appealing to people who command
- This fallacy consists in directing the
respect or authority but do not have
respondent to give a particular answer to a
legitimate authority in the matter at
question at issue by the manner in which the
hand. An authority in a particular
question is asked. A leading question usually
field is one who has sufficient
involves asking only one question. This
knowledge of the matters belonging
question contains an unsupported claim, in
to that field, is qualified by training or
that it unjustifiably assumes a position on
ability to draw appropriate inferences
what is probably a debatable, or at least an
from that knowledge, and is free from
open, issue. The question is, in effect, asking
any prejudices or conflicts of interest
another to assume the same position on the
that would prevent him or her from
issue, yet fails to provide any adequate
formulating sound justments.
justification for the respondent to do so. The
b. There is nothing wrong with
questioner therefore is simply begging the
appealing to the judgment of qualified
respondent to come to the same conclusion.
authorities in a field of knowledge as
a means of supporting some particular
claim related to that field. But when
FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
the “authority” on whose judgment
1. Argumentum as Antiquum (Appeal to the argument rests failes to meet the
Ages) stated criteria, the argument should be
a. This fallacy attempts to persuade regarded as fallacious.
others of a certain belief by appealing c. The convincing power of this kind of
to their feelings of reverence or appeal lies on the fact that the people
respect for some tradition, instead of cited command respect or strong
following, so even of the issue at

14
 hand is not within the parameters of a. It consists in assuming that a
their expertise, people tend to believe particular claim is true because its
them. opposite cannot be proven. Arguing
d. What is wrong in the above argument from ignorance means using that
is its reliance on certain influential absence of evidence against a claim
authorities who, although respected as justification that it is true or using
and looked upon by many people, are the absence of evidence for a claim as
not the appropriate authority on this evidence that it is false. In short, it is
matter. treating the absence of evidence as if
3. Accident it were the presence of evidence.
a. It consists in applying a general rule 6. False Dilemma
to a particular case when a. This fallacy arises when the premise
circumstances suggest that an of an argument presents us with a
exception to the rule should apply. choice between two alternatives and
b. General rules usually have their assumes that they are exhaustive
exceptions. This is especially true in when in fact they are not. Alternatives
the law. This fallacy occurs when are exhaustive when they cover all
such general rules are applied to possibilities (meaning, these are the
special circumstances. The only choices we have).
application of the general rule is b. The fallacy of false dilemma often
inappropriate because of the derives from the failure to distinguish
situation’s “accidents,” or exceptional contradictories from contraries.
facts. Aldisert noted that in the law of Contradictories exclude any
evidence there are many exceptions to gradations between extremes. There
the hearsay rule: dying declaration, a is no middle ground between a term
statement against interest or a and its negative.
statement of personal or family
history. To apply the general hearsay
RULES OF COLLISION
rule to these exceptions is to commit
the fallacy of accident or dicto - In some instances, one would be faced with a
simpliciter. single or two laws dealing with the same
4. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident) subject matter but with conflicting provisions
a. This fallacy consists in drawing a as far as the treatment and application of a
general or universal conclusion from right. These law are then said to be
insufficient particular case. As such it incompatible with each other and it is
is also known as converse accident- therefore the task of the judiciary to first
we take a particular case (which may attempt to reconcile or harmonize them with
be an exception) and make a general each other and if the a does nto work, uphold
rule or truth out of that. one over the other.
5. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Arguing - Where there is in the same statute a particular
from Ignorance) enactment and also a general one which in its
most comprehensive sense would include

15
 what is embraced in the former, the particulr specific by considering the company in which
enactment must be operative, and the general it is found or with which it is associated.”
enactment must be taken to effect only such
casses within its general language as are not
COMMON LAW PRINCIPLE AND
within the provisions of the particular
STATUTORY PROVISION
enactment.
- Legislative intent must be ascertained from a - It has been settled that between a common
consideration of the statute as a whole. The law principle and a statutory provision, the
particular words, clauses, and phrases should latter must prevail in this jurisdiction
not be studied as detached and isolated
expressions, but the whole and every part of
RULES OF INTERPRETATION AND
the statute must be considered in fixing the
CONSTRUCTION
meaning of any of its part and in order to
produce harmonious whole. A statute must be Interpretation
so construed as to harmonize and give effect
- It refers to how a law or more importantly a
to all its provisions whenever possible. The
provision thereof, is to be properly applied. If
meaning of the law, it must be borne in mind,
the language of the law is clear, then there is
is not to be extracted from any single part,
no need for either interpretation nor
portion or section or from isolated words and
construction.
phrases, clauses or sentences but from a
- It refers to the drawing of the true nature,
general consideration or view of the act as a
meaning and intent of the law through an
whole.
examination of its provisions while
- “A statute must so construed as to harmonize
construction is the process of using tools, aid,
and give effect to all its provisions whenever
references extant from the law in order to
possible. And the rule - that statute must be
ascertain its nature, meaning and intent.
construed as a whole - requires that
- In interpreting a law, one does not go outside
apparently conflicting provisions should be
of the context of the statute, while in
reconciled and harmonized, if at all possible.
construction, one has to go outside of the
It is likewise a basic precept in statutory
language of the statute and resort to extrinsic
construction that the intent of the legislature is
aids.
the controlling factor in the interpretation of
- Interpretation limits the person to what the
the subject statute.”
law itself provides through an examination of
- “This means that every part of the statute
its language, words, phrases and style.
must be considered together with the other
parts, and kept subservient to the general
intent of the whole enactment, not separately Construction
and independently. More importantly, the
- It allows the person to utilize other reference
doctrine of associated words (Noscitur a
materials or tools in order to ascertain the true
Sociis) provides that where a particular word
meaning of the law. It is important to note that
or phrase in a statement is ambiguous in itself
construction may only be allowed if the
or is equally susceptible of various meanings,
its true meaning may be made clear and

16
 process or interpretation fails or is inadequate - If what is proposed to be adopted of enacted
to thresh out the meaning of the law. is a law, ordinance, or resolution which only
- It is important to note that before one can the legislative bodies of the governments of
proceed to construe the provisions of a statute, the autonomous regions, provinces, cities,
one must first interpret the same. It is only municipalities, and barangays can pass.
when the process of interpretation fails or is
found to be inadequate when one can proceed
to initiate the process of construing the law.

Note: if the law is clear and unequivocal, there is no

need for interpretation, much more for construction.
Construction and interpretation of law comes only
after it has been determined that its application is
impossible or inadequate without them. The rule is
that only statutes with an ambiguous or doubtful
meaning may be the subjects of statutory construction.
“Ambiguity is a condition of admitting two or more
meanings, of being understood in more than one way,
or of referring to two or more things at the same time.
A statute is ambiguous if it is admissible of two or
more possible meanings, in which case, the Court is
called upon to exercise one of its judicial functions,
which is to interpret the law according to its true
intent.”

- If the legislative intent is not expressed in

some appropriate manner, the courts cannot
by interpretation speculate as to an intent and
supply a meaning not found in the
phraseology of the law. In other words, the
courts cannot assume some purpose in no way
expressed and then construe the statute to
accomplish this supposed intention.

NATIONAL INITIATIVE

- If what is proposed to be adopted of enacted

is a national law, or a law which only
Congress can pass.

LOCAL INITITIAVE

17