Legal Technique Reviewer

Chapter 1
Introduction

Logic ​- is the study of the principles and methods of good reasoning. It is a science of reasoning
which aims to determine and lay down the criteria of good (correct) reasoning and bad
(incorrect) reasoning.

- It probes into the fundamental concepts of argument, interference, truth, falsity and
validity, among others.

Reasoning and Logic on Psychology:

Reasoning Logic

- Primarily concerned with how people - Studies the principles of good

reason. reasoning.
- This demands looking for patterns on - Its task does not merely describe how
behavior, speech, or neurological people reason but to discover and
activity that take place in the process make available those criteria that can
of reasoning. be used to test arguments for
correctness.

The Role of Reasoning and Logic in Law:

Reasoning Logic

- The efficiency of practicing law - Being the science of correct and sound
depends on the quality of legal reasoning, is indispensable in the field
reasoning. of law.
- Legal reasoning is what we use when - For a profession that relies so much on
we apply laws, rules, and regulations sound reasoning and valid
to particular facts and cases. argumentation in order to justify a
- It is what we use when we interpret claim, defend a proposition, assess the
constitutions and statutes, when we strength of evidence and render a
balance fundamental principles and judicious decision, legal logic should
policies and when we evaluate be placed at the center of our legal
 evidence, and make judgments to curriculum.
render legal decisions.

Argument as an Expression of Reasoning

Legal Reasoning is expressed through arguments, and it is with arguments that logic is
chiefly concerned.

Argument in Logic:
- is a claim put forward and defended with reasons.
- A group of statements in which one statement is claimed to be true on the basis of
another statement/s.

Two Elements of an Argument:

1. Conclusion
2. Premise

The statement that is being claimed to be true is called the ​conclusion and the statement
that serves as the basis or support of the conclusion is called the ​premise​.

In Logic, arguments are categorized as either logical or illogical, valid or invalid, sound
or unsound depending on the acceptability of the premises and the connection between the
premise and conclusion.

The skill of determining the logic of arguments demands the ability to analyze the structure
and content of arguments:
1. What are the issues and the problems being raised?
2. What is the chief claim of the argument?
3. What are the bases and premises advanced to support the claim? and
4. What are the crucial assumptions implicit in one’s reasoning?

Conclusion indicators:
- Therefore, so, thus, hence

Premise indicators:
- Because, since, for, inasmuch as

Recognizing Arguments
 One passage that is often mistaken with arguments is explanation.

Explanation​ - is an attempt to show why something is the case while an argument is an attempt
to show that something is the case.

Explanations v Arguments

Explanations​ (intent to explain why Arguments​ (provide reasons or evidence for

something is the case) accepting a claim as true)

- Are not meant to prove or justify the - Are attempts to show that something is
truth of a particular claim. the case.
- An explanation tries to show why - They are intended to provide grounds
something is the case. to justify a claim, to show that it is
- These reasons are usually the causes plausible or true.
or factors that show or why a thing
came to exist.
- Explanations are given by citing
causes of the event to be explained.

Statements of belief or opinion are statements about what a speaker or writer happens to
believe. Such statements can be true or false, rational or irrational, but they are parts of the
arguments only if the speaker or writer claims that they follow from, or support, other claims.

Arguments are also often confused with conditional statements.

Conditional Statements
- Contains an if-then relationship.
- It is made up of ​two basic components:
1. The Antecedent ​(or the if-clause)
2. The Consequent​ (or the then-clause)
- They are not arguments because there is no claim that one statement is true because of the
other statement.

Components of Legal Reasoning:

1. Issue​ (What is being argued?)
- Pertains to a legal matter.
2. Rule​ (What legal rules govern the issue?)
- One must be able to cite a rule.
3. Fact​ (What are the facts that are relevant to the rule cited?)
 - We look for “material” facts. These are the facts that fit the elements of the rule.
4. Analysis​ (How applicable are the facts to the said rule?)
- This is the part where our argumentation and illustration come out. This part is
supposed to show the link between the rules and the facts we presented to
establish what we are claiming in our argument. The concern here is whether the
material facts truly fit the law.
5. Conclusion​ (What is the implication of applying the rule to the given facts?)
- It is the ultimate end of a legal argument. It is what the facts, the rules and the
analysis of the case amount to.

Evaluating Legal Reasoning

What criteria can we use to distinguish correct from incorrect legal reasoning?
- There are ​two general criteria:
1. Truth
2. Logic

This can be explained by looking at the two main processes involved in legal reasoning:
1. Presentation of facts​ which pertains to the question of the truth.
- The first process deals with the question, “are the premises provided in the
argument true or acceptable?”
2. Interference (deriving a legal claim of judgment from the given laws and facts) which
pertains to the question of logic.
- The second process is mainly about the question of logic, “is the reasoning of the
argument correct or logical? Does the conclusion of the argument logically follow
its premises?”
Chapter 2
Fundamental Concepts in Legal Reasoning

Burden of Proof - is the duty of any party to present evidence to establish his claim or defense
by the amount of evidence required by law, which is preponderance of evidence in civil cases.
Basic is the rule in evidence that the burden of proof lies upon him who asserts it, noy upon who
denies, since by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof of it.

Burden of proof in Civil Cases:

- The plaintiff has the burden of proving the material allegations of the complaint which
are denied by the answer, and the defendant has the burden of proving the material
allegations in his answer, which sets up new matter as a defense.

Burden of proof in Administrative Proceedings:

- The burden of proof that the respondent committed the acts complained of rests in the
complainant.

Equipoise Doctrine ​- when the evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or there is doubt on
which side the evidence preponderates, the decision should be against the party with the burden
of proof. The burden of proof is upon the party who alleges the truth of his claim or defense or
any fact in issue.

Evidence

Evidence - is the means sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial

proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.

The ​“best evidence rule” as encapsulated in ​Rule 130, Section 3, of the Revised Rules of
Civil Procedure applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry.
Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the
circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and
testimonial evidence is admissible.

Admissibility and Relevance

Evidence is deemed admissible ​if it is relevant to the issue and more importantly, if it is
not excluded by provision or law or by the ​Rules of Court.​
 As to ​Relevance, such evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence to be believed must proceed not only from the
mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself as a hurdle test of conformity with the
knowledge and common experience of mankind.

Testimony of Witnesses

Testimony​ - is generally confined to personal knowledge, and therefore excludes hearsay.

Thus, a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge
which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided under the Rules of
Court.

Hearsay Rule - A witness may not testify to what he merely learned from others either because
he was told, or he read or heard the same. Such testimony is considered hearsay and may not be
received as proof of the truth of what he has learned.

The law provides for specific exceptions to the hearsay rule:

1. Entries in official records made in the performance of duty by a public officer.
2. Other recognized reasons for this exception are necessity and trustworthiness.
a. Necessity ​- the necessity consists in the inconvenience and difficulty of requiring
that official’s attendance as a witness to testify to innumerable transactions in the
course of his duty. This will also unduly hamper public business.
b. Trustworthiness - consists in the presumption of regularity of performance of
official duty by a public officer.

Expert Testimony

Expert Testimony ​- refers to statements made by individuals who are considered as experts in a
particular field.

Examination

Under the Rules of Court an individual witness may be examined as follows:

A. Direct examination by the proponent ​- refers to the examination-in-chief of a witness

by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue.
 B. Cross-examination by the opponent ​- upon termination of the direct examination, the
witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct
examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his
accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit
all important facts bearing upon the issue.

C. Re-direct examination by the proponent ​- after the cross-examination of the witness

has been concluded, he may be re-examined by the party calling him, to explain or
supplement his answers given during the cross-examination. On re-direct examination,
questions on matters not dealt during the cross-examination may be allowed by the court
in its discretion.

D. Re-cross-examination by the opponent ​- upon the conclusion of the re-direct

examination, the adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his
re-direct examination, and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in
its discretion.

Note​, after the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness
cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its
discretion, as the interests of justice may require.

A witness may be impeached ​by the party against whom he was recalled by
contradictory evidence, by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is
bad, or by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present
testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the
examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an
offense.

Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements inconsistent with his
present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and
places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so,
allowed to explain them. If statements are in writing they must be shown to the witness before
any question is put to him concerning them.

Dependence on Precedents

“Stare decisis non quieta movere.” This is the bedrock of what we now refer to as
precedents.
 It is a ​general rule that​, when a point has been settled by a decision, it becomes a
precedent which should be followed in subsequent cases before the same court. The rule is based
wholly on policy, in the interest of uniformity and certainty of the law, but is frequently departed
from.

The Doctrine of ​Stare Decisis et non Quieta Movere (embodied in Article 8 of the Civil
Code)
- This is the doctrine that, when a court has once laid down a principle, and applies it to all
future cases, where facts are substantially the same, regardless of whether the parties and
properties are the same.
- Follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled.
- Matters already decided on the merits cannot be subject to litigation again, but note that
this rule does not elicit blind adherence to precedents.
- It is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it
should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.

TO REITERATE:

Burden of proof​ - is the duty of the party alleging to prove his claim.
Evidence - is the means sanctioned under the Rules of Court in order to prove or establish a fact
in a judicial proceeding.

In order for such evidence to be appreciated by the Court and admitted by the Court, it
has to be relevant and material to the issue at hand.

Evidence may either be through:

1. Testimony of a witness or
2. The presentation of an object or document.

Several Examinations of testimonies by witnesses:

1. Direct
2. Cross-examination
3. Re-direct
4. Re-cross-examinations

Precedents​ - which refer to issues that have been laid to previous judicial decisions.
Chapter 3
Deductive Reasoning in Law

Deduction and Induction

When appellate courts for instance, would determine whether the correct rules of law
were applied to the given facts or whether the rules of evidence were properly applied in
establishing the facts, they employ deductive reasoning.

In cases when we want to determine the facts of the case and to establish them through
causal arguments, probability or scientific methods, the reasoning chiefly relied upon is
inductive.

Deductive Argument
- We are reasoning deductively when our premises intend to guarantee the truth of our
conclusion while we reason inductively when our premises are intended to provide goof
(but not conclusive) evidence for the truth of our conclusion.
- Conclusions of these arguments are established by premises with absolute certainty. Each
conclusion flows from its premises with logical necessity. This means that, given the
premises, the conclusion could not possibly be false.

Inductive Argument
- Inductive arguments simply claim that their conclusions are likely or probable given the
premises offered from particular premises to general conclusions.

To determine whether an argument is deductive or inductive, we can rely on indicator

words that signal the kind of claim the argument makes.

Deductive indicators:
- Certainly, definitely, it is logical to conclude that, this logically implies that, absolutely,
conclusively, this entails that, it must be the case that

Inductive indicators:
- Probably, likely, chances are, one would expect that, it is plausible to suppose that, it is
reasonable to assume that

Syllogisms
Syllogism - is a three-line argument that is, an argument that consists of exactly two premises
and a conclusion.

The principle of syllogism is surprisingly straightforward:

- What is true of the universal is true of the particular.

Deductive arguments may either be valid or invalid.

Valid Deductive Argument

- A valid deductive argument is an argument in which the conclusion really does follow
necessarily from the premises.
- A valid argument is an argument in which: if the premises are true, then the conclusion
must be true or the truth of the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
- Is an argument in which the conclusion must be true if the premises are true, no valid
argument can have all the premises and a false conclusion.

Invalid Arguments
- Invalid arguments may have true premises and a true conclusion.

The terms ​“valid” or ​“invalid” ​do not apply to inductive arguments since inductive
arguments, in the first place, do not claim that their conclusion follows from the premises with
strict necessity (for that matter, all inductive arguments are technically invalid).

Types of Syllogisms

Syllogisms are of Two Types:

1. Categorical
- Is a syllogism composed of categorical statements alone.
- Is a statement that directly asserts something or states a fact without any
conditions. Its subject is simply affirmed or denied by the predicate.
2. Hypothetical
- Includes both categorical and hypothetical statements.
- Is a compound statement which contains a proposed or tentative explanation.

A ​compound statemen​t - consists of at least two clauses connected by

conjunctions, adverbs, etc., which express the relationship between the classes as
well as our assent to it. The classes are simple statements or statements that
contain one subject and one predicate.
Categorical Syllogisms

Every categorical statement has quality and quantity as its properties.

Quality
- the quality of the statement may be affirmative of negative. A statement that has the
terms, “no,” “not,” “none” and “never” is negative. In the absence of such qualities the
statement is affirmative.

Quantity
- The quantity of a statement is either universal or particular. The statement is universal
when what is being affirmed or denied of the subject term is its whole extension. The
statement is particular when what is being affirmed or denied of the subject is just a part
of its extension. Usually there are quantifiers that help determine the quantity of the
statement.

For universal statements we usually have:

- All. every, each, no, none

For particular statements we have:

- Some, almost, several, few, almost all, not all, many

Quantity of the Predicate

The predicate term has its own quantity, which is not identical to nor dependent on the
quantity of the subject term. In determining the quantity of the predicate, two rules must be
observed.

Predicate of an affirmative statement is generally particular. However, in statements

where the subject and the predicate are identical, the predicate is universal.

The predicate of a negative statement is always universal.

Parts of a Categorical Syllogism

There are three kinds of terms in categorical syllogism:

1. Minor term (S)​ - The subject of the conclusion. (also called the subject terms)
2. Major term (P) ​- The predicate of the conclusion. (also called the predicate term)
 3. Middle term (M) - The term found in both premises and serves to mediate between the
minor and the major terms.

There are three kinds of statements in a categorical syllogism:

1. Minor premise​ - the premise which contains the minor term.
2. Major premise ​- the premise which contains the minor term.
3. Conclusion​ - the statement the premise support.

Rules for the Validity of Categorical Syllogisms:

Rule 1:​ The syllogism must not contain two negative premises.

When the premises are both negative, the middle term fails to serve its function of
mediating between the major and minor terms.

The violation of this rule is called the ​fallacy of exclusive premises.

Rule 2:​ There must be three pairs of universal terms.

The terms in the syllogism must have exactly the same meaning and must be used in
exactly the same way in each occurrence. A term that has different meanings in its occurrences is
an equivocal term. A univocal term has the same meaning in different occurrences.

The ​fallacy of equivocation ​usually occurs in the middle term.

Rule 3:​ The middle term must be universal at least once.

When the middle term is particular in both premises it might stand for a different portion
of its extension in each occurrence and, thus, be equivalent to two terms, and, therefore, fail to
fulfill its function of uniting or separating the minor and major terms. Such a violation is called
the ​fallacy of a particular middle.

To determine if the middle term is universal or particular, refer to the discussion on the
quantity of the statement and predicate. There is an exception to this rule. Even if the middle
term is particular in both premises, but it is quantified by “most” in both premises and the
conclusion is quantified by “some,” the syllogism does not violate this third rule. This is so since
the combined extension of the middle term is more than a universal.
 Rule 4: If the term in the conclusion is universal, the same term in the premise must also
be universal.

If the minor term is universal in the conclusion but particular in the premise, such
violation is called the ​fallacy of illicit minor term.

If the major term is universal in the conclusion but particular in the premise, such a
violation is called the​ fallacy of illicit major term.

The rationale behind this rule is that in a deductive argument the conclusion should not
go beyond what the premises state. Thus, the conclusion must not be wider in extension than the
premises.

Hypothetical Syllogisms

Hypothetical Syllogism - is a syllogism that contains a hypothetical statement as one of its

premises.

Hypothetical Syllogisms are of three kinds:

1. Conditional syllogism
2. Disjunctive syllogism
3. Conjunctive syllogism

(we focus on conditional syllogisms)

Conditional Syllogisms

Conditional Syllogism​ - is a syllogism in which the major premise is a conditional statement.

Conditional Statement ​- is a compound statement which asserts that one member (the then
clause) is true on condition that the other member (the if clause) is true. The if clause or its
equivalent is called the antecedent, while the then clause or its equivalent is called the
consequent.

What is important in the conditional syllogism is the sequence between the antecedent
and the consequent, that is, the truth of the consequent follows upon the fulfillment of the
condition stated in the antecedent. It does not matter whether individually the antecedent or
consequent is true or false, what matters is the relationship between them.
 Conditional statements can be expressed not only in if-then clauses but also in a wide
variety of different sentences.

The conditional syllogism can be symbolized by the following:

1. A​ - for the antecedent
2. C​ - for the consequent
3. --​ - for the negation of the statement
4. >​ - for “implies”
5. -​ - for “therefore”

Rules for Conditional Syllogisms

There are two valid forms of conditional syllogisms:

1. Modus Ponens
- When the minor premise affirms the antecedent, the conclusion must affirm the
consequent.
2. Modus Tollens
- When the minor premise denies the consequent, the conclusion must deny the
antecedent.

A conditional syllogism is invalid if the minor premise denies the antecedent. This
invalid form is called the ​fallacy of denying the antecedent.

The minor premise affirms the consequent. This invalid form is called the ​fallacy of
affirming the consequent.

Enthymemes

Enthymemes
- Syllogistic forms of arguing.
- Legal arguments actually follow the syllogistic reasoning.

Polysyllogisms

Polysyllogisms
- to pile one syllogism on top of another.
- Is a series of syllogisms in which the conclusions of one syllogism supplies a premise of
the next syllogism.
- Used because more than one logical step is needed to reach the desired conclusion.
Chapter 4
Inductive Reasoning in Law

Inductive Argument
- Give us truth or information more than what the premises are saying.
- What is claimed in the conclusion goes beyond the evidence found in the premises. It is
for the reason that inductive arguments do not claim that their conclusion is certain or
that their premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
- What inductive arguments claim is that their conclusion, based on the premises, is likely
or probably true.

Inductive Generalizations

Inductive Generalizations
- The most common type of inductive reasoning.
- Is “an argument that relies on characteristics of a sample population to make a claim
about the population as a whole.” The claim is a general claim that makes a statement
about all, most, or some members of a class, group, or set.
- Uses evidence about a limited number of people or things of a certain type (the sample
population), to make a general claim about a larger group of people or things of that type
(the population as a whole).

Evaluating Inductive Generalizations

Two important questions we must ask when it comes to determining whether inductive
generalizations are strong or weak:

1. Is the Sample Large Enough?

- A sample is ​“large enough” when it is clear that we have not rushed to judgment
that we have not formed a hasty generalization.

One thing that we need to consider in determining the sufficiency of the quantity of the
sample is the quantity of the whole population.

2. Is the Sample Representative?

- A sample is representative if there is diversity in our sample (that is, the various
subgroups of the whole population are represented in the selected respondents).
- One way to ensure sufficient relevant diversity is by making the sample random.
 Random Sample
- A random sample is “one which all members of the target have an equal
opportunity to be in the sample.”

Samples may also be biased when surveys require participants to initiate contact rather
than using a survey taker to actively solicit responses.

When we cannot do much about our sample (such as increasing it), we can make our
generalization acceptable by formulating an appropriate conclusion.

A good inductive argument should make a conclusion that is appropriate to the evidence
offered by its premises. The conclusion should not claim more than its premises can support.

Analogical Arguments

Analogical Arguments v Analogy

Analogical Arguments Analogy

- Another type of inductive argument - is “a comparison of things based on

most commonly used in law similarities those things share.”
- Depend upon an analogy or similarity - Compare two or more things
between two or more things - Simply point out a similarity
- They claim that another similarity
exists, given the similarities already
recognized
- Claim that certain similarities are
evidence that there is another
similarity (or other similarities)

This type of reasoning has a simple structure:

A and B have characteristic X, A has
characteristic Y. Therefore, B has
characteristic Y.
Edward Levi on the Role of Analogy in Law described Analogical Reasoning as a Three
Step Process:

1. Establish similarities between two cases.

2. Announce the rule of law embedded in the first case, and
3. Apply the rule of law to the second case.

This form of reasoning is different from deductive logic or inductive reasoning.

Analogical Reasoning​ - the basis of what we know as ​“circumstantial evidence.”

Circumstantial Evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

a. There is more than one circumstance.
b. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven, and
c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.

Evaluating Analogical Arguments

Fallacy of Analogy
- results from comparing two (or more) things that are not really comparable.
- It is a matter of claiming that two things share a certain similarity on the basis of other
similarities, while overlooking dissimilarities.

Criterion to be considered in the evaluation of an analogical argument:

1. The relevance of similarities.
2. The relevant dissimilarities between the entities being compared.
Chapter 5
Fallacies in Legal Reasoning

Formal and Informal Fallacies

Formal Fallacies
- Are those that may be identified through mere inspection of the form and structure of an
argument.
- Fallacies of this kind are found only in deductive arguments that have identifiable forms.

Informal Fallacies
- Are those that can be detected only through analysis of the content of the argument.

Three Categories of Informal Fallacies:

1. Fallacies of Ambiguity
- Are committed because of misuse of language.
- They contain ambiguous or vague language which is deliberately used to mislead
people.
2. Fallacy of Irrelevant Evidence
- Do not have a problem with language but with the connection of the premise and
conclusion.
- They occur because the premises are not logically relevant to the conclusion.
- They are misleading because the premises are psychologically relevant, so the
conclusion may seem to follow from the premises although it does not follow
logically.
3. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
- Like the fallacy of irrelevant evidence, do not have a problem with language but
with the connection of the premise and conclusion.
- The difference is that fallacies of insufficient evidence occur not because the
premises are logically relevant to the conclusion but because the premises fail to
provide evidence strong enough to support the conclusion. Although premises
have some relevance to the conclusion, they are not sufficient to cause a
reasonable person to accept the conclusion.

First Category: Fallacies of Ambiguity

1. Equivocation
 This fallacy consists in leading an opponent to an unwarranted conclusion by using a
term in its different senses and making it appear to have only one meaning.

2. Amphiboly

This fallacy consists in presenting a claim or argument whose meaning can be interpreted
in two or more ways due to its grammatical construction.

Equivocation v Amphiboly

Equivocation Amphiboly

- In Equivocation, ambiguity comes - In Amphiboly, ambiguity comes from

from changing meanings of the word. the way the sentence is constructed.

The double meaning lies not in the word but in the syntax of grammatical construction.

A statement is amphibolous when its meaning is indeterminate because of the loose or

awkward way in which its words are combined. An amphibious statement may be true in one
interpretation and false in another. When it is stated as premise with the interpretation that makes
it true, and a conclusion is drawn from it on interpretation that makes it false, then the fallacy of
amphiboly has been committed.

3. Improper Accent

This fallacy consists in misleading people by placing improper emphasis on a word,

phrase or particular aspect of an issue or claim. The fallacy of improper accent is found not only
in advertisements and headlines but also in other very common forms of human discourse.

4. Vicious Abstraction

This fallacy consists in misleading the people by using vague or abstract terms. There is
nothing wrong with vague words per se as we often use them as a part of our linguistic style.
This fallacy occurs when vague words are misused.

Vage words are misused when these words are very significant in the premises used to
establish a conclusion. However, a premise that is not understood cannot be accepted as
providing support for a conclusion. Such a premise cannot also be refuted. If we do not know
exactly the meaning of a term due to its vagueness, we cannot know at what point counter
evidence may do some damage to the claim in which it appears.

5. Composition

This fallacy consists in wrongly inferring that what holds true of the individuals
automatically holds true of the group made up of those individuals. Although the assumption that
what is true of the parts of a while is true if the whole may apply in some cases, it does not merit
our acceptance as a general claim.

6. Division

This fallacy consists in wrongly assuming that what is true in general is true in particular.
This is the reverse of the fallacy of composition. Here, the same confusion is present, but the
inference proceeds in the opposite direction. Rather than assuming that a characteristic of the
parts is therefore a characteristic of the whole, it makes the unwarranted assumption that a
characteristic of the whole is therefore a characteristic of each part.

Second Category: Fallacies of Irrelevance

1. Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack)

This fallacy ignores the issue by focusing on certain personal characteristics of an

opponent. Instead of addressing the issue presented by an opponent, this argument makes the
opponent the issue. It shifts from the argument to the arguer instead of disproving the substance
of what is asserted, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion. This fallacy is of
two kinds:

A. Abusive (abusive ad hominem)

- This fallacy attacks the argument based on the arguer’s reputation, personality or
some personal shortcoming.

B. Circumstantial
- This fallacy consists in defending one’s position by accusing his or her critic or
​ hich means
other people of doing the same thing. This is also called tu quoque w
“you’re another” or you yourself do it.

2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)

 This fallacy convinces the people by evoking feelings of compassion and sympathy when
such feelings, however understandable, are not logically relevant to the arguer’s conclusion.

3. Argumentum ad Baculum

This fallacy consists in persuading others to accept a position by using threat or pressure
instead of presenting evidence for one’s view. The strength of this fallacy lies in the fear that it
creates to people which leads them to agree with the argument.

4. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)

Some arguments are designed to persuade people by moans of the wording of one of its
premises. They are the arguments that are said to beg the question.

Even though the conclusion is clearly not justified by the premises, the listener is, in
effect, “begged” to accept it.

This fallacy has different types:

A. Arguing in Circle (Circulus in probando)

- This type of begging-the-question fallacy states or “assumes as a premise
the very thing that should be proven in the conclusion.” This circular
argument makes use of its conclusion to serve as its premise. In short, the
argument presupposed the truth of its conclusion.

B. Question-Begging Language
- This fallacy consists in “discussing an issue by means of language that
assumes a position of the very question of issue, in each a way as to direct
the listener to that same conclusions.” Question-begging language
prematurely assumes that a matter is or may be at issue has already been
settled.

C. Complex Question
- This fallacy consists in asking a question in which some presuppositions
are buried in that question. Another term used to refer to this fallacy is
loaded question, which suggests, like the term “complex,” that more than
one question is being asked in what appears to be a single question.
 - The complex question begs the question when the unasked question is still
an open one or when the question improperly assumes that a series of
different questions has the same answer.

D. Leading Question
- This fallacy consists in directing the respondent to give a particular answer
to a question at issue by the manner in which the question is asked. A
leading question usually involves asking only one question. This question
contains an unsupported claim, in that it unjustifiably assumes a position
on what is probably a debatable, or at least an open, issue. The questioner
is, in effect, asking another to assume the same position on the issue, yet
fails to provide any adequate justification for the respondent to do so. The
questioner therefore is simply begging the respondent to come to the same
conclusion.

Third Category: Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

1. Argumentum ad Antiquum (Appeal to the Ages)

This fallacy attempts to persuade others of a certain belief by appealing to their feelings
of reverence or respect for some tradition, instead of giving rational basis for such belief. This is
illogical since pointing out that a particular practice has the status of a tradition sheds no light on
whether it should be followed or not.

2. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Inappropriate Authority)

This fallacy consists in persuading others by appealing to people who command respect
or authority but do not have legitimate authority in the matter at hand.

3. Accident

This fallacy consists in applying a general rule to a particular case when circumstances
suggest that an exception to the rule should apply.

This fallacy occurs when such general rules are applied to special circumstances. The
application of the general rule is inappropriate because of the situation’s “accidents,” or
exceptional facts. To apply the general hearsay rule to these exceptions is to commit the fallacy
of accident or​ dicto simpliciter​.
 4. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

This fallacy consists in drawing a general or universal conclusion from insufficient

particular cases. As such it is also known as converse accident because its reasoning is the
opposite of the fallacy of accident.

5. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Arguing from Ignorance)

This fallacy consists in assuming that a particular claim is true because its opposite
cannot be proven.

Arguing from ignorance means using the absence of evidence against a claim as
justification that it is true or using the absence of evidence for a claim as evidence that it is false.
In short, it is treating the absence of evidence as if it were the presence of evidence.

6. False Dilemma

This fallacy arises when the premise of an argument presents us with a choice between
two alternatives and assumes that they are exhaustive when in fact they are not. Alternatives are
exhaustive when they cover all the possibilities (meaning, these are the only choices we have).

end/bma.1H